The problem ubuntu/canonical needs to address

[Chris Wilson]

It's already possible to upgrade from one LTS to another via the Update
Manager. When you're running an LTS release and another such release become
available, you'll see the option to upgrade to the new LTS in the update
manager, alongside the upgrade option for whatever system is next in line.

On 3 June 2011 23:22, arif tuhin <etothepowerpi at hotmail.com> wrote:

>  (Originally posted in
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/ubuntu-user-community)
> Seeing the feature list coming in 11.10, I have to admit that i'm far from
> impressed.
>
> Let me elaborate.
> My company produces Ip telephony related infrastructure solutions. Some
> components of my company's stack  is based on open source products like
> kamailio, rtpproxy, opensips, asteriks. Many closed source solutions are
> also produced like billing solutions, CDR etc. But all of them are tuned and
> meant for Linux systems. All of our production servers run on RED HAT. All
> of our development servers run on CENTOS/Ubuntu Server/Debian Server. My
> office laptop is a windows xp system. My development process is using Putty
> and Eclipse Remote C/C++ development plugin. We dont complain to our IT
> managers. because we do see the point. All the sales/marketing/executives
> cant move a mussle without Outlook express, exchange server, Share Point
> etc. and we have to use that too.  I know it is possible to achieve
> everything using linux systems. But A big company does not change their
> infrastructure that often(Still there is no  pushing to windows seven). And
> our server side system admins do not give a damn about those Microsoft
> servers. They maintain the Linux systems  and thats it.We the the developers
> may be interested check new stuffs and break the system(I have broken
> systems several times for loading broken kernel modules). But the laptop
> infront of my manager or the office colaboration stack cant just change over
> night. Thats the exact reason why IBM legacy systems still running in
> production environment, and my buddies in india are learning COBOL in IBM
> india :).
>
> The basic principles of a desktop has not changed for windows or mac. i had
> a chance to look at vintage mac os and it just looked a stripped down
> version of modern macs but i immediately understood which button does what.
> Same goes to windows. Microsoft produced more flashier, sexy but the same
> core principles. start menu, right click....they have added incremental
> change to their already established stack. if you look at Red hat 5/CentOs
> you will see a mature business grade Operating system. you  should make it
> more modern but dare not change everything around so that people can not
> associate the new version with old one like you can associate windows 7 with
> windows 95.
>
> I know open source is different ballgame, being a open source developer i
> think there several misconceptions running around. Open Source is a
> development model. Not a Marketing model. Like closed source also a
> development model. But marketing the product is whole new different thing.
> Microsoft succeded , DEC sunk, sun also sunk not because of their
> development model. But because of their marketing practices. Red hat is good
> because they understood the marketing more than mandriva or xandros. their
> stack is rock solid. they are stable, supported for a long time. Thats what
> you need for business infrastructure. Its not windows itself but the
> associated stack creates the inertia preventing the switch.
>
> I consider Ubuntu is a different beast than fedora or debian. Those are
> community project only. Fedora is a test bed. So the number of fedora boxes
> got deployed in production is irrelevent. The same goes for debian and other
> community based distros. They are concerned with making a better software
> stack, not concerned with how much they are going to be adopted in
> production. And that is more than ok for a open distrubuted development
> process. But if talk about "product", then the story is different. You have
> to think about how the product can be adopted. building a super sexy kernel
> is not enough for a "product". Nor does having the best cross compiler
> around or the fastest compiler around(llvm) matters for product if the
> product is not adopted in business.
> Yes apple took a different strategy to attack the home user first. Its ok
> when you are closest company ever and "your stack is only supported on the
> hardware you provide" model. but this is not possible for a open source
> company. Yes apple is breaking all the rules about portability by trying to
> make their stack most attached with hardware. Do you think a open source
> company can take such dictator like marketing philosophy(i wonder what
> happened to consumer protection laws? apples EULA seem to violate them).
>
> I'm a very optimistic about ubuntu only because its backed by a commercial
> company. Because they are trying to make a business out of this. If it were
> another debian based downstream i would not have been this optimistic.
> Because Community projects are essential for the open source ecosystem and
> their evolution but its the business product that will push a supirior
> technology into mainstream. No one wants super computer/HPC in their home or
> their office desks. At your data centre you might be running IBM/360. but
> you have to push for the laptop sitting on everyone's desk.
>
> The things i want from ubuntu, is please slow down the release cycle. a
> production environment can not upgrade in every 6 months. And also fix the
> online upgrade. i've been using ubuntu from 7.04. but never had a upgrade
> without issues. Debian has the most impressive online upgrade process. I
> have old box which was originally running on debian 4.0. Its running squeeze
> now. never had a upgrade problem. i use this box as home
> router/firewall/print server. and debian 6.0 has a memory footprint of 190
> MB. I dont know aside from RED Hat and downstream , which other full blown
> gnome distro has this kind of memory footprint. Also if ubuntu sticks with
> LTS model, then provide a safe way to upgrade from LTS to another LTS. And
> find a suitable stable functional desktop, Add things incrementally over
> this. It dont have to be gnome, kde. Even you have to detouch from upstream
> do it. Its very important.
> I love ubuntu and i really want another successful commercial linux stack.
>
> --
> ubuntu-users mailing list
> ubuntu-users at lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-users/attachments/20110604/31c6d415/attachment.html>