Ubuntu considers switch to a rolling release model between LTS editions


Recommended Posts

Ubuntu considers ?huge? change that would end traditional release cycle

Ubuntu 12.10 (thus named because it came out in October 2012) has just arrived, and 13.04 and 13.10 will come in April and October of 2013. But 14.04 in April 2014 could be the last version released after just a six-month development period. 14.04 is also the next "Long Term Support" or LTS edition. Every two years, Ubuntu is sort of frozen in place with a more stable edition that is guaranteed support for five years. If the change Canonical is considering is adopted, every future edition starting with 14.04 will be an LTS, so the next version after 14.04 would be 16.04 in April 2016.

Why bother? Canonical kernel team manager Leann Ogasawara explained in a Google hangout today that this proposal is on the table because Canonical thinks it can deliver both stability and cutting-edge features with rolling releases. For the two years between LTS releases, there would be no new versions but there would be lots of updates.

Read more

Why bother? Canonical kernel team manager Leann Ogasawara explained in a Google hangout today that this proposal is on the table because Canonical thinks it can deliver both stability and cutting-edge features with rolling releases.

Oh cahoot, does that mean thorough testing and coding of any changes they make before actually implementing them and forcing them on users, if so; microsoft, arch linux team, nokia, et al. please take note.

This could be a good idea, the 6 month release cycle has become pretty outdated IMO. The non-lts releases have always been glorified betas, so they might as well just go rolling release between the LTS releases. I really like the sound of this.

Could it ever truly be rolling if debian is not rolling?

Debian has (or at least had last time I messed with it) a rolling branch, unstable (Sid).

http://wiki.debian.org/DebianUnstable#Introduction

Several distros like Bodhi Linux do a semi-rolling release where they update the software but only update the system when they get system updates from Ubuntu. They are based on 12.04.1 currently. I would be happy with something like that, with only security updates coming down the line.

Several distros like Bodhi Linux do a semi-rolling release where they update the software but only update the system when they get system updates from Ubuntu.

Yea Chakra's doing this too (via Arch).. the core system is released in 'stages' or however you want to word it, the applications themselves (stuff that won't kersplode your system) is rolling. Actually a pretty good setup I think.. system's stable yet you're constantly up to date with the "regular" software.. in theory the worst that'll happen is the one application will crash, no more "holy god what did I do" moments with an update. Arch had a few major doozies if you weren't paying attention to their news feeds and what the updater is doing.

My apologies, I thought unstable was not rolling.

You are actually correct. Sid is not rolling. It is never technically put into freeze like Testing before release, but since Unstable's main purpose is to act as a staging area for Testing, it is effectively frozen at the same time as Testing. Unstable may have slightly newer versions of some packages during a freeze, or even packages that were removed from Testing because they were deemed too unstable or buggy for release, but no major new software versions are introduced. (For example, GNOME 3.4 is in both Sid and Wheezy even though GNOME 3.6 is considered stable upstream.) Once Wheezy is released, Sid will be forked to become the basis for Jesse, then it will effectively be unfrozen.

There are actually several proposals to create a truly rolling branch of Debian that are often brought up around release time. The consensus, at the moment at least, seems to be that creating a rolling release would distract developers from fixing release-critical bugs - thus preventing Testing from being released in a timely manner - and generally reduce the quality of Debian as a whole.

Canonical might be able to pull off a rolling release of Ubuntu with some software that they maintain internally, such as Unity or the Linux kernel, but they don't have the resources to independently maintain every package in the Debian archive. I think that their "rolling release" will focus mainly on a few key packages that Canonical themselves maintain, and the remainder will be maintained by regular imports from Sid. Effectively, Ubuntu's rolling release will semi-freeze the same way Sid does, though possibly to a lesser extent, when Debian freezes Testing. The only practical way around that limitation would be for Debian to create a true rolling-release branch, which isn't likely to happen, or Canonical to re-base on another distribution, which is even less likely to happen.

Debian in my opinion has a slighty different Market to Ubuntu, "rolling release" and "stable" does not always go well hand in hand.

I completely agree. I'm definitely against Debian adding a rolling-release repository. Fortunately, it seems that the vast majority of Debian Developers agree with me.

Canonical, on the other hand, might be able to pull it off. My last post might have made it sound a little like I'm against Ubuntu becoming a rolling distribution: I'm not. I merely pointed out some of the challenges they will face making that happen. That said, I'm sure they've thought it through.

I've seen some nods from the Fedora camp that they may move into rolling releases, or at least offer both stable releases and a rolling release. They currently have something like that (rawhide) but it's not an official rolling release.

Based on my experience with Arch on a pogoplug, rolling releases need to be improved a bit but there is a lot of promise there as long as they roll smoother than a square tire.

And I'd greatly like a more frequently updated DE.

Now I based my information on distrowatch and I understand the time between today and the rolling release but it is my opinion that the stability / cutting edge mixture they have currently adopted (and usability) is what brought Ubuntu to the fore-front of popularity.

The Ubuntu distro losing popularity and I am sure many have opinions why - changing the release strategy might not be the move to reverse the path they are on.

Perhaps current adopters might have a fluctuation but the "windows" converts will be further distanced and for those who are looking for a "light" distro may leave.

This is a wild statement but I have always felt that Ubuntu provided the strengths of Linux without the feel and complexity.

This is not to say Ubuntu is limiting - clearly it can be used by hardcore / new comers a like.

To back step a little I missed the fact LTS releases will sexist but I would still expect on some level windows converts will be entangled with this concept of "most recent release" and the expectation of everything being close to perfect.

good idea imho. and in the meantime i just use fuduntu, as it is a rolling release plus combines the best of ubuntu and fedora.

Now I based my information on distrowatch and I understand the time between today and the rolling release but it is my opinion that the stability / cutting edge mixture they have currently adopted (and usability) is what brought Ubuntu to the fore-front of popularity.

The Ubuntu distro losing popularity and I am sure many have opinions why - changing the release strategy might not be the move to reverse the path they are on.

I don't think Ubuntu cares about the desktop anymore. They are more focused on mobile now.

I don't think Ubuntu cares about the desktop anymore. They are more focused on mobile now.

To be fair Ubuntu has been looking to spread itself around in all sorts of already heavily dominated markets.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • My father still uses a programme written in dbase3. Still manages to work with a little help from dosbox. 
    • Microsoft hides these secret Windows 11 performance boost settings available on every PC by Sayan Sen Windows enthusiasts often look for ways to extract as much performance out of their systems as possible, and it's often the case that they try and do so while trying to minimize the heat and power consumption. This is especially relevant in the case of mobile Windows PCs since laptops and notebooks tend to get hot and management of that heat and power is harder in such a form factor. As such users often turn to techniques like under-volting which can be used to squeeze out the maximum capabilities of a chip while also maintaining lowered power levels. There are official apps from AMD and Intel with the likes of Ryzen Master and XTU (Extreme Tuning Utility). While these are quite handy, most enthusiasts probably prefer to dig into the BIOS and play around with settings there like Curve Optimizer on Ryzen, which lets users set various frequency-voltage scaling values. These are essentially called P-States. If you are not familiar with them, Processor Power Management is done through Advanced Configuration and Power Interface (ACPI) P-states and C-states. While P-states or performance pwoer states handle CPU voltage-frequency scaling, C-states deal with CPU sleep states so that some of the CPU functions, which are not necessary at that moment, can be disabled. The P-states and C-states work together to make the processor run more efficiently. It helps the OS and apps determine which cores can be parked and which should be boosted. Of course not every user is an enthusiast or knows the technicalities and integrities of how things like overclocking or undervolting work. Thankfully for them Windows itself offers something pretty cool, though it is hidden by default on all systems. By default, Windows only has two P-States, "Minimum Processor State" and "Maximum Processor State." However, this can be changed with a Registry trick to expand the options under a secret "Processor performance boost mode" dropdown. This essentially enables the HWP or hardware P-States available on a device, and these are not controlled just by the OS itself as the underlying hardware gets involved too. In total there are five Processor Performance Boost Mode profiles that control how Windows requests and allows CPU turbo/boost behavior under the different power policies. They are: Disabled: In this mode, processor boosting is effectively turned off. The CPU will avoid entering turbo or boost frequencies and instead operate closer to its base frequency ceiling. This can significantly reduce power consumption and heat output, but at the cost of reduced burst performance and responsiveness in short workloads. Enabled: This is the standard behavior where boost functionality is allowed under normal conditions. The processor can opportunistically increase frequency when workload demands it, balancing performance gains with power and thermal constraints as managed by the system. Aggressive: Aggressive mode favors performance more heavily, allowing the CPU to enter higher boost states more readily and sustain them longer. This should in theory improve responsiveness under bursty or heavy workloads but increases power draw and thermal output compared to the default enabled behavior. Efficient Enabled: This mode still allows boosting, but with a stronger bias toward energy efficiency. The system attempts to use boost more selectively, avoiding unnecessary frequency spikes when the performance gain is marginal. Efficient Aggressive: This is a hybrid approach where boost is still performance-responsive, but the system continuously weighs efficiency more heavily than in Aggressive mode. It aims to deliver noticeable performance improvements while reducing wasted power in less demanding scenarios. Here's how to enable the Processor performance boost mode: Open Registry Editor: Press Win+R, type regedit, and click OK. Go to: HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Power\PowerSettings\54533251-82be-4824-96c1-47b60b740d00\be337238-0d82-4146-a960-4f3749d470c7 (where HKLM stands for HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE_) Modify the value of Attributes from 1 to 2 (you can find modify option by right-clicking) After that, exit Registry, you should now be able to see the new "Processor performance boost mode" dropdown menu: As you can see there are now five new P-States or CPPC states or power profile available that help define the boost mode processor setting on your PC. Wrapping it up here's a quick run-down of the settings as defined by Microsoft itself. Setting Description Disabled The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is disabled. Collaborative Processor Performance Control (CPPC) behaviour is disabled. Enabled The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is enabled. CPPC behaviour is Efficient Enabled. Aggressive The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is enabled. CPPC behaviour is Aggressive. Efficient Enabled The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is Efficient. CPPC behaviour is Efficient Enabled. Efficient Aggressive The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is Efficient. CPPC behaviour is Aggressive. Aggressive At Guaranteed Windows calculates the desired extra performance above the guaranteed performance level, and asks the processor to deliver that specific performance level. Efficient Aggressive At Guaranteed Windows always asks the processor to deliver the highest possible performance above the guaranteed performance level. In the next part we shall be comparing these settings to explore how much of a benefit or regression they can provide in terms of performance and power efficiency. If you decide to change the values on your system and are experiencing problems like crashes or an overheating PC, make sure to revert the steps back to the original state.
    • I think he means you haven't reviewed previous UFC games. Of course it doesn't matter... Every time you just report on something that involves the President even if just simply what happened you guys usually get accused of being anti-Trump. We live in fun times.
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Month Later
      Leroy Jethro Gibbs earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Conversation Starter
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • One Month Later
      AndreaB earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Month Later
      agatameier earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      agatameier earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      518
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      198
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      147
    4. 4
      ATLien_0
      93
    5. 5
      Steven P.
      77
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!