[Discuss] to Ubuntu or not to Ubuntu

[edwardp at linuxmail.org]

Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
>>
>> One way to look at it, is whether it's /really/ necessary to upgrade the
>> OS every six months, even if the current installation continues to be
>> supported for some time after that.
> You mean every month.  ;-)
> I know up till now ubuntu has been every 6 months, but moving forward...
> http://netsplit.com/2011/09/08/new-ubuntu-release-process/
> Still just a proposal as far as I know.
>
> You ask if it's really necessary to upgrade every 6 months, and it's a wise
> question, but only one-sided.  As a consumer, you'll have less stability and
> more experimental new features with a rapid release cycle, but as a
> programmer or producer, you'll have less feedback if you don't have a rapid
> release cycle.  That's why they have varying levels of stability ...  Once
> every 18 months or so, ubuntu releases a LTS version, which is intended to
> have been fully fleshed out, highly stable configuration.  If you go to the
> latest version, you're choosing the newest most experimental thing
> available.  That's the nature of open source software.

Monthly...  That's just as bad as Mozilla's release schedule with 
Firefox.  Their enterprise customers weren't too pleased about those 
constant new releases.

Debian 6 (Squeeze) was released in February.  Although Iceweasel 
(Debian's rebranded Firefox) has been updated periodically throughout 
the year with security fixes, the actual version number remains 3.5.16.  
The same applies to Icedove (rebranded Thunderbird), that version number 
remains 3.0.11.

Occasionally, I will come across a web site that asks that I upgrade the 
browser, because it is recognizing 3.5.16 as an "old" version.

That's five new version numbers for both since the first of the year.  
Six, if Firefox 9.0/Thunderbird 9.0 are released before the end of 2011.

I don't believe many Ubuntu users would want a new distro upgrade each 
month.