Ubuntu Releases 13.04, Sticks To 6-Month Release Rhythm 177
Barence writes "Ubuntu has shelved the idea of moving to rolling releases, and will continue to release a new version every six months. Earlier this year, Ubuntu developers discussed the idea of moving to rolling releases, with new features added to the OS as and when they were ready. However, In an interview with PC Pro, Canonical CEO Jane Silber said the developers had taken a 'cold, hard look at our long-standing practices' and decided to stay with twice-yearly releases. It has, however, cut support on non-LTS releases from 18 to nine months." Today, the Ubuntu team have released the latest iteration of Ubuntu, 13.04 ("Raring Ringtail"), along with variants like Kubuntu 13.04.
Next release codename? (Score:5, Informative)
Might I suggest "Simpering Spyware?"
I for one dropped Ubuntu over that (and Unity)... yeah, I know its removable, not the point.
Re:let me be the first to say (Score:5, Informative)
then disable sending your queries to remote sources. Yes, it is enabled by default, but no, you don't have to use it. I disabled it as soon as I typed in "jockey" to find the additional drivers tool in 12.10, and got ads for underware. Yea. No.
Re:let me be the first to say (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Yay! (Score:4, Informative)
You mean like their https://wiki.ubuntu.com/LTS [ubuntu.com] versions?
Highlights included in this release, for the lazy (Score:5, Informative)
Biggest client updates:
-UbuntuGnome (featuring Gnome 3.6 by default) is now an official flavor
-Unity 7
-LibreOffice 4
-Improved support for CUPS
-Software Updater simplified
-Friends service replaces Gwibber
Re:Next release codename? (Score:4, Informative)
Kubuntu doesn't. As a bonus, it has KDE.
Re:let me be the first to say (Score:5, Informative)
I did just did that, as a response to reading this thread.
Open the Systems Settings (called gnome-control-center if you want to run it from a terminal)
Click Privacy
In the first tab "Search results" disable "Include online search results" and "Record Activity"
Re:Next release codename? (Score:5, Informative)
I think the spyware has been a radioactive enough issue that any derivatives are going to make a point of cutting it out.
That said, I don't see the need. As much as I don't like what Ubuntu did with the shopping lens, I've long switched to Xubuntu anyway, which is more sanely managed. (The original reason was to get away from Unity, and their avoidance of subsequent Canonical brain damage cemented the deal.)
Significantly, when you use [KX]ubuntu, you still benefit from all the release engineering work of Ubuntu proper, including security updates---a point on which I'm a little more wary of derivatives like Mint.
Re:Better distro's out there (Score:5, Informative)
Steam works on non-ubuntu distros. In fact it's even bundled with Manjaro
Re:Thanks Ubuntu, but I'll stay with 12.04 for now (Score:5, Informative)
1) Debian was too much work (Ubuntu, an African word meaning "I couldn't get Debian to work properly").
I've installed Debian. I really don't see how it's "more work" than Ubuntu. It's like three mouse clicks and some typing and you get a fully functional gnome desktop.
2) I really like apt-get.
Available on Debian. Not seeing your point. There are better package managers out there now too, like Pacman and RPM has leapfrogged deb in recent years in my opinion.
3) Ubuntu works (mostly, after some fiddling).
This totally negates your first point. Debian and others work after some fiddling too. You're just fucking lazy.
4) The LTS won't change much and so is going to be stable.
Ubuntu's LTS changes a thousand times more than Debian or even FreeBSD does.
5) Fuck RPM. Also, Emacs sucks, and so does your haircut.
Yeah, fuck delta updates and a sane package manager. Emacs does suck, yes. I shave my head, not sure if that is a haircut or a lack of hair altogether.
Re:new feature: shortened support (Score:4, Informative)
No, you won't have to upgrade to 13.10 "no matter what". The recommended way to do upgrades is to always go to the next version (as that's what gets the majority of testing), but 13.04 makes no major changes (like replacing upstart) that would prevent it from directly upgrading to anything to which 12.04 or other recent versions could directly upgrade.
You won't 'be screwed" if you have hardware compatibility problems in 13.10; you simply boot an older kernel (since that's where the hardware drivers are). I've done it with several previous alphas - but users are unlikely to discover major problems by the time it gets to a final release. I already have one system using the 13.10 (saucy) repos now (though they have no updates beyond what's in the raring repos). Expect me and the others that enjoy the bleeding edge to find/report the problems so that you don't have to.
I'm not sure why any of this would be an issue anyway: When the OS keeps all your app settings in /home (which you should put on a separate partition), complete re-installs of newer/older versions take no more time than the upgrades.
Re:Thanks Ubuntu, but I'll stay with 12.04 for now (Score:2, Informative)
I get basically the same desktop either way but Debian requires more fucking around and I have to add third party repositories to get decent video card drivers, codecs and font rendering. Debian also doesn't include decent app armor profiles and most packages aren't even compiled with stack protection and PIE.
Get over it. There's a reason why Google and most tech companies go with Ubuntu over Debian.
Re:We hate success! (Score:4, Informative)
While I agree with several of your points, I think it is not a "We Hate Success" problem, but more of a "We hate what success has done to you!" problem. Yes many people are quick on and off the bandwagon, and those people were not to be considered true fans to begin with. Yes Ubuntu has done a lot, by giving us a standard platform, and originally giving us a good repository, and a good start for many forks (Mint, etc.) which can be created.
The main issue was, their decision to push Unity. In the Linux community, if something comes as a drastic change, you fork the development and someone can pick up the abandoned fork (the GNOME 2.X developed interface) within their community. Ubuntu did not do that. They gave us a universally panned GUI, designed for cell phones and tablets, to be used on servers and desktops. Worse yet, they gave us no option but to make this major switch with them if we wanted the latest patches, etc. Bad move.
So my point is that they grew so successful, they forgot their roots, and decided to make changes, regardless of what they were "supposed" to do based on the community they were in. The OS communities version of "Too Big to Fail." The Linux User Community got them where they were, and they abandoned them by making this one time, decision. This has caused the hatred for Ubuntu, not that they are successful.