"The Ubuntu developers are moving very quickly to bring you the absolute latest and greatest software the Open Source Community has to offer. Hardy Heron Alpha 2 is the second alpha release of Ubuntu 8.04, and with this new alpha release comes a whole host of excellent new features."
Post a Comment
Member since:
2005-12-14
Fans: 2
Member since:2005-11-12
Fans: 3
Member since:2006-02-02
Fans: 0
(as 2.6.23 is in Fedora 7 when it was released)
Member since:2005-11-12
Fans: 3
Member since:2005-07-06
Fans: 6
2.6.24 is still a development snapshot of the Linux kernel which is why it is only in Fedora 9 development tree. When 2.6.24 is available as a stable release, it will be available as an update for Fedora 8 and possibly for Fedora 7 too. Fedora pushes new kernel revisions fairly regularly as updates and stays close to upstream releases.
Member since:2006-02-02
Fans: 0
Member since:2006-10-25
Fans: 1
Where most Ubuntu releases ship with some pretty big bugs that get fixed over the first few weeks (and some which amazingly do not), the LTS releases are conservative in comparison. Debian and RH are more conservative yet.
A 'last version' (7.10) with upstream updates and lots of bug fixes is what you should expect from any LTS.
Member since:2006-05-12
Fans: 0
8.04 is a LTS release:
From wikipedia: Ubuntu releases new versions every six months, and supports those releases for 18 months with daily security fixes and patches to critical bugs. There are also Long Term Support (LTS) releases, which have three years support for the desktop version and five years for the server version.
It isn't common for them to push bleeding edge stuff into the LTS release, but at the same time it goes through more testing, should have fewer bugs, and will have available packages and updates for a longer period of time.
I like the way they do their LTS cycle. I almost wish the company I work for would start using Ubuntu server for more stuff instead of always selecting Red Hat. I can tell you that at least haft the people in the group that work on the *nix stuff use Debian and Ubuntu on their own workstations (Windows and Solaris 10 make up the rest).
Member since:
2007-02-02
Fans: 0
Member since:
2007-01-01
Fans: 0
Member since:
2005-07-29
Fans: 0
I hope that Ubuntu 8.04 will be a great LTS release.
But this is no longer valid for Kubuntu 8.04. Although both KDEs, KDE 3.5.x and KDE 4.0, will be incorporated, the Kubuntu project will concentrate on KDE 4.0 already for Kubuntu 8.04. As a consequence of this, Kubuntu 8.04 will be no LTS release.
https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/kubuntu-devel/2007-December/002066...
So I intend to use Kubuntu Dapper for the full three years period on my working machine. :-)
Edited 2007-12-23 19:24
Member since:2006-06-22
Fans: 0
Well the main point of LTS is to provide support without having to upgrade to new release and its mainly geared towards servers. Most desktop users will upgrade anyway apart from maybe enterprize workstation deployments.
So no Kubuntu LTS is not a big deal. People running LTS servers probably don't even install X.
Member since:2006-01-28
Fans: 2
You are quite wrong here. People running the Linux Terminal Server Project care a great deal about KDE being offered and supported as part of Ubuntu's LTS.
We tried to get Windows users to like Gnome, but most did not, whereas they seem to accept KDE quite naturally.
As a result of this move by the Canonical folks, we will be moving our LTSP servers/desktops (since they are both) to Suse or Novell's Desktop. Novell seems to understand that when you commit to supporting a piece of software for a long time, people expect you to do just that.
The government of the Canary islands in Spain just release Meduxa, which is based on Kubuntu. I think now they are left holding the ship on their own, since Canonical will not be providing an easy upgrade path from one LTS to the next one.
Big strategic mistake if you ask me.
Edited 2007-12-23 21:08
Member since:2007-02-17
Fans: 2
Timing.
KDE right now is at a major point of transition.
KDE 3.5 series in the long term will be phased out.
KDE 4.0 just isn't ready yet, and isn't a suitable candidate for LTS. Wait for at least KDE 4.1.
It therefore makes far more sense for the next LTS version of Kubuntu to be either 8.10 or 9.04 rather than 8.04.
Member since:2006-12-16
Fans: 3
But - in all honesty, there's nothing wrong with KDE 3.5.x, it's well and truly good enough for a LTS.
The real issue is favouritism of one particular desktop environment by Ubuntu. In this day and age, I'd rather see Ubuntu release a DVD (much like Knoppix did a few years ago) that features *both* Gnome and KDE, and keeps the rest of the applications small, with little duplication.
Yes, I know other distributions favour KDE, and I dislike that as well, so, I'm not picking on Ubuntu just for the sake of it. Gnome & KDE are the two big desktop environments in Linux, and it makes sense to offer both of them imho, especially for newbies. Newbies go to Ubuntu, use Gnome from day 1 and know nothing else, then then become embroiled in the Gnome propaganda (i.e. that KDE is crap, KDE is bloated, KDE has poor UI and so on and so forth). Is Ubuntu (and Gnome ultimately) so scared of KDE that it doesn't want to give it even footing to compete? And yes, the same applies to KDE only environments. The issue here is that Ubuntu has fast become the Microsoft of Linuxes, and it's majority install base gives an unfair advantage to the Gnome desktop environment that is NOT based on true competition, but on favouritism.
That's my 2.2c worth. Ubuntu does Linux a disservice by not offering both desktop environments. Period. Until Ubuntu grows up, I won't use it, nor will I recommend it. I'll stick with Debian proper where a choice is offered at time of installation. That's how it should be. Choice by omission is NOT choice.
Dave
Member since:2006-01-01
Fans: 1
It therefore makes far more sense for the next LTS version of Kubuntu to be either 8.10 or 9.04 rather than 8.04.
Yes, it makes sense from the geek point of view because geeks always want the latest and the greatest. But LTS releases are not for geeks only. The main idea of the LTS releases is to offer stability and reliability with a predictable release schedule, and now it looks like Kubuntu has failed to meet these LTS goals.
Kubuntu still appears to be a step-child in the *buntu family where all the love goes to Ubuntu and GNOME. Canonical is clearly worried that Ubuntu LTS will have similar upgrade problems that the six-month releases have shown, and all the developer efforts seem to be concentrated to avoid an upgrade fiasco with Ubuntu LTS. So the support for predictable Kubuntu LTS releases was dropped in favour of Ubuntu.
This might turn out to be a sound decision based on a realistic evaluation of the available resources, but it's certainly a big disappointment for users who believed that Canonical could offer equal support for both GNOME and KDE. From now on, Kubuntu will be considered as a for-geeks-only distro, not as an enterprise-quality distro.
Member since:2005-07-07
Fans: 3
Member since:
2006-07-16
Fans: 0
I sincerely hope the tech community breaks from its tradition of doing in-depth reviews and exhaustive reports on each and every alpha release of the upcoming Ubuntu. No other distros' alphas are so exhaustively reported upon. Testers should test the heck out of the new distro but reporters should wait until the Release Candidate (at least) before writing any reviews or touting new features. Seriously. I know everyone gets their panties in a bunch at the thought of the next big Ubuntu release but there's really nothing to see here folks; move along!
Member since:2005-11-12
Fans: 3
Yet Microsoft can talk about how small Windows 7 will be and offer no more information than a demo of it in a terminal running(no more interesting then me booting linux and watching the verbose). Ubuntu is the most popular distro, it makes sense to report it's status.
RE[2]: Here we go again...
Member since:2005-07-08
Fans: 34
That's just, like, your opinion, man...
Don't like it, don't click it. I don't see how creating some de facto standard for worthiness is feasible or desirable on the Web. This medium's main attraction is that publishing is so cheap and accessible that innumerable niche interests can each be served with an endless torrent of information that almost nobody cares about.
But there are people that really would like to read a dozen reviews of each Ubuntu alpha. Should they broaden their interests and maybe try a new hobby? Perhaps. However, if people keep clicking, people will keep posting. If it turns out somewhere down the line that there is a natural saturation point to the demand for information about Ubuntu, I'm sure some clever individuals will find some creative ways of manufacturing more demand.
Supply-side economics: because it's easier to sell stuff that people don't need to those who already have enough than to sell stuff that people need to those who don't have any.
The only way to break this cycle is for the consumers to stop consuming. Don't hold your breath waiting for the producers to stop producing or for the distributors to stop distributing.
Member since:2005-07-24
Fans: 33
"""
"""
I've noticed that posts here from user 'cmost' complaining about the number of Ubuntu articles seem to outnumber the articles themselves about 3 to 1.
Just use your eye muscles to deflect your eyes slightly down the page, and skip the articles which do not interest you. I do it all the time and it works quite well.
Member since:2006-07-16
Fans: 0
Really? 3:1? You don't say. Too bad your statistic is fictional. The reason I keep posting against the Ubuntu hype is that I've become concerned that too many people think that Linux IS Ubuntu. Ubuntu users are legion but they tend to ignore Ubuntu's faults and focus too much on its promise. Many which are never delivered. Ubuntu is like the iPod. It's popular, but not the best of breed. It's not just about averting my eyes as you put it. I feel the need to comment and it's my right to do so. And I'll continue doing so. If you don't like it, too bad.
Member since:2005-11-12
Fans: 3
Hype?, thats for things that are not released, Ubuntu is being used on the desktop more than any other distro because it is popular, works well and has sane desktop features.
Ubuntu dont keep on the number one distro spot just for being hype, it's just a damn good linux distro that people like to use, it's really that simple.
Member since:2007-07-31
Fans: 0
Why dont you then also feel the need to not comment?
You are just as bas as < insert ubuntu / mac/ windows fanboy > here except in reverse...
nobody likes the fundamentalist Christian or Muslim... but then nobody likes the fundamentalist atheist either!
Personally I think you should just be glad Linux in general is getting some publicity. You are like the goth that dresses so different just to be 'different' and then ends up looking like all other goths looking 'different'
(no offense to the real alternatives out there its not you I'm talking about)
Another analogy, you're like the coloured man that demands special rights because you've been persecuted against for 200 years.... STFU already - you are human just like everybody else.
In summary you are an elitist anti-popularism fanboy that constantly trolls these boards looking for any topic with 'ubuntu' in it just so you can slam it for any grasp of negativity you can. Replace the 'ubuntu' in what you said above with 'windows', Linux with 'PC' and you'll fit right in with any of the digg 'hail steve jobs' bill gates is the devil, worshipers.
Phew, I needed that rant =P dont tempt me to follow you around OSnews and reply with macintosh is god statements to every anti-ubuntu-for-the-sake-of-it posts you've been racking up.
Member since:2007-08-29
Fans: 0
You might want to consider that on a site called 'osnews', the users might actually know something about operating systems. I know it must be counterintuitive for you, but give it a fair hearing.
Since you don't appear to actually have read the comments section, you might be interested to know that the comments have largely been about problems with ubuntu, and about gnome-versus-kde, and about ubuntu-versus-other-distros. What are missing, interestingly enough, are the crowds of ignorant zealots that you claim to be targeting.
In regard to your first post, I would like to again point out that this is a side called 'osnews' and is about operating systems. I think that I can safely say that it makes sense for a site about operating systems to keep up to date on news about operating systems, including future relases.
If you think you can present a reasonable argument for future relases not being reported upon, then please make it. In doing so, you might want to consider that news about longhorn was reported on this site years before vista's release, and that there has already been at least one article about windows 7; and that in contrast to them (at the time of the articles' publishing, in the case of longhorn), 8.04 has a known feature set and release date.
Member since:2006-07-16
Fans: 0
You're right, OSNEWS is meant to report on operating systems. Ubuntu is an operating system. My only gripe with Ubuntu is that its community seems to focus too much on the next release at the expense of the current release. Once Gutsy hit the streets, all the hype turned to Hardy. It goes on and on. Ubuntu is like the iPod: it's not popular because its the best. It just has good marketing. I don't need to read an in-depth review on someone's self-important blog; about an early alpha whose change log indicates that only a few libraries have been updated or maybe a couple of applications bumped a version number. (And by the way, I use an Ubuntu based system myself (Mint) and I'm a longtime Debian, AmigaOS, DOS, and Windows user as well) I'm not just spouting off for the hell of it.
Member since:
2006-01-19
Fans: 0
Maybe this time I will be able to restrain myself from upgrading my desktop in the first few days. It has never yet been worth the pain, but I still bet I'll give in to temptation. The bugs do seem to get fixed after the first two weeks though.
Except for one thing: Anybody else have lots of stability problems with VMware on more recent kernels? For me, VMware host performance and stability has definitely gotten worse each time since Edgy, on all of my machines. At work, I run Dapper for just that reason. That, and I like the old look much better 
2.6.22 + Workstation 6 was basically unusable until I added some unpleasant sounding config flags to my .vmx files:
http://communities.vmware.com/message/784318
Hopefully 2.6.24 will be better, but I am not holding my breath.
Member since:2005-07-06
Fans: 1
I am running windows xp inside vmware v 6.0.1 Build 55017 which is installed on Ubuntu 7.10 with kernel 2.6.22 and I can tell you its rock solid and no crashes at all.
Are you trying to say that you run linux emulated in vmware with windows being the host, or windows being the guest in a linux host?
Member since:2006-01-19
Fans: 0
I am running windows xp inside vmware v 6.0.1 Build 55017 which is installed on Ubuntu 7.10 with kernel 2.6.22 and I can tell you its rock solid and no crashes at all.
Windows 2000 inside of Workstation 6.0.2 on Ubuntu 7.10 host here. Similar problems with Server 1.0.4. It's not so much that it crashes outright (although that happens occasionally), it is that disk performance is really bad. The last post in the VMware forum thread I linked describes the problem, except for me it was not just suspend, but all disk IO. Best I can tell, it was continually swapping VM memory to disk even though I had perhaps 1 GB host ram free. Vmx file options fixed it, but it did not give me the warm fuzzies, and I have come to expect issues on most recent kernels.
I do like the fact that the kernel maintainers now designate periodic releases as "stable", though I have not noticed that the big distros are actually using those releases. Oh well.
Member since:2005-07-06
Fans: 1
"it is that disk performance is really bad."
True. I have noticed bad perfomance on my system with normal HDD; while noticed not a jaw dropping performance increase with Raptor HDD.
They must work on performance issues, but performance is luxury while stability is a must.
Member since:
2007-07-25
Fans: 0
Member since:
2005-11-23
Fans: 0
It would be nice if this version installed and ran well on almost everything.
For now a generic wrapper for Windows device drivers might be a good idea.
Assisting the X.org and Alsa people to work on hardware compatibility issues would go a long way to having a distribution that works for most people.
Member since:
2005-09-20
Fans: 0
Member since:2005-09-06
Fans: 0
Member since:
2005-10-10
Fans: 0
Member since:
2006-01-20
Fans: 0
Member since:
2005-11-12
Fans: 3
"Hi Luka,
The Technical Board was not formally involved[0] in the decision whether
or not to release Kubuntu 8.04 as an LTS. "LTS" is a commercial support
commitment provided by Canonical Ltd, who shoulder the financial and
administrative burden of doing so; as such, it is entirely their
decision as to whether or not they provide that support for a particular
release.
They make the decision on a purely commercial basis, determined by
factors such as: the stability of the release in question; the
supportability of the release; the commercial interest in the release,
etc.
Given that, and since the remainder are not technical in nature or
resolving a technical dispute, the Technical Board cannot answer your
questions.
However since I was involved in the decision-making process at Canonical
as part of my job as leader of the Ubuntu Desktop team, I will attempt
to answer your questions as best I can. The rest of this e-mail shall
not be considered a reply from the Technical Board.
Kubuntu 8.04 comes at a difficult time in the KDE release cycle, it
arrives just after the dawn of a major new release of the platform which
is a very significant new amount of work. This is a new platform that
is receiving a significant amount of attention, both from its developers
and from its users.
Questions that were asked:
Will KDE 4 be stable enough to support for the term of the release?
I've not seen anybody who believes that this would be the case; a
long-term supported release would have to be based on the stable KDE 3.5
series. This gives us the second question:
Will a bug in KDE 3.5 receive upstream attention in March 2011?
In order for Canonical to make a commercial commitment to their
customers, who have signed contracts and terms of service with them,
they need to be sure that they can honour the terms of their agreements.
The KDE upstream position appears clear, KDE 4 is the focus of
developer attention; KDE 3.5 will be supported as long as KDE 4 isn't
suitable for support.
Given the attention being paid to KDE 4, it is difficult to believe
that this will not be the preferred release in three years time. Thus
it is difficult to guarantee that upstream will still support the
current stable series for the timescale required.
Is the development community able to sufficiently test the new release?
Again, in order for the commercial commitment to be made, Canonical
has to believe that the development community (which includes its own
staff) are able to provide sufficient testing of both the new release
and upgrades between older releases and the newer one.
This judgement is both based on the number of active testers for the
previous release according to the ISO test tracker, and the relative
popularity of the available packages/seeds.
The number of Kubuntu developers testing releases and recording their
results is right now at an all-time low, this makes it difficult to
guarantee sufficient test coverage of installs and most importantly
upgrades.
Likewise the current download interest is entirely directed towards
KDE 4 packages and CD images.
I hope that provides some insight as to how this decision was made,
expanding on the statements that Jonathan made in his announcement.
As to your questions about the timing, method and discussion for the
decision:
The community's input was actually sought on several points, and many
members of the Kubuntu community provided answers and insight that
contributed to the decision. It is difficult for this decision to be
made by the community because the community's stake in Kubuntu is one of
personal achievement and pride, whereas Canonical's is financial and of
commercial commitments. Had Canonical simply asked the community
"should Kubuntu 8.04 be an LTS?", the answer would not be based on the
same terms: instead more direct questions were asked such as "how long
will upstream work on KDE 3.5?"
The timing of the decision was simply based on when it was clear from
the KDE release schedule that it was inevitable that KDE 4 would be
released before Kubuntu 8.04. Since the KDE upstream release schedule
is not in alignment with Ubuntu's own, it is difficult to align such
decisions to it.
As to the unclear reasoning behind the decision, there is insufficient
argument in your e-mail to answer that since you don't discuss where you
feel the communication is unclear. The announcement states that the
reason is that KDE 4 will be released before Kubuntu 8.04, that it is
the focus of user and developer attention, and that this upheaval is
contrary to Canonical's requirements for an LTS. This is the reasoning.
Your other questions only have answers in further questions:
Kubuntu will be suitable for an LTS when the KDE packages it contains
are expected to be stable, maintained and supported for three years
afterwards. (This could be considered LTS requirement zero; 6.06 came
at a perfect time, it is hopeful that KDE 3.5 will at least have some
remaining support and maintenance for the next 18 months while it
remains supported.)
No claim or commitment has been made to how LTS upgrades will work; the
intent is that one LTS is directly upgradable to the next, however this
requires extensive testing on behalf of the development community.
I cannot answer KDE 3.5 to KDE 4.x upgrade questions, those are
technical.
Scott
[0] notwithstanding some of its members being involved as part of their
job at Canonical
--
Scott James Remnant
scott@ubuntu.com"
Member since:2005-07-29
Fans: 0
I didn't pay attention to that paragraph, until now (this statement was posted after my first comment).
What does this mean?
Apparently it means:
"Kubuntu will be suitable for an LTS when the KDE packages it contains are expected to be stable, maintained and supported for three years afterwards"
b y
o t h e r s
(in this case the KDE team or Debian).
I cannot understand why any company dares to talk of releasing a so-called "LTS release" years before that "8.04 date", although this company knows of its too little manpower so that any LTS release would be in danger, if this "LTS requirement zero" is not given.
I don't think that this is a Kubuntu-only "problem".
If this argument is valid for Kubuntu, it could also be valid for Ubuntu in the future, e.g. when Gnome 3.0 will be published one day.
Did you ever hear e.g. Red Hat talking this way with respect to its RHEL distributions?
In comparison to RHEL or SLES "(K)Ubuntu LTS" is another league, this is my opinion now.
Member since:
2005-10-15
Fans: 0
"My only gripe with Ubuntu is that its community seems to focus too much on the next release"
that statement cant be true the biggest discussion here is that the next version of kbuntu only will have support for 18months instead of 3 years. if they only focused on the next release they would only care if it was supported for 6months and we would hardly have 15 comments to this article