Change the release schedule of Mint

[AndyP79]

So I have been reading some of the reviews. Good and bad. Criticizing and championing. I have been using Mint since Mint5 I think. I have been impressed with each new release, and have looked forward to them with great anticipation. I am not impressed with 8. I am using it know though. Have been the last couple of days. I could not get it to run on my 64bit machine without crashing and generally making me insane, so i pulled out the trusty old 32bit. Not happy about using the old computer, as I have spent the money on the new one and can't use it for my main computer. i tried to load up Mint 7 back on the 64, and due to whatever was going on, it got ate up, and crashed! Damn! I loved Mint 7, had so much tweaked on my old set up, and lost everything. Don't get me wrong, I backed up my files and downloads and all that crap to an external hard drive. So no worries bout that. I ended up loading my old back up Windows Vista to the 64bit, and it is just kinda sitting over in the corner now doing nothing. I never bought any pograms for it, as I had just loaded Mint 7 up to it right away when I first got it.

Anyway..I am getting off track.....I won't go over all the issues, as everyone else that has complained, has already hit them on the head. This version simply felt rushed. I won't be a total negative though, and try to make a few helpful suggestions.

1. Change the numbering system, i.e; Linux Mint 2010 Plain and simple, just the year
2. Only make one major release a year. How about Mint 2010 is released in the summer, months after the April release of Ubuntu, taking plenty of time to make improvements
3. Change the artwork to only complete packages, or add in the pieces missing. As of now, when we are using the Humanity icons, which are quite nice, they have Ubuntu logos, and are orange, how about green ones to match the idea of MINT...Mint is a green item!
4. Don't automaticlly change the Ubuntu items to just being rebranded. The long in screen is so unatractive and ugly. There are a hundred artists out there who deserve to have a chance at having their efforts shown. They do it because they love your distro Clem. You could have placed a much more attractive login screen in there, instead we are fighting to figure out how to change it as Ubuntu decided not to make it defualt that we could change it anymore.
5. New apps. How about the latest stable version of Firefox, and Open Office Suite? Why is stupid Open Office Drawing still in a random spot? Why is the scanner utility in there? Let obscure items that people want, be that, obscure. Synap is a great tool. But when you try to use it to remove products, sometime you inadvertently take away other items. How about making things like Screenlets included, or AWN or a Minty version of some other dock system.
6. Back to the artwork.... How about some new themes to choose from. I am getting tired of downlaoded sometimes half baked themes, that with a little help from others, could be great items. That would look so much more up-to-date and modern. I am feeling blah sometimes and spending too much time trying to find some new theme that is modern and complete.

I think what I am trying to get at, is basicly, it has been noted a few times in others posts, it is time to slow down and take your time Clem and the Mint Team. Clem, you quit your job because you were making enough to survive I guess. Slow down, take your time. One release a year should be good enough, as long as it is stable, clean, complete and as the slogan says, elegant. Mint 8 does not do justice to all the hard work that you and everyone put into making a great OS. Hell, split it and make it based off Debian instead of Ubuntu. There is a reason Debian is still around and has followers after all these years. they don't rush the product out.
Overall though, my experiences still are no where near anyother OS. Mint by and far has outshined everything else. I just don't want to see something that I enjoy as much as it, go the wayside. Seeing Mint installed on computers at the store out of the box one day would be great. Everyone should have the chance to use theis great system. But for the moment, I am going to pass them on to Mint 7, and hope that the next release is more elegant.

[AK Dave]

2. Only make one major release a year. How about Mint 2010 is released in the summer, months after the April release of Ubuntu, taking plenty of time to make improvements

I'd be in favor of this.

I know it flies against Ubuntu's release schedule and more closely resembles some other distro, like Mandriva or PCLinux, but I really don't care. A 12 month cycle makes a lot more sense to me than a 6 month cycle. That doesn't mean that an "interim" release can't be done halfway between "major" releases: Ubuntu 10.04 would roll into Mint 2010, and Ubuntu 10.10 would roll into Mint 2010.x (for example).

But if you think about Ubuntu a different way, Ubuntu is really on a 24-month release CYCLE with 3 interim releases every 6 months between major (aka "LTS") releases. Ubuntu's last "major" was 8.04 (Hardy), corresponding to Mint Elyssa. Since then we've had a Felicia, Gloria, and now a Helena. Ubuntu 10.04 will be the next "major" ("LTS"), and a Mint release will correspond to that.

Shifting to a 12 month cycle, as proposed, would simply mean that every OTHER release is a "LTS" (like Elyssa), and instead of three interim STS releases (like Ubuntu) there would be a minimum of one, but perhaps as many as three.

Seriously, this isn't much different than what we already have. Going back to Ubuntu's 24 month cycle, you have LTS, LTS+1, LTS+2, LTS-1, and then another LTS. Every 6 months. The criticism: 6 months isn't long enough, and the timetable is too draconian. But NOBODY IS FORCING PEOPLE TO INSTALL THE NEXT VERSION! I know people who still use Hardy, still use Edgy, still use Elyssa. And they're happy! My Mint machines at home run Gloria, I'm happy with Gloria, and I have no intention of "upgrading" them to Helena. Before Gloria, they ran Elyssa. I skipped Felicia on the Mint machines that everyone else uses at home, and I've ignored upgrading the Ubuntu machine past Hardy. They'll ALL get an upgrade to Ubuntu 10.04 and the corresponding Mint when the time comes. Until then? They don't need an upgrade!

I like the idea of a 12 month cycle. But I don't see it as solving or changing anything. At all.

[AndyP79]

@AKDave,
I totally do see your point. And it makes a lot of sense. So as another option. How about only releasing Mint based off Ubuntus LTS versions. Instead of even doing the extra versions in between, only continue to do regular updates via MintUpdate. If something from the new versions is compatable with that LTS, and Clem and Team can devise a way to add it in, then you get a nice new part, but not a whole new release to download or upgrade. So how about 6 months or so after a Ubuntu LTS is released, we get a new Mint. Then not until the next LTS anything but updates. If people want the bleeding edge in applications then they can download them off the internet somewhere and if it breaks the system, then at least they know it is not Mints fault.
Seriously, does it have to continue following Ubuntu anyway? Why not just follow Debian, you can still add Ubuntu items anyways if you want them.

[altair4]

You know, Ubuntu could help facilitate this process by hiring one marketing guy ( People with MBA's have to eat too, you know ). The LTS version could be marketed as "The" released version and all others could be label as "Beta".

Now you're going to get some yahoos's like myself that will install the "Beta's ( at least in a spare partition ) because they always have to have the newest and shiniest things. But for those of us who use linux as an actual desktop platform to get work done, we would only install the LTS version. This could all be done now as AK Dave suggested but I think having the "Beta" suffix on a release would let users know what they're getting into.

Let's take Grub2 for example. How may people would install Ubuntu 9.10 if they knew that the version of grub they were about to install on their system was not Version 2 but 1.97-beta

[Cousin Itt]

That's true that no one is forced to install the latest version, but new users will install the latest version and could be disappointed or turned off with a release that is just not ready.

[AndyP79]

I really like the Beta idea. The LTS as a "the" release. That in itself sounds like a great idea. I myself don't like installing Betas too often, and would like you, wait until the LTS comes out. I now have a new way of looking at it. makes so much sense. Wonder if Canonical would take any of us on as marketing guys? I am sitting here at the moment, scrating the itch to play with things, and I thing I am about to do a fresh download and install of Mint 7, and let the rest of the playing be on a seperate partition. Leave one alone with nothing but the downloads saved for art and themes. And one just for my actual computer. As I find items that are complete and usable, I might think about putting them on my LTS! HA!

[Lumenary]

Howdy...



I recently converted to Mint (by installing Gloria) after I decided that Ubuntu 8.04 LTS was getting a bit too long in the tooth. Gloria was a joy to use; it was stable, quick, and could take its fair share of abuse. I have since wiped my system clean and started over with Helena (I never do "upgrade" installations), and on the whole, I am reasonably pleased.


The gripes with Helena that I do have seem to fall pretty much in line with those posted by others, namely:

-- The GDM theme is a bit of a let-down; Gloria's GDM theme was much prettier.

-- Some of the GNOME panel applets fail to draw completely, or draw weird artifacts; the Weather applet, especially.

-- Synaptic is missing the "Mark All Upgrades" button that was available in Synaptic for Gloria.

-- The Firefox theme could use more scrollbar contrast; white over off-white is hard to discern.


But other than that, I'm happy. Firefox 3.5.x as provided by the Karmic Upstream has been very stable (much more so than the 3.0.x series supplied by the Jaunty Upstream), and I tend to load it up with a lot of extensions, so I'm definitely putting it through its paces. PulseAudio just works (so far), and Compiz is doing its job admirably.


Thus, it is with some wariness that I say that I must disagree with your assessments on proper release schedules.


The Linux ecosystem is a fast evolving one, and is a constantly shifting target. More features and capabilities are added to the Linux kernel every 3 to 6 months than are added to Redmond's OS in 2 to 3 years. The Windows kernel, at its heart, is still using a substantial amount of code that has been brought forward from the NT 4 days (Vista's and Win7's enhanced security features not withstanding), and Apple's Mac OS X, while based on an Open Source core (Darwin, a`la FreeBSD), has a much more conservative development schedule. One would probably be quite hard-pressed to find much code (on a percentage basis) in the more recent Linux 2.6.x kernels that also exists within the 2.4.x trunk, aside from necessary POSIX compatibility subsystems and legacy (Ext2/ReiserFS3) filesystem drivers.


It is for these reasons that the organizations responsible for distros like Fedora and Ubuntu, and by inheritance, those for descendants like Yellow Dog and Linux Mint, simply can't slow down and increase the lead times between releases. Things change so quickly that any given version of any given distro can grow stale in the time it takes it to move from Beta to General Release. The community of Linux users, for the most part, is an adventurous bunch, and likes to experiment with the Next Big Thing. Granted, there will always be those few people who use Linux-based distros because they were installed on their systems by their better-educated friends or relatives, and it is for this smaller proportion of users that a slower, LTS-style release schedule may be more appropriate. But the vast majority of Linux users, however, likes to live somewhat closer to the edge, if not right up against it, and so is willing to be more forgiving of bugs and glitches than their less enthusiastic peers.


Just my US $0.02, although with inflation, it'll probably cost at least a dime by the time you read this...


Later,

Lumenary
US-OH-Newton Falls
TZ=EST/EDT

[altair4]

Lumenary,

I disagree with just about everything you said and / or implied.

More features and capabilities are added to the Linux kernel every 3 to 6 months than are added to Redmond's OS in 2 to 3 years. The Windows kernel, at its heart, is still using a substantial amount of code that has been brought forward from the NT 4 days (Vista's and Win7's enhanced security features not withstanding), and Apple's Mac OS X, while based on an Open Source core (Darwin, a`la FreeBSD), has a much more conservative development schedule.

And yet together they own the desktop.

It is for these reasons that the organizations responsible for distros like Fedora and Ubuntu, and by inheritance, those for descendants like Yellow Dog and Linux Mint, simply can't slow down and increase the lead times between releases. Things change so quickly that any given version of any given distro can grow stale in the time it takes it to move from Beta to General Release.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that future development be slowed down or stopped.

Granted, there will always be those few people who use Linux-based distros because they were installed on their systems by their better-educated friends or relatives, and it is for this smaller proportion of users that a slower, LTS-style release schedule may be more appropriate.

Ouch

Oddly enough, I don't find our differing views incompatible. That's why I suggested giving all the interim releases between LTS releases a "Beta" designation because in reality that's what they are. I personally conform to both views - more or less. Mint 7 is my desktop OS. Although it's not the LTS version, it's stable and does everything I need it to do. I need to get work done But I also have Mint 8 installed to test new things, etc..

Let's take an extreme example - sidux. She's very sexy and the last time I enjoyed her company she was the fastest linux I've ever seen. But she's a very high maintenance companion - it's basically all about sidux when you're with her. She's not a desktop OS - she's a learning experience

[Lumenary]

Howdy...

More features and capabilities are added to the Linux kernel every 3 to 6 months than are added to Redmond's OS in 2 to 3 years. The Windows kernel, at its heart, is still using a substantial amount of code that has been brought forward from the NT 4 days (Vista's and Win7's enhanced security features not withstanding), and Apple's Mac OS X, while based on an Open Source core (Darwin, a`la FreeBSD), has a much more conservative development schedule.

And yet together they own the desktop.

Conceeded.


However, one must keep in mind that both Microsoft and Apple got quite a few years' head-start on Linux in the PC/desktop OS space. Windows 1.0, while very, very primitive by today's standards, was released in November of 1985, and the Lisa and its GUI (considered by many to be a Mac "ancestor," although certain tech history purists would dispute this) were released by Apple almost two years earlier. The first "true" Macintosh arrived in 1984 (I still remember Apple's iconic- no pun intended - Super Bowl "Orwell" commercial), and Windows 2.1/386 followed in the middle of 1988. All of these products (whether as full-fledged operating systems, or as OS "overlays") have roots in Xerox PARC's Alto, regarded as the first GUI-based "personal" computer. It was never released commercially, but did find its way into the computing research departments of several universities.


Back in those days, people were jumping into the PC market to make money. Very few individuals and organizations throwing their hat into the "consumer computing" ring believed in developing software and releasing it into the wild for altruistic reasons. Code-sharing was a philosophy that rarely made its way outside of the cloistered halls of university research centers. Developers creating software for CP/M-based systems such as those manufactured by IMSAI, Osborne, or Kaypro may be notable exceptions, but that OS was quickly displaced by MS-DOS in the late 80's.


During this time, Richard Stallman and the GNU Project (announced in 1983 on the net.unix-wizards newsgroup) kept trying to educate the world on the benefits of FLOSS (Free/Libre Open Source Software), but It wasn't until 1991, when Linus Torvalds posted his intentions to the comp.os.minux newsgroup, that the personal computing world was turned on its ear with his now-famous PC-centered invitation:

Hello everybody out there using minix -

I'm doing a (free) operating system (just a hobby, won't be big and professional like gnu) for 386(486) AT clones. This has been brewing since april, and is starting to get ready. I'd like any feedback on things people like/dislike in minix, as my OS resembles it somewhat (same physical layout of the file-system (due to practical reasons) among other things).

I've currently ported bash(1.08) and gcc(1.40), and things seem to work. This implies that I'll get something practical within a few months, and I'd like to know what features most people would want. Any suggestions are welcome, but I won't promise I'll implement them

Linus (torvalds@kruuna.helsinki.fi)

PS. Yes – it's free of any minix code, and it has a multi-threaded fs. It is NOT portable (uses 386 task switching etc), and it probably never will support anything other than AT-harddisks, as that's all I have .

And as you indicated in an earlier post, Linux really could benefit from proper marketing. The problem is, there really is no single Linux: All the different distros, to some extent, compete with each other, which dilutes Linux's own collective market share.


I guess that's class for today...



Best Regards,

Lumenary
US-OH-Newton Falls
TZ=EST/EDTLumenary

[Pierre]

Going back to Ubuntu's 24 month cycle, you have LTS, LTS+1, LTS+/-2, LTS-1, and then another LTS. Every 6 months.

That's about it, too.

It has been said, that one "should" - only 'install' the LTS or the LTS +/-2 .....

[metroid_maniac]

IF the release schedule was changed we'd MAYBE be a b able to see 64 bit and Universal Community Editions!

[DrHu]

I don't distro hop, I don't follow distrowatch, I don't need the latest version of every application, it sometimes isn't an improvement

I like a distribution to keep up, especially with kernel and security updates

• Applications, I don't worry so much about, but if there are application security updates needed, do them as well

Apart from the caveat that they should be keeping up: I don't really care how much or how little Linux Mint updates their version(releases) following Ubuntu; I only see that by following Ubuntu, they are getting stuck with the same Ubuntu bugs/issues, that seems to take a few cycles to fix (on Ubuntu's side of the equation)

[viking777]

I agree with the OP, six monthly release cycles benefit nobody, they must put immense pressure on the developers and they subconsciously put pressure on users too (the 'what am I missing syndrome' - nobody's immune). Perhaps there is some marketing advantage in this that I don't know about, it is not my field, but I wonder how much that can affect Mint, as their chances of outmarketing Ubuntu are unmeasurable, especially when their release cycles are virtually identical. The other problem with 6 monthly cycles is that the pace of development in computing is not linear. Sometimes 6 months is a lifetime, sometimes 6 months passes with very little new becoming mature. This I would argue is what has happened this time around so we get stuff like grub2. Grub2 is not a mature product but has been shoehorned in because there isn't much else - and everyone suffers.

I notice nobody has mentioned 'rolling release' cycles yet. I have two of these on my system, one because it is at the leading edge of development (SIdux) and one because it is at the complete opposite end of the spectrum (Pclos). I find this kind of release strategy suits me very well because I have the best of both worlds, the latest and newest from Sidux and more stability than you could ever imagine from Pclos (I don't know if it's pace of development is slower than Debian stable but I wouldn't be surprised).

What do others think of rolling releases?

[altair4]

What do others think of rolling releases?

Based only on my experiences with PCLOS, I'm not a big fan of rolling releases for a couple of reasons.

The people who put this type of update mechanism in place really have to keep on top of things or you have a PCLOS "Big Update" type of event which rendered many users PC's into bricks. Too much was updated all at once and things broke. Small, well managed, incremental changes over time might have worked out better.

The second problem is that the install CD in PCLOS remained static. So depending on how long it's been since the LiveCD was released and when the user downloaded it, you ended up downloading a 685 MB LiveCD and then after installation, downloading another 500+ MB's of updates.

It's my understanding that they now have quarterly releases but that means they have to package and test the quarterly releases which negates the resource benefits argued for the rolling release.

[viking777]

I see, interesting. I went away form pclos for a while and then came back to it so I must have missed the "Big Update" as you called it. I must say that for me it has always been completely stable which I put down to the slow pace of development, maybe I was just lucky.

[Lumenary]

Howdy...

What do others think of rolling releases?

Based only on my experiences with PCLOS, I'm not a big fan of rolling releases for a couple of reasons.

Wow... I was thinking the exact same thing last night regarding PCLinuxOS 2007. It started out as a relatively static distro, then in 2008 the PCLOS team switched to a rolling-release update method. Broke a lot of things which I had carefully tweaked and optimized...

The people who put this type of update mechanism in place really have to keep on top of things or you have a PCLOS "Big Update" type of event which rendered many users PC's into bricks. Too much was updated all at once and things broke. Small, well managed, incremental changes over time might have worked out better.

Arch Linux, and I believe Gentoo also, subscribe to the rolling release philosophy, but their changes usually seem to be (as altair4 puts it) very "small and incremental," so for those distros the problems introduced by using a rolling release update method seem to be held well in check. But on the whole, I second this opinion. I, too, am NOT a fan of rolling releases.

The second problem is that the install CD in PCLOS remained static. So depending on how long it's been since the LiveCD was released and when the user downloaded it, you ended up downloading a 685 MB LiveCD and then after installation, downloading another 500+ MB's of updates.

Ditto. And with that many patches coming down the pipe at one time, there's likely to be package conflicts and failed dependency errors caused by out-of-order installation, if the package repositories for the distro aren't tightly managed...



Best Regards,

Lumenary
US-OH-Newton Falls
TZ=EST/EDT

[AndyP79]

Here is a thought. Why must we have the newest Mint a month after the newest Ubuntu? I saw some posts on a possible Debian release. I really hope that it is not a rolling release. From what I gather, it sounds like a lot of work. If it must be kept with Ubuntu, how about 3 months after? For the naming, add Beta to the in-between releases and LTS to the LTS. Some extra time to play after Ubuntu is released and a naming system that will maybe market a little more along the lines of what it actually is.

[vrkalak]

I would agree with an Annual Release cycle better than following Ubuntus 6-month release cycle. Once a year would give the Devs/Mint Team more time to work out the bugs and be able to give the community a good, solid and stable distro every time.

I, myself, have been toying around with Debian (testing) and am really liking the Rolling Release cycle. It would be great if Mint would also make a rolling release such as Debian and other major and older Linux/GNU distros have. The only draw-back being that a Rolling Release would put Mint of the 'bleeding-edge' of everything, and most Linux users are not ready for that.

So, my recommendation would be for LinuxMint to switch to an annual release cycle. While still releasing several different CE and desktop environments, as they have been doing and also, release a Mint-Debian with a rolling release.

Annual Releases:
Main=Gnome
KDE CE
Xfce and Fluxbox

and a Mint-Debian (rolling release)

Boy . . . that's a lot of work!! but, they will only come out once a year and the rolling release only has to be made once ?

[waldo]

If there were a change to an annual release, it would be helpful to post two interim replacement spins (at 4 and 8 months) so new users would not be faced with several hundred updated files after an install.

[Lumenary]

Howdy...

If there were a change to an annual release, it would be helpful to post two interim replacement spins (at 4 and 8 months) so new users would not be faced with several hundred updated files after an install.

I like the idea of a yearly release - it harkens back to the earlier PCLinuxOS days, before Tex-and-Crew switched that distro to a rolling release.


I would also be in support of "interim replacement spins," as long as they don't change anything with regard to installed features, themes, etc; i.e., they really are only "pure-but-updated" remasters of the prior annual release.


One other thing which would be helpful, though, would be the inclusion of a "Mint-Approved Backports" repository so users can update to the latest kernels and hardware drivers in a controlled (and should it become necessary, revertible) fashion.



Best Regards,

Lumenary
US-OH-Newton Falls
(TZ=EST/EDT)