On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 4:13 PM, Priyanka Sarkar efyedit6@efyindia.comwrote:

'With many distros going for a six-monthly release cycle, do you think the release cycles of distros are too short? (And users don't have to upgrade on a frequent basis?) ' What do you think on this? Would really appreciate if you share your views elaborately.

I use FOSS primarily for personal computing.

I like "6 month / LTS" (fixed release cycles)

I am a faithful Ubuntu user, shifted to Linux mint with release of "unity". Linux Mint leaf was a gateway introducing me to rolling releases LMDE and in turn Debian testing.

I think rolling ones are for continuous testing and development and not for daily Personal computing.

I'm back to Ubuntu using unity and posting bugs if I encounter any.

What I experienced was that the Fixed Release Distros had all new FOSS developments well polished and integrated into a distro. Most of the time, the 6 month releases also get upgraded with click of a button. There are Menus guiding you for the additions to software and repos you did. Every 6 month I get upgrades without losing any data or taking any backups. I'm happy with fixed release cycle of 6 months and LTS system of ubuntu.

I have a small server for openerp on that I use Ubuntu LTS.

I also have few personal computers in rural area where I installed LTS in the hope to upgrade them after 2 years, anyway these are the computers who got second life with help of FOSS, I was not expecting anything from these computers, not even 2 years.

Revant

On 19 September 2013 16:13, Priyanka Sarkar efyedit6@efyindia.com wrote:

Dear All,

We thought of coming up a good story on the distro release time span. Our question is 'With many distros going for a six-monthly release cycle, do you think the release cycles of distros are too short? (And users don't have to upgrade on a frequent basis?) '

What do you think on this? Would really appreciate if you share your views elaborately.

Regards,

Priyanka

http://mm.ilug-bom.org.in/**mailman/listinfo/linuxershttp://mm.ilug-bom.org.in/mailman/listinfo/linuxers

Dear Priyanka,

I am a fedora user here, been on it right from the start, and i seem to have settled in nicely to the 6 monthly cycle.

I typically have my laptop on even versions, and my desktop on odd versions, so i effectively upgrade each system once a year, expcept for a short time when i buy a new laptop. So i effectively have been following a yearly release cycle and have been on this pattern for almost 8 years now.

However, i see this changing soon. At least with fedora, they are making it simpler to upgrade and stay current, especially with the new 'fedup' based upgrade process. Earlier, for a clean upgrade, we had to first upgrade with the DVD, then re-configure all third party repositories, then update all packages to the latest versions, which easily became a day long activity on my then tiny 2 MBPS connection. My last 2 upgrades with fedup have meant that i downloaded the latest copy of exactly what packages i have installed, rather than the older or non-installed packages that just happen to be included on the dvd and then again getting the latest version from online repos. It also takes care of my rpmfusion and google repos, so my upgrade is a one shot activity of a few hours only on my now 40 mbps link. So now, both my desktop and laptop are on 19, and will upgrade to 20 when it comes out.

In the end, with easy package management, and an army of dedicated package maintainers updating popular packages to the latest version in most distros, the release cycle isnt as critical as it used to be, IMHO. As long as i get the latest versions and bugfix/backports of all my packages, i dont really mind being 1-2 releases behind the cutting edge. But if the upgrade is painless and smooth, why not be at the latest version?(unless i'm too lazy...:D)

Hope this perspective helps. Do feel free to buzz me for any further inputs.

Regards R. K. Rajeev