Most blogs wrote that no exciting new features are present.
I agree. In 6 months Ubuntu got:
- A newer kernel
- New versions of every application(OO 3 at last, it should be on Ibex repositories all along...)
- New cool notification system
- Faster boot times thanks to optimizations by Canonical and much more if you use ext4 filesystem
Windows 7 on the other hand, after 3 years of hard work, will have faster boot time and less resource consumption than Vista, which I can't say is a big accomplishment. Making it slower than Vista, now THAT WOULD BE AN ACCOMPLISHMENT!!!!!
Oh and a new theme which looks suspiciously similar to KDE 4.2...How times have changed, Windows being accused as a rip-off...
So, I guess I don't totally agree with other bloggers... Although comparing Ubuntu's or any other Operating System's changelog with Fedora's 11, the comparison is simply humiliating. (Remember that Fedora did all those stuff in just 6 months!!!It is simply phenomenal) Moreover, many of those changes could probably be pushed in Ibex repositories and not require a system upgrade.(Hello, we want open office 3 in 8.10 without the need to enable an extra repository!!)
I am starting to lean on the side for yearly upgrade cycles, instead of 6-moths. Giving the programmers/hackers/developers more time to polish their programs will give everyone higher quality products with mush less bugs. Linux has already matured so much, that going into a 6-month cycle frenzy is no longer needed. "Just works" is just so close that simply avoiding regressions will be greatly appreciated by new users that see a much more technologically advanced system in Linux anyway. Another new feature that makes it even better than Windows in no longer required, compared making a system ready to work right after (or even before!!!) the installation with no user intervention at all.
So, enough of my little rant. Download & use Ubuntu yourself and if you have a netbook, the officialy supported Ubuntu Netbook Remix is a great choice!!
2 comments:
I would think that most of the developers, except those working on distro-specific software, put out their software versions independently of any distro's release cycle. So the release cycle isn't really meant to help the software developers, right?
Isn't a longer meant to give the distro's maintainer's more time to ensure that they only include bug-free and secure versions of the software? This is certainly the case with Debian. And that's one of the reasons I like Debian, is because if I use the "stable" repos I have a lot of assurance that my entire system is going to work well, and that the code itself is well reviewed for security issues.
So I'm not as quick to be impressed by Fedora's quick release cycle. We should at least ask, how secure and dependable is Fedora 11 (relative to other distros)?
Fedora and Debian have both followed the narrow path in order to support Linux. Fedora by pushing innovation to the limits (with an occasional regression once in a while) and Debian by supporting numerous architectures and 25.000+ packages, which causes it to be constantly outdated (at least the stable branch).
For the above reasons, Fedora is ideal for desktop users who want the latest IT has to offer and Debian is ideal for servers where stability is the most important aspect. Using them the opposite way will not yield good results...
Innovating at that speed and supporting so many architectures/packages is a very hard task that someone had to do. Debian & Fedora (with Red Hat sponsorship) communities, chose to do it and that makes them special in the whole Linux ecosystem.
Post a Comment