Slashdot Mirror
OpenSUSE To Offer a Rolling Release Repository
dkd903 writes "While the rumors of Ubuntu moving to a rolling release have been brought to a halt, another major Linux distribution is looking to provide a rolling release. In a message to the opensuse-project mailing list, openSUSE developer Greg Kroah-Hartman announced a new project – openSUSE Tumbleweed. OpenSUSE Tumbleweed will provide a rolling release for those openSUSE users who wishes to have a rolling release. It will essentially be a repo containing the latest stable versions of the applications."
For those who want a Debian based distro Linux Mint Debian will be a rolling release. http://blog.linuxmint.com/?p=1527
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
What I like about rolling releases is you get to deal with application incompatabilities one at a time as they come up, rather than having to spend a week or few all at once when upgrading a distro.
I think it's also probably better for security, as you get the latest patches for the software. (I know the security patches get applied to downlevel releases as well by distributors, but that seems so cumbersome compared to following the application's software releases.)
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Support for new hardware. New features. Easier to contribute to development. Less obsolete versions of software. No need to wait months or years (or resort to compiling) to see stable released improvements on your system.
That's the advantages in it's own right, there's a load more if you start to compare it to the reality of most "stable" distributions. For example, nothing forced in to make some arbitrary freeze, things appear as they are ready.
Never underestimate the dark side of the Source
Think about the software versions. If it were windows, you could have the latest application as soon as it came out if you wanted to, it isnt tied to the distrobution. Since most people use the packages supplied by thier distro rather than rolling their own, a rolling release means that you can get the newer software while avoiding dependency hell because the package maintainers already took care of that for you.
I kept rolling along with Debian Sid for years, and even though during major changes (such as KDE 3 to 4) it can be trying, it works pretty well. And its fun to get new software on a daily basis.
Please provide reliable market share statistics, I can't find any.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
This is basically what Gentoo does. The only numbered releases they have are the annualish install discs. And if you go with the minimal install, even that doesn't draw much from the install medium, you download all the current packages.
I have to admit however that this is an issue of virtually all linux distros.
They confuse system software with user software
Ideally the system software should be fixed for a period to serve as a platform for developers, while user software would be constantly upgraded.
But alas, until this confusion is cleared you have to choose between having a stable platform or updated user software.
Rolling releases make horrible targets for 3rd party developers, specially shrink wrap software vendors.
On the other hand it is not true as you say that you don't know what release you are running or that you can't stay on that release.
When you are on a rolling distro you are effectively staying on a fixed and well know platform known as the current release . That's all you have to know when you ask for help in forums so it's not like you are lost in a limbo.
But... the future refused to change.
Yup, and in BSD land it works well. You update the system periodically, either just tracking security updates or updating to get new features, and you update third-party software independently. With FreeBSD, you have a choice of following the cutting edge branch (-CURRENT), which is not recommended for anyone except developers, the mostly-tested (-STABLE) branch, which is fine for people who want to play with new stuff, or a release branch (-RELENG) that has had some extra testing and generally only incorporates bug fixes between releases. Each port / package is flagged with the versions of the base system that it supports and can be updated individually. You never need to upgrade the kernel or core userland to get a new version of something like KDE or GNOME (unless it actually depends on a newer feature in the base system, which is very rare).
The problem for Linux distributions is that everything is a third-party package, aside from some distro-specific management tools. Most of the time, these tools are relatively unimportant - you can easily work without them. It gets even worse when you try to do back-ports, because some things like glibc and Linux are very closely tied - for example, the RHEL kernel contains a couple of back-ported system calls that don't have the their glibc wrappers, so you can only get at them by making the system call directly, rather than via the libc interface.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
any stats will be very rough estimates and completely depend on what B.S. methodology you wish to use. I took distrowatches distro popularity page, took the top 23 which included everything I care about, and normalized Ubuntu 10%
Mint 8.6
Fedora 8.6
openSUSE 6.7
Debian 6.4
Sabayon 5.1
PCLinuxOS 4.3
Arch 4.1
Ultimate 3.5
CentOS 3.5
Puppy 3.5
Mandriva 3.2
MEPIS 3.1
Red Hat 3.0
Unity 2.8
Slackware 2.8
Chakra 2.7
Macpup 2.6
Tiny Core 2.5
Pinguy 2.4
BackTrack 2.2
FreeBSD 2.2
Gentoo 2.1
should have mentioned that's hit for last month (not the 12 month column they also have), and kept the FreeBSD in there for relative comparison purposes, since I care about BSD though not that particular one.
> Support for new hardware.
Removal of old, but still used hardware.
> New features.
More unneeded and unwanted API changes.
> Easier to contribute to development.
Harder to develop own applications for a faster movin target.
> Less obsolete versions of software.
More forced upgrades, more forced training costs, less bug fixes for older, but mission critical versions.
> No need to wait months or years to see stable released improvements on your system.
No way to avoid bad "improvements".
All in all, for commercial usage and development, this makes the situation even less predicatble and manageable than it is now. The target now moves even faster.
As somebody else already said, it is crucial for the Linux ecosystem to stop bundling applications and the base systems, and to unpredictably couple application updates to system updates. This unpredictability and instability is killing Linux in the enterprise. It needs a stable, very stable base companies can develop for without fear that they'll obsolete in 5 years or having to adapt to wild unpredictable API changes every 6 months.
Linux software may be "stable" in terems of performance, but it is the exact opposite in terms of development and long term planing, and this is killing it in the industry.
Think about the software versions. If it were windows, you could have the latest application as soon as it came out if you wanted to, it isnt tied to the distrobution. Since most people use the packages supplied by thier distro rather than rolling their own, a rolling release means that you can get the newer software while avoiding dependency hell because the package maintainers already took care of that for you.
I kept rolling along with Debian Sid for years, and even though during major changes (such as KDE 3 to 4) it can be trying, it works pretty well. And its fun to get new software on a daily basis.
Microsoft achieves that by not attempting to bundle every possible 3rd party software under the sun with their OS. The core Windows software does remain stable for years, with minor changes in service packs and major changes in new releases.
This is something I wish a Linux distro would do. Not rolling the entire damned thing, just get non essential software out of the damned repo. Make a decree that essential software will be included in the base OS, and other can go into the extras bin repo for sake of convenience. Anything in the extras bin can depend only on thing included with the base OS. Install ALL base OS packages by default. Update the base OS once a year. Encourage industry wide minimum, if not exact, software revisions for "Core Linux".
BAM, I FIXED LINUX.
Ok, truth is, we already pretty much have that. Try to install git on CentOS. Your options are Windows, Mac, and Source. Oh.. RPMs hidden over there. But they have dependencies specific to Fedora. While the Windows and Mac installers just work. Git. Try EPEL. Yay, git 1.5, only two minor revisions behind! Why are binary installs so current for Windows and Mac, but not RHEL? The 1.7 source compiles just fine on Cent 5.5. But no RPM. That's just scratching the surface of the problem though. There is no attempt to maintain stable binary compatibility in Linux, and when people try (RedHat) the OSS community craps all over it (GIT, others). "minimum, if not exact, software revisions" MIGHT pass, but it's silly. Just maintain binary compatibility.
Until that happens, there will be no Linux distro with a stable core, and latest non-essentials. Personally, I vote with my wallet, some things are worth paying for, and some clearly aren't - using "free" as an excuse.
The "put _everything_ in the same repo with intertwined dependencies" kludge exists only because someone has taken a strong stance against binary stability, and most the OSS community looks up to him. If better software repositories are worth more to you than compiling crap for fun, there are options outside of Linux.
Given the situation that SUSE is in right now (being spun off of Novell, with its future in question) naming a distribution after a weed often depicted in popular media as a sign of a deserted down is not the best choice.
Why not just say "OpenSUSE/SUSE users who want the latest and greatest apps can enable the 'Factory' repository?"
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50