Comments on: Ubuntu is old, most of the time http://djst.org/blog/2010/02/19/ubuntu-is-old-most-of-the-time/ David Tenser's brand new microblog Wed, 18 Jan 2012 23:32:01 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Someone Else http://djst.org/blog/2010/02/19/ubuntu-is-old-most-of-the-time/comment-page-1/#comment-55082 Someone Else Mon, 22 Feb 2010 12:29:44 +0000 http://djst.org/blog/?p=584#comment-55082 I personally wish the Ubuntu release schedule was a little less aggressive, and that they would take the time, once in a while, to polish a release. As I am so passionate about computing, I would probably get impatient and install the latest Firefox on my own, but most computer users aren't even going to be aware of a new Firefox release. As long as Ubuntu provides security updates to its current Firefox release, the it doesn't really matter much to most users. Waiting six months for the latest, cutting-edge, Firefox features isn't even going to phase most users. I have installed Ubuntu on a couple friends' computers, and they have "complained" that the updates pop-up so frequently. I am happy they are using relatively secure computers, when so many people out there never update their Windows installations, virus software, and are still using Internet Explorer 6. I personally wish the Ubuntu release schedule was a little less aggressive, and that they would take the time, once in a while, to polish a release.

As I am so passionate about computing, I would probably get impatient and install the latest Firefox on my own, but most computer users aren’t even going to be aware of a new Firefox release.

As long as Ubuntu provides security updates to its current Firefox release, the it doesn’t really matter much to most users. Waiting six months for the latest, cutting-edge, Firefox features isn’t even going to phase most users.

I have installed Ubuntu on a couple friends’ computers, and they have “complained” that the updates pop-up so frequently. I am happy they are using relatively secure computers, when so many people out there never update their Windows installations, virus software, and are still using Internet Explorer 6.

]]> By: dominik http://djst.org/blog/2010/02/19/ubuntu-is-old-most-of-the-time/comment-page-1/#comment-55076 dominik Mon, 22 Feb 2010 09:16:38 +0000 http://djst.org/blog/?p=584#comment-55076 I am using Ubuntu and openSUSE: While their policies regarding updating software like Firefox and OpenOffice are quite the same, I find it easier or rather more convenient to keep them updated to the latest stable version on openSUSE, because there exist official (but formally unsupported) repositories for the latest stable releases of these packages. While there is somewhat a similar possibility on Ubuntu (ppas), it seems to me less polished and causing more issues than the openSUSE counterpart. I am using Ubuntu and openSUSE: While their policies regarding updating software like Firefox and OpenOffice are quite the same, I find it easier or rather more convenient to keep them updated to the latest stable version on openSUSE, because there exist official (but formally unsupported) repositories for the latest stable releases of these packages. While there is somewhat a similar possibility on Ubuntu (ppas), it seems to me less polished and causing more issues than the openSUSE counterpart.

]]> By: Thomas http://djst.org/blog/2010/02/19/ubuntu-is-old-most-of-the-time/comment-page-1/#comment-55018 Thomas Fri, 19 Feb 2010 16:37:45 +0000 http://djst.org/blog/?p=584#comment-55018 But where should Canonical draw the line? Why should Firefox and OOo be preferred? Only because of the big user base especially in the proprietary world? This arouses envy. I'm using Ubuntu 9.04 (with Firefox 3.0.x!) and I've installed the newer version in my home directory. I can live with that, except that's not so easy to install a newer version of OOo beside the version of the distro. Firefox 3.6 was released at the end of January, OOo 3.2 at the beginning of February. Ubuntu 10.04 will be released at the end of April. That's 3 months. For normal users it's irrelevant to wait 3 months for the update. But we are not normal users. ;-) But where should Canonical draw the line? Why should Firefox and OOo be preferred? Only because of the big user base especially in the proprietary world? This arouses envy.

I’m using Ubuntu 9.04 (with Firefox 3.0.x!) and I’ve installed the newer version in my home directory. I can live with that, except that’s not so easy to install a newer version of OOo beside the version of the distro.

Firefox 3.6 was released at the end of January, OOo 3.2 at the beginning of February. Ubuntu 10.04 will be released at the end of April. That’s 3 months. For normal users it’s irrelevant to wait 3 months for the update. But we are not normal users. ;-)

]]> By: David Tenser http://djst.org/blog/2010/02/19/ubuntu-is-old-most-of-the-time/comment-page-1/#comment-55016 David Tenser Fri, 19 Feb 2010 15:11:07 +0000 http://djst.org/blog/?p=584#comment-55016 Neil T: I don't think it's about a lack of control, though -- it's more a lack of convenience. As I said, it's perfectly possible (and frankly not that hard) to install your own version of Firefox, OpenOffice.org, and Thunderbird. The only problem is that you end up with two installations of Firefox, and you need to do some things on your own, such as adding shortcuts to your local installations yourself (they don't end up in the Program menu automatically for example). In my opinion it's not a reason to switch to a proprietary OS -- it's just an annoyance, and frankly something that would be fairly straightforward for Canonical/Ubuntu to fix. Neil T: I don’t think it’s about a lack of control, though — it’s more a lack of convenience. As I said, it’s perfectly possible (and frankly not that hard) to install your own version of Firefox, OpenOffice.org, and Thunderbird. The only problem is that you end up with two installations of Firefox, and you need to do some things on your own, such as adding shortcuts to your local installations yourself (they don’t end up in the Program menu automatically for example).

In my opinion it’s not a reason to switch to a proprietary OS — it’s just an annoyance, and frankly something that would be fairly straightforward for Canonical/Ubuntu to fix.

]]> By: Neil T. http://djst.org/blog/2010/02/19/ubuntu-is-old-most-of-the-time/comment-page-1/#comment-55012 Neil T. Fri, 19 Feb 2010 13:11:07 +0000 http://djst.org/blog/?p=584#comment-55012 I think Asa Dotzler touched on this some time ago. It's a shame that software vendors like Mozilla and OpenOffice.org are essentially taken out of the picture on Linux - while Mac and Windows users can download and install the latest version themselves, Linux users have to rely on their distro vendor to issue an update. While Ubuntu et al are usually good at providing minor updates to their users quite quickly, updates from say Firefox 3.5.x to 3.6.x are usually held back to an operating system update. This is one of the main reasons why I use OS X and Windows as my main operating systems and not Linux. I don't feel like I have as much control over my system as a Linux user. I think Asa Dotzler touched on this some time ago. It’s a shame that software vendors like Mozilla and OpenOffice.org are essentially taken out of the picture on Linux – while Mac and Windows users can download and install the latest version themselves, Linux users have to rely on their distro vendor to issue an update. While Ubuntu et al are usually good at providing minor updates to their users quite quickly, updates from say Firefox 3.5.x to 3.6.x are usually held back to an operating system update.

This is one of the main reasons why I use OS X and Windows as my main operating systems and not Linux. I don’t feel like I have as much control over my system as a Linux user.

]]> By: Topher http://djst.org/blog/2010/02/19/ubuntu-is-old-most-of-the-time/comment-page-1/#comment-55011 Topher Fri, 19 Feb 2010 12:20:03 +0000 http://djst.org/blog/?p=584#comment-55011 For Firefox in Ubuntu, I quit using the one that comes with the distro and just grabbed my own copy. Then it'll do its automatic updates on its own. This stale software issue is the primary reason I left Ubuntu. I went to Arch, which has a more complex install (which I found fun) but once it's done the day to day maintenance is *exactly* like Ubuntu. Except you get new stuff when it comes out. Pidgin 2.6.6 came out yesterday, and I already have it from my distro. Others you may want to try are Sidux and Slax. Arch is my favorite though, the docs are fantastic. For Firefox in Ubuntu, I quit using the one that comes with the distro and just grabbed my own copy. Then it’ll do its automatic updates on its own.

This stale software issue is the primary reason I left Ubuntu. I went to Arch, which has a more complex install (which I found fun) but once it’s done the day to day maintenance is *exactly* like Ubuntu. Except you get new stuff when it comes out. Pidgin 2.6.6 came out yesterday, and I already have it from my distro.

Others you may want to try are Sidux and Slax. Arch is my favorite though, the docs are fantastic.

]]> By: David Naylor http://djst.org/blog/2010/02/19/ubuntu-is-old-most-of-the-time/comment-page-1/#comment-55009 David Naylor Fri, 19 Feb 2010 10:52:24 +0000 http://djst.org/blog/?p=584#comment-55009 Ok. Well you are right, you shouldn't have to wait for the next Ubuntu release to get a software update. Ok. Well you are right, you shouldn’t have to wait for the next Ubuntu release to get a software update.

]]> By: David Tenser http://djst.org/blog/2010/02/19/ubuntu-is-old-most-of-the-time/comment-page-1/#comment-55008 David Tenser Fri, 19 Feb 2010 10:39:34 +0000 http://djst.org/blog/?p=584#comment-55008 No, that's the thing: Ubuntu disables that functionality. To be fair, having applications self-upgrade isn't something that is typical in Linux since apps are installed at a location that isn't writable by the user. The system then handles software updates on its own. You can of course make the Firefox application folder user-writable, and then it will be possible for it to auto-upgrade again. No, that’s the thing: Ubuntu disables that functionality. To be fair, having applications self-upgrade isn’t something that is typical in Linux since apps are installed at a location that isn’t writable by the user. The system then handles software updates on its own.

You can of course make the Firefox application folder user-writable, and then it will be possible for it to auto-upgrade again.

]]> By: David Naylor http://djst.org/blog/2010/02/19/ubuntu-is-old-most-of-the-time/comment-page-1/#comment-55007 David Naylor Fri, 19 Feb 2010 10:06:53 +0000 http://djst.org/blog/?p=584#comment-55007 Hmm ... Doesn't Firefox's automatic update do the trick in Linux? Hmm … Doesn’t Firefox’s automatic update do the trick in Linux?

]]>