• Holi
  • The Linux Norseman
  • Offline
  • From: Skara, Sweden
  • Registered: 2009-02-04
  • Posts: 76

Topic: Ubuntu LTS as base.

I've already extended my support for debian in the long thread about changing distro on which crunchbang should base it's work. This is just an idea I had that might appeal to someone. Who knows?

Why don't just base crunchbang on the LTS of ubuntu(the upcoming LTS that is... I'm hoping it'll be stable and work well for most when it comes or atleast a month after its release). Add a month to the LTS release and do a current crunchbang release then (you know when ubuntu has patched most flaws and bugs introduced in their latest release). Every point release to the LTS we wait another month and do a current with crunchbang if it feels warranted.

From my perspective the secondary releases should mainly occur to keep the cd image more current to prohibit extensive patching after an install.

Flame on and remember it's just an idea and it's entirely up to corenominal what he deems to be best for the distro smile
Also I took the liberty of refraining from mentioning pro's and con's about this model. Mostly because I deem it much to presumptuous on my account to make such claims given my own lack of experience on the matter of running/building distro's or derivatives of distro's (which ever is to your fancy when it comes to labeling them)

Last edited by Holi (2009-11-16 11:56:53)

42 - Just a viking from the north, doing his thing!
  • Digit
  • #! Die-hard
  • Offline
  • From: the internet
  • Registered: 2009-05-26
  • Posts: 703

Re: Ubuntu LTS as base.

#! from ubuntu LTS      ... +1

educate yourself so you may educate others.DeNoob&UnBloat PCs!
the only free webhosting i use.
say "NO!" to a chemical lobotomy in your food
flattr me, thnx

Digit's Website

  • From: Brisbane, Aus
  • Registered: 2009-08-14
  • Posts: 13

Re: Ubuntu LTS as base.

Certainly feasible, lots of positives as mentioned.

Only problem, I really enjoy the newest packages, LTS is over a year old now. It will be interesting to see what yields.

Poll anyone?

Member of the Danger Mice Folding@Home Team

Keplerspeed's Website

  • Registered: 2008-11-24
  • Posts: 2,087

Re: Ubuntu LTS as base.

Hi Holi, I assume you are personally using CrunchBang 8.04 (the current LTS) since you are suggesting this idea? I held out with 8.04 as long as I could (until about a month or two ago) but 9.04 runs faster and has better support for my hardware. I'd be curious to see the poll results (but I would guess that more than half of us are using 8.10 or newer).

  • benj1
  • Wiki Wizard
  • Offline
  • From: Yorkshire, England
  • Registered: 2009-09-05
  • Posts: 1,084

Re: Ubuntu LTS as base.

sounds interesting, perhaps certain packages could be updated in the #! repos, so theres the possibilty of a stable base with up to date front end packages, although if you were to do that, it would be easier to go with debian rather than maintaining an extra repo.

- - - - - - - - Wiki Pages - - - - - - -
#! install guide           *autostart programs, modify the menu & keybindings
configuring Conky       *installing scripts
  • Digit
  • #! Die-hard
  • Offline
  • From: the internet
  • Registered: 2009-05-26
  • Posts: 703

Re: Ubuntu LTS as base.

rolling back would probably give me severe headaches.  i'm looking forward to the next LTS release.   not long to go now right?

educate yourself so you may educate others.DeNoob&UnBloat PCs!
the only free webhosting i use.
say "NO!" to a chemical lobotomy in your food
flattr me, thnx

Digit's Website

  • From: Brisbane, Aus
  • Registered: 2009-08-14
  • Posts: 13

Re: Ubuntu LTS as base.

Thats why I would vote for a debian base. You could effectively have a rolling system with testing repo.

Member of the Danger Mice Folding@Home Team

Keplerspeed's Website

  • Registered: 2008-12-13
  • Posts: 269

Re: Ubuntu LTS as base.

^^ or you could choose to update when it's frozen, effectively getting an LTS..

  • From: Sweden
  • Registered: 2009-05-29
  • Posts: 35

Re: Ubuntu LTS as base.

LTS #! sounds appealing, I think it would make things easier for devs.

I like #! alot, but I seem to be addicted to the "latest and greatest" and LTS might not be for me because I lack the skills to modify linux to my liking, Iḿ dependent on other ppl making updated distros for me (tnx tnx tnx!!) Thats why I liked the idea of rolling releases. The question is of course is wich path suits the most ppl. big_smile

A  poll about #! future base distro might be a good idea, even tough its, of course, up to the devs.

Good idea, Holi!

  • Holi
  • The Linux Norseman
  • Offline
  • From: Skara, Sweden
  • Registered: 2009-02-04
  • Posts: 76

Re: Ubuntu LTS as base.

I'm currently using #! 9.04 actually smile
I was actually thinking far ahead and not looking back since the next ubuntu release to come in april is the next LTS release. Personally I'm fine with using 9.04 until then tbh but there are always lots of people interested in the latest and (presumably) greatest.

My objective with this thread was to voice another idea that seemingly had been lost in the other threads regarding #!'s future. Might be because it's not a very good one but at least I see some interest in going this route smile

I expect Phil to make all the decisions when he deems any idea/project fruitful enough to use as base for #! weather it's when 9.10 is stable enough, he's used debian long enough to form an opinion or any other thing that's been suggested smile

42 - Just a viking from the north, doing his thing!
  • From: Russia
  • Registered: 2009-11-29
  • Posts: 78

Re: Ubuntu LTS as base.

#! works perfect, i don't think its necessary. Maybe it could be alternative edition, but not a replacement?

…the Linux philosophy is «laugh in the face of danger». Oops. Wrong one. «Do it yourself». That’s it.
Linus Torwalds
  • From: Mexicali, Mexico
  • Registered: 2009-07-09
  • Posts: 179

Re: Ubuntu LTS as base.

maybe one crunchbang per year...

Statler: Are you running Mac or PC?

Waldorf: After that... I'm running away!

AlexMex90's Website

  • From: California, USA
  • Registered: 2008-11-29
  • Posts: 8,647

Re: Ubuntu LTS as base.

Lets flip a coin, heads for April releases x.04 and tails for October releases x.10

Note: ** Please read before posting **

BTW if you wish to contact me, send me an e-mail instead of a PM.
  • From: Mexicali, Mexico
  • Registered: 2009-07-09
  • Posts: 179

Re: Ubuntu LTS as base.

heads heads heads!!! (i have had better experiences with .04 releases) big_smile

Statler: Are you running Mac or PC?

Waldorf: After that... I'm running away!

AlexMex90's Website

  • Registered: 2009-09-13
  • Posts: 61

Re: Ubuntu LTS as base.

how about based on sidux?

  • Registered: 2008-11-24
  • Posts: 2,087

Re: Ubuntu LTS as base.

minimalist comrade wrote:

how about based on sidux?

That would be the opposite of LTS. smile

Seriously though... if Philip was into it, he would be the perfect choice to join the sidux team and develop an openbox release. However, having spent time on both forums, I do not think #! and sidux would be a good fit... the projects have very different personalities. #! needs to keep its individualism no matter which distro it's based on.

Anyway, I challenge all you pro-LTS'ers to use 8.04 as your only OS until April, then tell me you still think it's a good idea... most desktop users are going to want 6 month (or more frequent) updates.

  • Registered: 2009-09-13
  • Posts: 61

Re: Ubuntu LTS as base.

#! needs to keep its individualism no matter which distro it's based on.

I guess that would be a crunchbang-desktop or crunchbang desktop environment.
I'm all for it.
i find myself turn what ever distro i try on become crunchbang like.

about LTS base, no distro will be atractive in that. CB will lose users for sure.

  • From: Randorm 404
  • Registered: 2009-02-13
  • Posts: 1,754

Re: Ubuntu LTS as base.

Whether we like it or not, this 6 month cycle is as addictive as #! itself!

#!, all else is but a shadow!
  • Registered: 2009-09-13
  • Posts: 61

Re: Ubuntu LTS as base.

vicshrike wrote:

Whether we like it or not, this 6 month cycle is as addictive as #! itself!

sorry i hate it.

  • Digit
  • #! Die-hard
  • Offline
  • From: the internet
  • Registered: 2009-05-26
  • Posts: 703

Re: Ubuntu LTS as base.

"I challenge all you pro-LTS'ers to use 8.04 as your only OS until April"

challenge declined.  wink

"i find myself turn what ever distro i try on become crunchbang like."

i'm getting like that too.   just cant stand having to click through menus when i have 108 keys that could be put to good use.  crunchbang is responsible.  smile   n i like it. smile

educate yourself so you may educate others.DeNoob&UnBloat PCs!
the only free webhosting i use.
say "NO!" to a chemical lobotomy in your food
flattr me, thnx

Digit's Website

  • Bruce
  • #! CrunchBanger
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2009-05-29
  • Posts: 242

Re: Ubuntu LTS as base.

This is a problem that Windows doesn't have, people get the new version of Windows when MS is ready.

#! is based on Ubuntu that is based on Debian, cut out the middle man and go for the Debian rolling release.  My opinion.

Ubuntu makes changes to the Debian DEB files to make them Ubuntu, and, my opinion, I believe Ubuntu has more problems than Debian.

"I challenge all you pro-LTS'ers to use 8.04 as your only OS until April"

That's not really fair, people have already "tasted" later releases, but to someone who is still using 8.04 it isn't a problem.

The idea of an LTS release is a good one, it would mean a little more stability for #!.  However I think users would drift away unless #! has what Ubuntu has, a 6 month cycle AND an LTS version.  If #! had "started" from conception as a LTS Distro, this would not be an issue.

Interesting reading, what Holi didn't point out (if anything, read #1, short and to the point):

1. Linux Distros: Rolling-Release System or Version System?
2. The pros and cons of a rolling release
3. The Disaster of the Rolling Release
4. Is Ubuntu's release cycle its downfall?

Oh and I couldn't program my way out of a wet paper bag if my life depended on it, so I rely of others for that.  Personally I think cornominal has done a great job with #! and will more then likely be here for the next few releases, what ever he decides.  smile

OK, that's my thoughts.
Bruce

Last edited by Bruce (2009-12-15 04:18:27)

  • Registered: 2008-11-24
  • Posts: 2,087

Re: Ubuntu LTS as base.

Over the weekend, I tried upgrading a virtualbox install of #! 8.04 LTS directly to 10.04 LTS.

Unfortunately, 'do-release-upgrade -d' upgraded me to 9.10 instead (!!).

Once upgraded, I ran into the Karmic GDM problem that's been reported in several threads, plus pypanel doesn't seem to be in the 9.10 repo.

So I can report that, at this juncture (alpha 1), CrunchBang LTS does NOT provide a clean upgrade path to the next LTS.

Bruce, I prefer a rolling release too (typing this from Arch) but as far as Debian Testing as a base for CrunchBang, there are pros and cons (as I've shared my thoughts on the other thread).

  • Bruce
  • #! CrunchBanger
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2009-05-29
  • Posts: 242

Re: Ubuntu LTS as base.

snowpine wrote:

Over the weekend, I tried upgrading a virtualbox install of #! 8.04 LTS directly to 10.04 LTS.

Unfortunately, 'do-release-upgrade -d' upgraded me to 9.10 instead (!!).

Understandable, it's an alpha release after all.

snowpine wrote:

Once upgraded, I ran into the Karmic GDM problem that's been reported in several threads, plus pypanel doesn't seem to be in the 9.10 repo.

That's the reason I never upgraded to KK and came to #! as well.  Although there are some that say KK is rock solid, lean and fast.  Go figure.  Equipment, plays a BIG role here!

snowpine wrote:

Bruce, I prefer a rolling release too (typing this from Arch) but as far as Debian Testing as a base for CrunchBang, there are pros and cons (as I've shared my thoughts on the other thread).

The pro/con debate for rolling release/fixed time release debate has been going on for a while and not limited to #!.   Generally, it boils down to "personal preference" and whatever sways you which ever way is what is what one does.

It may not be the best choice but it's the one made and we learn to live with our choices.

I can well understand a server wanting an LTS release and probably with a 6 month waiting time after the release to make sure the bugs are ironed out.

I also see the need for some to have the bleeding edge stuff.  Development has to have a hand in there somewhere.   Few home users need the bleeding edge, a lot want it and get it.

I am really in the middle, I say I'd like a rolling release ... but that's not entirely true.

It's just that the other option, one that can be invoked by choice, as it already exists, people never talk about.

Upgrade a system every second or every third release.  Simple and easy.  Or wait until LL comes out to upgrade to KK with 6 months of bug fixes it's gotta be more solid.  This way you are always one release behind and it has another year of support.  Also if you see that KK still isn't good (like the Win ME for Ubuntu) wait for the next release.  9.04 will still have 6 months of support and you can watch the new LL release.

I'd have no complaint at all if Cornominal decided that as of right now #!'s next release will be: either 10.10 or 11.04 - the latter being half of an LTS version time frame, a lot more often than Windows and no reason why a #! released can be "scheduled" to a month or so after an Ubu  release.  So 11.04.01 shows the Ubuntu release that #! is based on and the .01 shows that the #! release date was actually in May or June.

See, playing a devils advocate is interesting, because like everything else in life, choices should be made with some sort "thought" behind it.  Not always possible but an advantage if available.  Too many times I've charged into a china shop only to find out it was really a bull fighting ring.  Age cured that - well, almost.  smile

Have a nice day.
Bruce

Last edited by Bruce (2009-12-15 15:03:47)