I left this as a comment on Mark Shuttleworth’s recent blog post. I am only posting it here because I was told it was removed as spam. Perhaps too long? Anyways, I hope Mark can see it now.
Mark,
I always enjoy your blog posts. This is my unifying philosophy:
1. 6 Month Cycles: These are best for getting the best of free software out quickly for immediate testing and or contributor feedback. This is the release that should be based on energizing your contributor community. I honestly don’t think the 6-month release can ever become the bedrock of mainstream use. Here you need to have the “release early, release often” mentality.
2. LTS Cycle: This is best for providing a “final” product which the mainstream world can build upon and rapidly support and promote. This release is best for users who do not care about the latest new features in Linux, just want something that works well. Here you need the “release when it’s ready” mentality. (Though I would confine yourself to a 2-3 year window so you don’t pull a Perl 6.)
I think releasing alongside Debian is a very smart move. You really would be shooting your developers in the foot by taking away a great opportunity to collaborate with Debian and share code.
Also, I’m interested in your new UI ideas, but frankly they seem to be trickling in very slowly. (Only notifications). This isn’t trying to be a criticism, it just seems this UI work takes time to do it properly and having it all rock hard stable in a year, where the majority hasn’t even started to be tested I think is a stretch.
Lastly, Gnome 3.0 may not be the best release to base an LTS on. There may be some small “KDE 4.0” effects that would be nice to have an extra 6 months to iron out. Your end users would like to have a polished Gnome 3.X version.
So, again, I like your post and applaud your idea to move the LTS back to 10.10. That is when I believe it will “be ready”.
California Quantum 