Revisiting Linux Part 1: A Look at Ubuntu 8.04
by Ryan Smith on August 26, 2009 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Linux
Ubuntu – Long Term Support
One item of particular interest with Ubuntu is their development schedule. Because a typical Linux distribution is composed of many applications from many different parties, the Ubuntu developers do not directly control or develop a lot of the software included in Ubuntu. Furthermore Ubuntu tries to be a complete desktop environment rather than just an operating system, which means it includes a wider variety of software than what’s found in Windows and Mac OS X.
What this amounts to is that Ubuntu needs to both provide future patch support for included applications, and it needs to compensate for the fact that they don’t develop many of these programs. Coupled with this is the fact that 2nd party application development is not necessarily synchronized to Ubuntu’s release schedule and some applications (and the kernel itself) can have a rather rapid development rate.
Trying to deal with all of these factors, Ubuntu has settled on two classes of releases. Every 6 months – in October and April – Ubuntu takes what’s ready and releases a new version of the OS. For 1st party material this is tied with some goal for the release (such as replacing the audio daemon) while for 3rd party software this may be as simple as grabbing the latest version. This puts regular Ubuntu versions in an unusual position when trying to classify them – it’s significantly more than a Mac OS X point update, still more than a Windows service pack, and yet a single release generally encompasses less than a new version of either OS. But at the same time, there’s no guarantee that any given release of Ubuntu won’t break software compatibility or binary driver compatibility, which puts it up there with major OS releases.
Furthermore because of the need to provide security updates for all these different programs in all of these different versions, Ubuntu has a very short support cycle, and in that cycle only bug fixes and security updates will be issued, software is not otherwise changed as it’s intended to represent a stable platform. A regular release is only supported for 1.5 years; which for example means support for 7.10 Gutsy, the immediate predecessor to 8.04 Hardy Heron, expired in April. This pushes new versions of Ubuntu back towards the idea of them being closer to a service pack or a point release. In essence, it’s intended that everyone using regular versions of Ubuntu will stick to a relatively rapid upgrade treadmill.
But this obviously doesn’t work for everyone, which results in there being two classes of Ubuntu. What we’re looking at today, 8.04, is what Ubuntu calls a long term support (LTS) release. Every 2 years a version of Ubuntu is labeled as a LTS release, which entails a much greater effort on the developer’s part to support that edition of the OS. The standard support period is 3 years instead of 1.5 years, and for the server edition of the OS that becomes 5 years.
This makes the LTS releases more comparable to Mac OS X and Windows, both of which have long support periods in excess of 3 years. This is also why we’re starting with a review of Hardy, in spite of it being over a year old now, because it’s the current LTS release. Regular short-support Ubuntu releases have their place, but they are not intended for long-term use. Coming from Windows or Mac OS X, a LTS release is the comparable equivalent.
| Operating System | Mainstream Support | Extended Support |
| Windows | 5 years | 5 additional years |
| Ubuntu | 1.5 years | None |
| Ubuntu LTS | 3 years | None |
| Mac OS X | So long as it's the newest OS | So long as it's one version behind |
Unfortunately, in spite of the LTS designation, not all of the applications in a LTS release are intended to be used for such a long period of time, or are their developers willing to support them for that length of time. If we take Firefox for example, the last Ubuntu LTS release, 6.06 Dapper, shipped with Firefox 1.5. Mozilla very quickly ended support for Firefox 1.xx after Firefox 2 shipped, and now you can’t even get support for 2.xx now that 3.xx has been out for quite some time. This leaves the Ubuntu developers in charge of supplying security updates for the older versions of Firefox they still support, which while better than the alternative (no security patches) isn’t necessarily a great solution.
The Ubuntu developers have done a good job of staying on top of the matter (they just published a new 1.5 security patch as recently as last month) but it highlights the fact that the Ubuntu developers do not always have the resources to maintain both a stable platform and the necessary security updates. So while an LTS release is supposed to be supported for 3 years, in reality not every component is going to make it that long.
Digging through the bugs list for Dapper and Hardy, I get the impression that these kinds of cracks only occur on less-used software (particularly that which is not part of the default install, such as VLC), so an option for users who need to stick with the base OS for the entire life of a LTS release, but don’t mind upgrading a few applications can go that route and cover all of their bases. Unfortunately this is easier said than done, and we’ll get to why that is when we discuss the package manager.
What this amounts to is that if you’re the kind of person that intends to run a computer and an OS for a very long period of time – say on the scale of XP, which turns 8 this year – Ubuntu likely isn’t a good fit for you.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
195 Comments
View All Comments
Telkwa - Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - link
Nobody's going to agree with the entire article. I'm just glad to see Anandtech paying some attention, and would welcome any articles, tests, reviews, etc.It's embarrassing to visit the "Linux" tab and see the latest article was posted in July of 2005...
Geraldo8022 - Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - link
This is based on Ubuntu and I installed it this past weekend. I am having certain issues with it. Yes, it is free. Overall I like it very much and am pleasantly surprised. But, this has shown that Windows 7 will be a comparative bargain to me. I do not have the time to sit in front of the computer and play with Linux; trying to find out why certain videos don't play and why I am having eye strain and clicking on an audio link that doesn't play and a few more. When I go to the Mint forums I am confronted with a Tower of Babel what with all of the acronyms, and told to go to the terminal and type $surun%(8#**#. Ok, now turn your head and cough.I'll keep Linux on this machine to boot up and play with now and then. It beats solitaire for the time being.
VooDooAddict - Friday, August 28, 2009 - link
You hit on a good point. People I've setup with dual booting linux distros and windows begin to appreciate what they are paying for with windows. Typical response is "This is cool (Ubuntu) and I can see why some people like it. But I'm going to stick with windows, it's worth the money to me."They appreciate that Linux could work, but see the "value" in paying form something familiar.
VooDooAddict - Friday, August 28, 2009 - link
I run Vista on my main PC. Vista on all the spare LAN gaming PCs. I have an Ubuntu 9.04 VM and Ubuntu Netbook Edition on my old tablet PC (small and netbook like).Locutus465 - Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - link
Just out of curiosity what user mode were you having guests run in? Even in vista I don't provide anything greater than standard user. With that guests need my password (which they don't have) to mess my machine up. Going back as far as Windows 2000, as long as you pair Windows with good spyware (spybot, or for XP defender if you choose) and antivirus (I like Avast and AVG both free and have nil footprints) you basically don't have to worry about system security as long as the person is running a standard user account.My my parents system, we went from having to wipe and reinstall windows every time I came home from college, to a rock solid system that absoultly never failed when I performed these steps. I still like the XP/2000 behaviour of simply denying access better than the current UAC implementation. But Vista 64 + UAC (active) seems to be secure enough, particularly when paired with the aformentioned anti-virus software.
Ryan Smith - Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - link
For what it's worth, it's an admin account. I know, I know, I could do Limited User. But that tends to just elicit complaints. XP's Limited User mode is embarrassing compared to how well Vista/Win7 does it.Since it's basically just a web browsing laptop anyhow, it's basically a perfect fit for Ubuntu since I wouldn't need to be concerned with Windows malware period.
leexgx - Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - link
i have to agree even XP in its standered/limited user account mode quite hard for stuff to install but not imposable (Vista and win7 with UAC on and an standered account with the admin account passworded should prevent the system from been messed up)aguilpa1 - Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - link
It seems the OS does not like core 2 duos and nvidia 9800GTX graphics, something even OSX was able to handle.samspqr - Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - link
* for me, the best possible way to install applications on any OS, but specially in one that is free (libre) is as follows: you search on the internet for the best program to meet your needs, you find it, you copy some code that identifies it, and paste that in your package manager, which then connects to some database, checks that the program is not malware, looks for the latest version, and proceeds to download and install it, not caring whether it's open source or not; this would beat windows/OSX by a wide margin, and also the current ubuntu system, whose "we don't like this software, on philosophical grounds, so it's going to be a pain in the ass for you to install it" attitude is a bit too problematic* it would be nice if the "auto" option in the installer told you what it's going to do with your hard disk before going on to do it; I never use it, out of fear it might try to do something I don't like
* I missed some comment on that section on how Photoshop CS3 costs a lot of $$$, while GIMP is free
* along these lines, the comparison of total costs in time and money of installing windows/OSX/ubuntu, with all their companion programs, is striking
samspqr - Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - link
and about openoffice:* I didn't check this ltely, but aren't there still problems with VBA compatibility? if I can open my xls/xlsm files but I can't run my macros, it's no good; I have a ton of stuff written in VBA, and I'm definitely not doing all that work again
* the ribbon UI in office 2007 is a royal pain: it's only good for the "It looks like you're writing a letter" users, and you can't get rid of it; there's a lot of people doing real work on excel, and none I talked to likes that ribbon thing, they'd all rather stay with excel 2003