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
Guspaz - Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - link
"Not that it would necessarily be of much use, the last time I saw any statistics for instant messaging network usage, the vast majority of North American users were on AOL’s AIM network."IM use is highly regionalized. As such, AIM is clearly the dominant IM in the USA. However, Canada is dominated by MSN Messenger, and has been for many years (most of us migrated from ICQ to MSN around the release of Windows XP, I believe, due to the bundling of then Windows Messenger).
So, if Canada is dominated by MSN, while I can't speak for Mexico, it's misleading to claim that "the vast majority of North American users". As a Canadian, I can't think of anybody I know in person that uses AIM. They all use MSN or Google Talk without exception.
Aclough - Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - link
For myself, the thing that most bugs me when I have to go back to Windows is all the missing features from the window manager. I've come to rely on having multiple workspaces on my desktop, but I can adjust to having just one fairly easily when I'm not working on a lot of different stuff at once. What really bugs me, though, is how much more effort it takes to move or resize windows in Windows. On Linux I can press ALT and then click anywhere on the window, but with Windows I have to carefully click the title bar or the very edge of the window and that takes a noticeably longer time once you're used to doing things differently.Oh, and I find that the Linux scheduler seems to be noticeably better than the Windows one in preserving responsiveness when the system is under load.
fumacapena - Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - link
Great article!How about some benchmarks of "minimal" distros (like Puppy, Tine Core, ...)??
I like the idea of "ressurect" an old PC, but I would like to see benchmarks in Quad Cores, i7 too!
Anandtech is great, Bench(beta) is awesome!!
(sorry by bad english)
Thanks
InGraphite - Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - link
A few months ago most major trackers unbanned Transmission, but it still doesn't seem to be universally accepted on private trackers.I remember offhand (I could be wrong) that the main gripe was due to the fact it made excessive queries and thus flooded trackers with requests, or had the ability to.
chomlee - Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - link
I think you really need to mention the big picture here.I myself just tried Ubuntu for the first time 2 months ago and although I will admit that I have spent up to 8 hours trying to figure out how to install a specific program (before I found out there was a way to get the package manager to find the install), and I wanted to smash my computer at times. Now that I have learned quite a bit more, I realized that the few things I have installed worked great and flawlessly.
Anyhow back to the big picture. I can understand some of your concerns with how the OS will work with specific programs but what I have found is that most people I know use their computers for 2 things email and web browsing. Most of these people are constantly having problems with the system running too slow and cant seem to get rid of hidden viruses/malware. So I think that those people could easily be much happier with a simple OS like Ubuntu just for email and web browsing (And I would get a heck of alot of less calls from my dad asking my why his computer is running too slow). Lets also not forget that everything is moving to be browser compatible (like you mentioned).
Also, for people like myself, I use my Ubuntu system for a file server as well as a media center (XBMC is Awesome).
So, yes, for burning DVDs/CDs/Playing Games/Microsoft Office, I see no reason why you wouldn't use windows, but I think 95% of the users would be perfectly fine with ubuntu which is something that Mr Bill would not be very happy about when the public realizes this.
Keno - Thursday, August 27, 2009 - link
I think you have missed one small but important part.I am Ubuntu user since 8.04. I came to Linux because of the constant treat of viruses.
Last month I have installed 7 and it is very user friendly and I think it is very user frinedly but after Avira Antivir got crashed by virus I installed Kaspersky INternet security 2010. then it took almost twice as long to boot. Then I gladly returned to Ubuntu 9.04. Because MIcrosoft can not exist without Antivirus I think you should do some real benchmarking and test windows WITH Antivirus.
On Ubuntu I have ClamWin just in case i get some files from Windows users:)
Thanks
ioannis - Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - link
just wanted to point out that you can install software under the LiveCD. Of course it does not install on the hard drive. It remains on a ram-drive, so when you reboot, it's gone. It's still useful, if you wish to test out some package or perform some task with a tool not installed by default on the LiveCDstrikeback03 - Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - link
Even more useful (and not mentioned) is that Ubuntu can easily run off a flash drive, and more recent versions even include a GUI tool for installing it to one. Then all installs and other changes are saved from session to session, and everything runs much more quickly than the LiveCD.Mr Pearce - Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - link
It would be great if you could do more articles on compiler and especially driver performance differences. That was the most interesting part of this article.Ryan Smith - Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - link
This is what Part 2 will look at. I can compile some stuff by hand to see if it closes the Windows/Ubuntu gap, and I have plenty of video cards on hand to test what I can when it comes to graphics.