NotebookForums.com › Forums › General Notebook Discussions › Linux & Other OS's › general rant about release cycles
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

general rant about release cycles

post #1 of 19
9/22/07 at 3:01pm
Thread Starter 
We must first look at MS Windows (home user versions) release:
Win 95 -- August 1995
Win 98 -- June 1998
WinME -- July 2000
WinXP -- October 2001
Vista -- Jan 2007

notice the gaps... 3 yrs, 2 yrs, a little over 1 yr, 6yrs. Vienna is scheduled for sometime in 2010...so back to the 3yr cycle i suppose. We can perhaps consider 98 + ME as one version (thus a total of 3 yrs between 98 and XP release) since basically ME was a bad fail. So lets just say 3yr seems to be the average MS cycle.


Ubuntu: Gnome is released on a regular 6 month cycle. Ubuntu was originally scheduled to come out about a month after the new gnome release so that the latest gnome can always be included...every 6 months. On version 6.06 (which was supposed to be 6.04) there was a 2 month delay...but the team made up for it by making 6.10 on a 4 month cycle. so now they are back to their 6 month, just behind gnome, cycle

Suse: not as strict about 6 month as ubuntu but generally speaking every 6 to 8 months a new version is out.

Fedora: much like suse, just about every 6 to 8 months there is a new release

Sabayon: New release every other week


anyway, my point here is that Ubuntu makes big progress every other release, aka the "first release new features" and then "next release bug fixes and offer long term support" ... therefore very other release we get some new cool features...which comes out to 1 year. Microsoft on the other hand gives us minor tweaks and updates every or so in form of Service Packs or massive patches, bigger but still minor upgrades (changes in version) every 3 years, and major steps forward once in a decade.

question: Why/How can linux distros be more progressive in terms of new releases (with big changes, not just bug fixes) and give us something new to play around with every year while MS takes so freaken long to do anything?
Reply
Reply
post #2 of 19
9/22/07 at 3:44pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by abf View Post
question: Why/How can linux distros be more progressive in terms of new releases (with big changes, not just bug fixes) and give us something new to play around with every year while MS takes so freaken long to do anything?
that's easy. It's because MS has a small army of paid programmers who are tasked with doing nothing but coming up with cool new stuff and making it happen. While *nix is saddled with a disorganized group of hobbiest wannabe's scattered around the world. ....no, it must be because MS is so busy making sure that their code is bullet proof, and that security is nop notch. they don't have time to get releases out more often than once every 3 years. oh, wait. I might be getting reality confused with all those pro-MS/anti-*nix adds I keep seeing on the net. Could it be because they think they have a strangle-hold on the OS market, and they don't really give a shit if the product they release is on time or worth putting on your machine?
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 19
9/22/07 at 5:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by drlouis View Post
that's easy. It's because MS has a small army of paid programmers who are tasked with doing nothing but coming up with cool new stuff and making it happen. While *nix is saddled with a disorganized group of hobbiest wannabe's scattered around the world.

....no, it must be because MS is so busy making sure that their code is bullet proof, and that security is nop notch. they don't have time to get releases out more often than once every 3 years.

oh, wait. I might be getting reality confused with all those pro-MS/anti-*nix adds I keep seeing on the net. Could it be because they think they have a strangle-hold on the OS market, and they don't really give a shit if the product they release is on time or worth putting on your machine?

Amusing of course, but any company that actually thought like that would be out of business pretty quick, and while many signs point to Microsoft losing business, I don't think they're anywhere close to closing up shop and going home. In my opinion, the main reason MS releases are delayed is due to the one thing they have to do that Linux distributors and Apple don't have to do when developing their operating systems: politics.

I don't think it's reasonable to think that Microsoft's programmers work any more slowly than Apple's, Ubuntu's, SuSe's, etc. However, MS is trying to play nice with the RIAA, paranoid software developers, and hardware manufacturers who want to control the amount of information that the general public can access about their equipment. All of this takes a lot of time and money, and after they're done, it takes even more time and money to incorporate the additional "features" in their operating systems that are demanded by these companies and organizations.

Apple doesn't have to worry about hardware or software manufacturers because they only have to design their operating system for a few models and they make a good deal of their own software. They can't have more than 30 different configurations of equipment that they need to worry about at a time. And Linux distributions don't care about making software to protect the RIAA and similar organizations. They just put out the best system they can.

So in my opinion, it's the politics and subsequent concessions that slow down Microsoft's release schedule.
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 19
9/22/07 at 6:08pm
I am some where in between Doc and DJ. I think M$ doesn't care overall about what the people want but they do try and put out a quality product. But when the entire world is against you and your product no matter what you put out your gonna get shafted. But with there crap business practices its no wonder people slam our products.
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 19
9/23/07 at 2:15am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Djembe View Post
Amusing of course, but any company that actually thought like that would be out of business pretty quick, and while many signs point to Microsoft losing business, I don't think they're anywhere close to closing up shop and going home. In my opinion, the main reason MS releases are delayed is due to the one thing they have to do that Linux distributors and Apple don't have to do when developing their operating systems: politics. I don't think it's reasonable to think that Microsoft's programmers work any more slowly than Apple's, Ubuntu's, SuSe's, etc. However, MS is trying to play nice with the RIAA, paranoid software developers, and hardware manufacturers who want to control the amount of information that the general public can access about their equipment. All of this takes a lot of time and money, and after they're done, it takes even more time and money to incorporate the additional "features" in their operating systems that are demanded by these companies and organizations. Apple doesn't have to worry about hardware or software manufacturers because they only have to design their operating system for a few models and they make a good deal of their own software. They can't have more than 30 different configurations of equipment that they need to worry about at a time. And Linux distributions don't care about making software to protect the RIAA and similar organizations. They just put out the best system they can. So in my opinion, it's the politics and subsequent concessions that slow down Microsoft's release schedule.
In all seriousness, I think you pretty much nailed it. I DO think, however, that they don't really think they have any competition, and can get away with a shoddy product and long release schedules. I think the single biggest reason it takes so long is all the effort they go to to protect their "intellectual property" [sic] and that of others.
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 19
9/23/07 at 3:22am
Quote:
Originally Posted by drlouis View Post
In all seriousness, I think you pretty much nailed it. I DO think, however, that they don't really think they have any competition, and can get away with a shoddy product and long release schedules. I think the single biggest reason it takes so long is all the effort they go to to protect their "intellectual property" [sic] and that of others.
agreed. I wonder what would happen if Microsoft changed their business model and stopped trying so hard to protect everyone else's rights for them. I don't have a problem with them wanting to control their own source code, etc., but it seems to me that they could be a lot more effective (i.e. faster releases cycles, more stable software, at lower costs while maintaining the same profitability) if they let the other companies & organizations handle their own security. There's no reason why the security deficiencies of other companies need to be solved by Microsoft- it's not their job or place, and if I may say so, they're not all that good at it, especially in comparison to companies that specialize in security. But since they've made the mistake (in my opinion) of taking on that responsibility themselves, it's going to be that much harder for them if at some time they decide it's too much for them to handle. When that time comes, they may find that their catering to companies who won't handle their own security has alienated the rest of their user base and tarnished their reputation.
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 19
9/23/07 at 9:19pm
Business's have alot to do with it. If your a business you do not want to have to constantly update/change OS's every 6 months, it would just cost way too much. Plus windows is the dominant os, therefore you can determine when you release it. From what i've seen from linux, they are just adding software that windows or other os's already have. I think linux needs to update that often to make it better than windows. once linux becomes as easy as windows, i bet you will see that change, until then, expect the same ol release dates.
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 19
9/24/07 at 11:46am
In as far as linux adding software other OSes have, yes that is true on the end-user software front. Of course when it comes to the OS side of things it is completely false.

In as far as updating every 6 months for businesses... Most that run Linux don't update very often if at all. The truth is, if it works, don't fix it, and many web hosters and such follow that explicitly in example, which is WHY they can use Linux. With Linux, unlike MS or Apple, just because there IS an update doe snot necessarily mean you HAVE to update(MS especially ceases with the security updates at a certain point). There are a few exceptions, but in general this holds true and is something few people realise about Linux getting into it.

In the past several years, the majority of work on my Linux box(es) once I get it(them) set up, is update software. Unless something comes out that will benefit me in some way I tend to not bother with it. So for example my workstation hasn't been updated in at least a year, probably closer to two. All I do is update the end software, so Jack, Ardour, e17, etc. Those will directly benefit me, everything else I dono't care about as much.

And Linux will never go to slow release dates IMO. What you are thinking of is Linux Distributions, that have release dates seperate from the OS, software, or whatever. They are what you are referring to when you are saying "Linux becomes as easy as windows" to be honest. Not the OS.

Seablade
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 19
10/1/07 at 1:03am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Djembe View Post
agreed. I wonder what would happen if Microsoft changed their business model and stopped trying so hard to protect everyone else's rights for them. I don't have a problem with them wanting to control their own source code, etc., but it seems to me that they could be a lot more effective (i.e. faster releases cycles, more stable software, at lower costs while maintaining the same profitability) if they let the other companies & organizations handle their own security. There's no reason why the security deficiencies of other companies need to be solved by Microsoft- it's not their job or place, and if I may say so, they're not all that good at it, especially in comparison to companies that specialize in security. But since they've made the mistake (in my opinion) of taking on that responsibility themselves, it's going to be that much harder for them if at some time they decide it's too much for them to handle. When that time comes, they may find that their catering to companies who won't handle their own security has alienated the rest of their user base and tarnished their reputation.
I believe they do that because any bugged program that affects the undergrounds of the Windows system appears, to the majority or the end users and part of the unspecialized media, as a defect on the OS itself, thus rendering Windows as "buggy", "BSODer" etc. etc. etc. Sometimes if they wait for this or that company to fix their problem, the image of Windows will be already affected. Nobody live with Windows alone. If the whole "workstation" doesn't work fine, the first and main show of that problematic parade is Windows. Making the "Windows world" appear safer, even when it's not a fault of MS, is good for MS (no surprise they do that). This is not related only to Windows as a software, IMO. Perhaps it may even have dirty connections with favors that other companies (softw and hardw developers) do to MS ("develop only for me"), who knows? "One hand cleans the other" (not sure what quote you use in your country)...
Reply
Reply
post #10 of 19
10/1/07 at 9:54am
Quote:
Originally Posted by DDDa View Post
I believe they do that because any bugged program that affects the undergrounds of the Windows system appears, to the majority or the end users and part of the unspecialized media, as a defect on the OS itself, thus rendering Windows as "buggy", "BSODer" etc. etc. etc. Sometimes if they wait for this or that company to fix their problem, the image of Windows will be already affected.

While to some extent that is true, also keep in mind BSODs tend to be driver related, not software related. Lockups tend to be software related, but a userspace software should NEVER lock up the entire computer. THAT is why MS is seen as buggy many times.

Of course on the flip side of this, other OSes seem to not have NEARLY as much problem with this to be honest. Of course Linux tends to use open source drivers and not so much manufacturer provided ones so they tend to stay a bit more stable as people fix em when they screw up. The closed source manufacturer provided ones the Kernel Devs will refuse to support, for good reason.

And yes MS has used, and continues to use, a few "questionable" tricks to get people to develop for it and support it. See the recent debacle for them trying to get OOXML fasttracked by promising tons of MS software and support to countries that would support it.

Seablade
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 19
10/1/07 at 3:55pm
The main reason for the slower release cycle is that businesses dislike change, it takes time to physically install the new OS on the workstations, and for staff to adjust to the new system. This and the cost odf the upgrade, is why for example at my old school some of the computers still run win 98.
Ubuntu updates every 6 months but dapper drake 6.06 Long Term Support will be supported until 2009 and 2011 on desktops and servers respectively, the usually support cycle is 18 months.
Reply
Reply
post #12 of 19
10/1/07 at 10:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by basil101 View Post
The main reason for the slower release cycle is that businesses dislike change, it takes time to physically install the new OS on the workstations, and for staff to adjust to the new system. This and the cost odf the upgrade, is why for example at my old school some of the computers still run win 98. Ubuntu updates every 6 months but dapper drake 6.06 Long Term Support will be supported until 2009 and 2011 on desktops and servers respectively, the usually support cycle is 18 months.
nothing says a company has to upgrade when a newer version of an OS is released. Heck at my job we use a mix of XP, mainly 2000, and some 98SE (yeah, I know). And I don't believe my employer is atypical. So I kinda doubt that's the reason microsoft can't get a new version out more than once in 3 years. But it is a nice happenstance for businesses.
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 19
10/2/07 at 12:12pm
The reason that they cannot get a new OS out every six months is that there is no demand for it from microsofts big customers, industry. They dislike change and the majority wouldn't be prepared to upgrade any more often than they currently do even if microsoft matched ubuntu's/suse's/fedora's 6 month cycle.
Reply
Reply
post #14 of 19
10/2/07 at 12:48pm
Quote:
The reason that they cannot get a new OS out every six months is that there is no demand for it from microsofts big customers, industry. They dislike change and the majority wouldn't be prepared to upgrade any more often than they currently do even if microsoft matched ubuntu's/suse's/fedora's 6 month cycle.
Well lets assume that is true... then what is their excuse for their own reputation of the OS being unreliable until at least the first service pack? With 3+ years you would think they might produce a product useable to those customers they are trying to service by not having a release in 3 years? Just a thought. I am aware of the value of a mass stress test that only comes with a public release. But what this actually says to me is that they are not releasing on the public release date, that is the equivalent of what most folks would deem a beta test, and instead are really releasing after the first service pack. Seablade
Reply
Reply
post #15 of 19
10/2/07 at 8:28pm
Thread Starter 


seen very well with this vista thing how most people aren't willing to go that way until SP1 because they are aware that out of the box it has major short comings, unfixed major bugs, and security flaws. release quality like this is indeed nothing short of Beta Testing.
Reply
Reply
post #16 of 19
10/2/07 at 9:52pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by abf View Post


seen very well with this vista thing how most people aren't willing to go that way until SP1 because they are aware that out of the box it has major short comings, unfixed major bugs, and security flaws. release quality like this is indeed nothing short of Beta Testing.

But.. but... it can't be beta testing, people are paying out the arse for it. No joke, it is nearly CHEAPER for me to buy a whole new computer with Vista preinstalled, than to buy Vista by itself.

And of course let us consider XP Pro, which, despite being a 'last gen' OS that they are trying to stop selling, is still more expensive than pretty much any competitor out there. I can buy 5 licenses of OS X 10.4 for the price of one license of XP Pro. To say nothing of Vista.

Of course that also ignores the fact that the majority of the *nix OSes I can get for free, and even when paying for service contracts for Linux etc. while not doing so for Windows.

Though lets be honest, Vista is not the first version of Windows Enterprise and like customers refuse to touch till the SP. That has been true, since pretty well Win98.

Seablade
Reply
Reply
post #17 of 19
10/4/07 at 11:00pm
I <3 my Ubuntu. ++

I just upgraded to the 7.10 developmental thing. I haven't had any problems yet. Another plus for Ubuntu.
Reply
Reply
post #18 of 19
10/10/07 at 2:39am
Quote:
Originally Posted by abf View Post
question: Why/How can linux distros be more progressive in terms of new releases (with big changes, not just bug fixes) and give us something new to play around with every year while MS takes so freaken long to do anything?

Uh... because they do what they do because of the money... that's why. New releases of Windows are not because Microsoft wants to deliver something useful to their customers (though they DO want them to buy it when it comes out... but regardless, they can force the issue later on if it's not compelling), nor does Microsoft develop software for the fun of it. It's all about business. If Microsoft released too often they'd weaken their position a bit. With that said, the frequency of patches and SP levels is increasing and Microsoft can thank Linux for the increased pace... which of course costs Microsoft money.

SUSE's motto is Have a Lot of Fun. They didn't get that motto from Microsoft.
Reply
Reply
post #19 of 19
10/10/07 at 3:06am
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjcox View Post
Uh... because they do what they do because of the money... that's why. New releases of Windows are not because Microsoft wants to deliver something useful to their customers (though they DO want them to buy it when it comes out... but regardless, they can force the issue later on if it's not compelling), nor does Microsoft develop software for the fun of it. It's all about business. If Microsoft released too often they'd weaken their position a bit. With that said, the frequency of patches and SP levels is increasing and Microsoft can thank Linux for the increased pace... which of course costs Microsoft money. SUSE's motto is Have a Lot of Fun. They didn't get that motto from Microsoft.
boy, you're not kidding. and I agree with you. (for whatever that's worth)
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Linux & Other OS's
NotebookForums.com › Forums › General Notebook Discussions › Linux & Other OS's › general rant about release cycles