|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Idea #4330: Update Manager should update Firefox, OpenOffice, and other major software
|
|
This idea was marked as being not considered for implementation the 9 August 08.
|
|
Written by hurricanefloyd the 12 Mar 08 at 03:39.
Category: System.
Related project:
Nothing/Others.
Status: Won't implement
|
|
|
Rationale
One of Ubuntu's best features is the Update Manager. It updates essential software automatically, greatly alleviating a common user frustration. Just imagine how great it would be if the Updagte Manager also updated programs like Thunderbird, the GIMP, and OpenOffice. Windows and Mac would simply not be able to compete with such a feature due to their software restrictions ($$$).
In order for this to happen, Canonical's software repositories must be updated more often.
Outdated repositories also make it extremely difficult for users to upgrade their software manually. The creators of programs like Firefox and Songbird usually do not provide .deb files for new versions of their software. Thus, users must wait for major repository updates (once every 6 months) before they can upgrade their software.
Please update major software (Firefox, Thunderbird, Songbird, OpenOffice, the GIMP, etc) in the repositories more often. As I said, it would give Ubuntu a huge edge over Windows and Mac and greatly improve the usability of the Operating System overall.
Tags:
(none)
|
|
149
votes
|
|
199
0
50
|
|
|
|
|
Propose your solution
Attachments
No attachments.
Duplicates
Comments
|
|
|
Ubuntu intentionally does not update to higher release numbers for stability purposes (e.g. they will update to Firefox 2.0.0.x, but Firefox 3 won't (officially) ever be in Gutsy. Enable backports in Software Sources if you want it.
|
|
XSP
wrote on the 12 Mar 08 at 05:17
|
|
|
Exactly what sci-fi guy said. If a security update is issued by Mozilla, and it corresponds with Linux, Firefox will be updated. You'll notice occasionally that Firefox will increment and number and Ubuntu will not have an updated package. This is commonly related to a bugfix or security issue related to Windows which has no effect in Linux.
If you really want Bleeding Edge Mozilla apps, grab Minefield and Thunderbird nightly and toss them in your home folder. They will automatically update every day if you so desire. It's also a great way to help improve the software by reporting bugs and submitting crash reports.
|
cheesehead
(Brainstorm admin)
wrote on the 12 Mar 08 at 09:03
|
|
|
Already implemented: Complete updates occur every six months. Plenty of ways to get newer stuff if you want it.
Leave the current repositories just the way they are. They are generally quite stable and effective in their purpose.
|
|
|
Yeah, I was pretty disappointed when major apps like pigdin didn't update very often. I end up using:
http://www.getdeb.net/
I personally think this is where the effort should go. I remember reading about Hardy 3rd party repositories somewhere, but i can't find the link anymore. But I found this one.
http://www.mail-archive.com/ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com/msg00965.html
Basically it would make it easier for 3rd party applications (pigdin, firefox...) to host their own repositories so you can get the updates from them. I think that is more plausible.
The alternative would be for ubuntu to host another repo (popular apps, most recent), but I don't know if they'd want to get involved in the politics of that
'what is a popular app, what if it does break something...'
|
|
|
cheesehead: "Plenty of ways to get newer stuff if you want it. "
But that's the thing, there aren't plenty of ways to upgrade software. Take Sunbird for example. It is currently on version 0.7, but users are stuck using 0.5 because that is the version that is in the repositories and a 0.7 .deb is nowhere to be found on the internet. Granted, users could extract the .tar.gz Mozilla provides and go through a whole lot of work to install Sunbird, but the average user won't want to do that.
The same thing happened in 7.04 with Thunderbird. Soon after 7.04 was released, Thunderbird upgraded to 2.0. But the repositories still contained 1.5 and it was impossible to find a 2.0 .deb on the internet.
|
|
|
Ubuntu already does provide updates for all software.
I want to see a more often updated repository too.
Sucks when there is a new version of software out, and I am stuck with an old version while my Windows friends enjoy the benefits of the latest version, and I feel like a second class citizen.
|
|
|
|
There should also be an easy way for a person to enable backports. Maybe the installer could ask something like "Do you want to use the most widely supported software (standard) or the most up-to-date software (backports)?"
|
|
peterjs
wrote on the 13 Mar 08 at 20:12
|
|
|
|
If you don't like the six month freeze cycle... don't use ubuntu, use something like Debian Sid, or gentoo if you want a rolling release. Ubuntu exists to provide two things, an easy to use linux environment and a compromise between Debian stable and unstable. If you find yourself favoring one of those extremes, then by all means use the distribution that fits your needs.
|
|
|
@peterjs - Thank you for your reply and your insight.
It is true that there are benefits to stability. I'm not saying that every single package should have a rolling release. But I do think that major applications like Firefox, Thunderbird, and the GIMP should have rolling releases. Such applications are basic necessities to most users. For that reason, I think that it is important that they are updated more frequently.
|
|
saivann
(Brainstorm moderator)
wrote on the 7 May 08 at 20:54
|
|
|
I doubt that this would be a good idea. People who install a ubuntu version does not want their softwares to be automatically updated to new upstream versions since new upstream version might contains features or modifications that they doesn't want.
A ubuntu version is designed to be highly tested, stable and to avoid bad surprises. What the user installed should not suddenly change without asking the user. If individual software providers want to creates .deb files for specific ubuntu version (like skype, limewire, etc.), it's possible like it is in Windows XP but it's not ubuntu responsability to provide individual .deb files..
|
|
|
Let's not exaggerate the stability of a release. How many updates have there been since 8.04 was released two weeks ago? I am not saying this to complain. I'm just pointing out that software bugs are a fact of life and that 'stability' is then just a relative term (that is, 8.04 isn't completely stable, but it should be MORE stable than 7.10).
The comments suggesting that Ubuntu avoids updating because of "stability" are a bit misleading. Major releases are generally well tested and stable and include many bug fixes (and occasionally new features). It's also incorrect to call the latest official stable release of Firefox or OpenOffice "bleeding edge". "Bleeding edge" would be the development versions (nightly builds, svn checkouts, etc.). This brainstorm idea is only about official releases not development versions.
Normally, Ubuntu only gets updated for security fixes but "any new features or non-security bugfixes will not be made available"[1]. Case in point, KNetworkManager in 7.10 was a buggy hunk of junk which crashed and required reboots almost daily. I had to put up with this until 8.04 before the bug fixes were finally included. So in fact, my OS was NOT stable and needed updates in order to be stable but policy decisions prevented this.
It appears that the devs hold off on adding latest releases because of the work involved. It's easier to apply a one-liner security patch than to review the full changeset of a new release to make sure all dependencies are met, etc. That's a fair point. I'm not an Ubuntu developer, so by no means am I demanding that they take on more work. But at the same time, end users waste countless man hours searching the web for various hacks and workarounds to try to fix their system while they wait 6 months for 'official' fixes. These hacks and workarounds can introduce even more problems than they solve.
So I give this brainstorm idea a +1
I realize developer resources are relatively scarce but productivity losses of many thousands of end users due to bugs is not insignificant either. I think it's fair for the OP to ask for a reconsideration of the no "non-security bugfixes" policy.
Cheers,
John-Scott
[1] https://help.ubuntu.com/community/UbuntuBackports
|
|
saivann
(Brainstorm moderator)
wrote on the 8 May 08 at 19:56
|
|
|
Stable Release Updates are often not security fixes but stability fixes and when a program that has issues which require a new upstream release and that it can be backported, it is backported.
IMO, this is ideal, we can't force all users to update to new upstream releases but we can still make it possible through backports. Perhaps this idea would be more about asking more backports?
|
|
saivann
(Brainstorm moderator)
wrote on the 9 May 08 at 20:55
|
|
|
idea 2117 ask for the same thing except that it suggest a way to use backports more easily without having the obligation to update to the latest upstream version.
That really sounds better to me as it gives choice to the final user and give the possibility to install new releases more easily without even knowing what "backports" is.
|
|
jdfoote
wrote on the 22 May 08 at 17:58
|
|
|
I agree with saivann - there are definitely users in both camps: people who want a stable (i.e., non-updating) release, with only bugfixes, and those who want to auto-update to the newest releases.
Backports are designed for the latter camp. I think making it simpler to add backports is the ideal solution.
|
|
RainCT
(Ubuntu developer)
wrote on the 9 Aug 08 at 21:12
|
|
|
|
Marking as "Won't implement". Use -backports if you want newer versions.
|
Post your comment
|
|
|
