[ohazi]

I definitely support this. Having a rolling release was the primary reason why I decided to go with debian (unstable) vs (x)ubuntu a few weeks ago. My previous install (oneiric; non-LTS) was about to become unsupported, and the last time I decided to ignore the official support status (years ago... I think it was dapper?), the main repository upped and vanished one day. That was not a fun morning.

[IgorPartola]

The problem is that Debian can be faster or slower whilst Ubuntu LTS releases are on a schedule. For example I believe the currently stable Debian release includes Python 2.6 because 2.7 just missed it. I prefer Ubuntu's LTS releases to Debian because they are predictable.

[ohazi]

Yes, I agree that ubuntu's time based releases are generally a better experience that debian's "whenever it's ready" stable releases. Debian's testing and unstable branches are rolling releases though, and those were the only alternatives I was actually considering.

[gtaylor]

Although, I'm not sure we can even look at the Debian when trying to predict what a rolling release Ubuntu would look like (even considering that they are "relatives").

The current difference in manpower and mind share is pretty big between these two related distros. Regardless of which one each of us may like better, Canonical has the manpower and mindshare to probably have a bit more success with this model. I really like Debian, so this is not a knock on them (I used Debian on servers for a very long time with great results).

Heck, we may even see Debian and Ubuntu working more closely once they take on this shared dev style (I know, I am pipedreaming, but hey...).

[IgorPartola]

I was under the impression that the Debian team is much larger than Cannonical. This is why they have always said that they could not do what they do without Debian. The biggest problem with a rolling release is that you constantly have to reboot the server to apply kernel upgrades, which you have to do less with LTS (though the first 6 months after the release it feels like a weekly chore).

[gtaylor]

I am sure they are larger, but I highly doubt they invest as much time (full-time), and do it as cohesively as Canonical. That's without factoring in all of the volunteers and other unpaid contributors. Debian has a notoriously slow, bikesheddy decision-making process, also.

Whether you like them or not, Canonical is probably going to be able to do this a bit better. They really can't afford to not do it any better. The mindshare difference is particularly staggering right now. This isn't a direct measure of mind share, but take this as an example:

http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=debian%2C%20ubuntu%2C...

[gizmo686]

Doesn't Linux support hotswapping kernels?

[IgorPartola]

Ksplice [1] lets you do that. For a while they had very limited support for it, but I just checked and they seem to support Ubuntu on the desktop as well [2]. Once this comes to the server edition and/or is bundled by Canonical, using Ubuntu would become much smoother.

[1] http://www.ksplice.com/

[2] http://www.ksplice.com/uptrack/download-ubuntu

[fulafel]

> The current difference in manpower and mind share is pretty big between these two related distros

Do you realize that Ubuntu uses Debian as a base and most of the effort is actually done by Debian developers?