Gnuman.com

There are quite a few distributions out there that are keeping to their word to keep developing a new "updated" version of their distribution and release it every six months, but with that thought, is it a bit too quick?

There are often many new issues that arise with a release date that quickly, and maybe certain things overlooked, but new and quick doesn't always mean it is better and faster.

Now it is not to say that things were not addressed in later versions, but if it isn't broke, why fix it? There are people who love upgrading to the "latest and greatest" but there are some that don't bother upgrading in hopes of avoiding "new issues".

With distros being released that quickly, one has to think, are these releases being done for short term goals or for an eventual long term release. Ubuntu has stood by certain versions as long term support (LTS) where they would support that distribution for 3 years and 5 years for servers. But should distro makers slow down and take an approach of make major changes and release it?

If we take Apple as an example, Apple has taken their time releasing every major upgrade to the public with new features and bug fixes that the previous version lacked. Sure Apple is closed source and many of their coding is done in-home, but what does not differ is that testing has to be done.

With upgrades in many Linux distributions happening at the 6 month interval, one also has to wonder, how would one learn to pick up Linux? With that release cycle, by the time a book of your favorite distribution hits the store shelves, you could possibly be one or two versions behind. Sometimes versions have not changed much, but it might could be frustrating for a new user to coordinate the book to a newer version of the distribution.

Should Linux distributions release when most of the major issues have been resolved and include new features, or just stay with the current release cycle? We would love to hear your opinion on this issue.