One big thing Microsoft, Apple, and all CTOs can learn from Ubuntu

[Kevin Hunter]

At 6:05am -0400 Tue, 13 Apr 2010, Amedee Van Gasse wrote:
> On 13-04-10 08:26, Michael Haney wrote:
>> A friend of mine, who is a programmer and a Mac user, made the
>> point that Ubuntu's release cycles are too close together.  A new
>> version comes out every 6 months, and that's rather fast.  Most
>> Mom&  Pop users won't want to upgrade their computers that
>> quickly.

>> While Canonical's 6 month release cycle means that Ubuntu can
>> stay in step with advancing software technology, but there is a
>> price that is paid for updating that fast.
>                                                                               
> The argument of your Mac friend is void. Canonical has a 2 year
> release cycle for LTS versions. Mom & pop users should stick with
> LTS.

'Void' is perhaps too strong a word choice.  Certainly the LTS version
is the route most non-tech users /should/ go, but from one who frequents
a fair number of Ubuntu-related sites, they hardly advertise those
releases as "the one-true way".  (Check for yourself via a few different
updates of ubuntu.com from archive.org.)

My anecdotal evidence suggests that the current social climate of Ubuntu
is statistically much more riddled with power users than, say, the
communities of Windows or OS X.  Consequently, the help available (a
bigger issue than many of us may realize) from most sources -- web or
otherwise -- is oriented toward the current release.  As "self-affirmed
computer geeks", we live on the latest and greatest.  Put differently, I
think a large part of the power of Windows and OS X isn't in the
operating systems themselves, but in the fact that they are, for the
most part, exactly the same from power users* to "mom & pop" installations.

Choice is good, but not at the point we're talking about "Mom and Pop."
To take it too far, this means that the link to download the latest and
greatest version on Ubuntu.com should be very subtle (hidden?), while
the latest LTS should be prominent.  Clearly that's the wrong answer,
but you perhaps get my drift.

The culture of Linux (and FOSS in general) used to be like a "good ol'
boys" club, where part of the terms of acceptance were that you had to
figure it out yourself.  I suggest that with the post-2003 desktop
distros, a newer, more understanding and helpful culture is on it's way
in, but that the remnants of the days of yore are still with us.  The
business of having power users with different _core_ set ups than their
non-techie friends is one example of this history rearing its head.

Kevin

* I specifically use "power user" and not developer to distinguish from
those who necessarily run different _core_ set-ups