is 13.04 in no mans land

Is there something wrong here or am not understanding correctly

the attached screenshot showa a graph of all the Ubuntu releases since 2003 up to the upcoming release scheduled for April 2014 and there’s a very distinct pattern where each LTS release is followed by 3 non LTS releases each of these 3 non LTS releases are supported up to and beyond the release date of the next LTS release untill we get to 13.04 (Raring Ringtail) where it seems to have been given a very short support time so short that not only does it’s support time fall short of the next LTS release but it’s outlived by it’s predecessor (12.10).

If you look at the graph there a short period of time where 13.04 has no support at all yet it’s predecessor 12.10 is still supported,

Now this may not be a problem for Ubuntu users because they can upgrade to the next non LTS but users of Ubuntu 13.04 based distros may not have that luxury because their distro may not have another release between 13.04 and the next LTS (14.04)leaving them in no mans land for at least for a month or more

this is not good

Has anyone any idea why there was a change in the pattern and what distros based on Ubuntu can do to prevent this happening in the future


There’s nothing we can do … Canonical decided to change support for non LTS releases from 18 months to 9 months.

Well maybe if everyone stopped using non LTS releases Canonical would be forced to change their policy back as they’d be getting no testing done or feedback.

So will Peppermint 5 be based on the 14.04 release? At least that is an LTS release.


Yup :slight_smile:

I did read a while ago that Cannonical were changing the release cycle but I never gave much thought to the implications of that but I’m feeling it now, I don’t think Ubuntu users will stop using non LTS releases because probably the vast majority will want the latest and greatest and they have a constant support path to the next LTS release

It’s not a huge problem for me I can live with this until the next LTS release but it’s something I’ll be paying more attention in future especially if I’m installing Linux on someone elses PC


Yeah, the 9 month support length is a joke, it’s turned me off of non-LTS releases completely. And not just talking Ubuntu - I’m reluctant to go for Mageia too, as much as I think it’s a decent project (no anti-KDE replies!! :P)


Great base distro, and they do a very good job of pulling people together to add polish to Debian … but maybe now that needs editing/extending a little.

I am what I am because of who YOU all are … now refer to the legal department for license agreements

Sometimes I think Cannonical get an unfair press from the rest of the Linux world it seems like everyone wants to knock them possibly because it’s the flagship distribution from which hundreds of other distros are based many of which possibly wouldn’t exist if it wasn’t for Ubuntu,

I wasn’t meaning to knock Cannonical and personally I think they deserve a bit more credit for what they’ve given to the Linux ecosystem, they have a right to follow their own agenda and I think it’s quite right that anyone that wants to base their distro on Ubuntu and benefit from the repository system that they maintain should have to follow their rules.

My question was mainly what can Ubuntu Based distros do to prevent the scenario where users can find themselves with unsupported operating systems (albeit only for a month or so) other than stick with LTS ?


Everyone was right behind Canonical/Ubuntu before they started to trample the ideas behind sharing.

They now seem to want to benefit from everyone elses work, but don’t think it’s fair when others benefit from theirs … when I say “theirs”, most of it isn’t actually “theirs” to begin with and was supplied free by the wider community, but they seem hell bent on taking “ownership” over it.

THAT is why they’re now getting bad press … not because they’re the BIG boys, but because they’ve started to ACT that way.

And I’m sorry but your “agenda” is quite rightly open to scrutiny from the community when it’s them that do the vast majority of the workk for you.

My question was mainly what can Ubuntu Based distros do to prevent the scenario where users can find themselves with unsupported operating systems (albeit only for a month or so) other than stick with LTS ?

Without a huge injection of cash and package maintinaers … absolutely nothing, besides releasing every 6 months.

But that’s my point … The whole idea of open source was that nobody needed to “go it alone”, Ubuntu themselves couldn’t afford to go it alone, it’s about freedom to use others work to create something bigger … Ubuntu seem to want the freedom to do this with others work, but are now intentionally placing barriers in other peoples way.

I probably posted this in the wrong place, I suppose Ubuntu have every right to choose how long to support their own distro’s … but it’s kinda part of a whole new outlook at Canonical/Ubuntu that no longer revolves around the community they benefit from but is in much more of a “self, self, self” vein which includes getting community developers to sign agreements and bitching at Mint for using “their” stuff.

If Ubuntu were not supported by the community I’d agree with you, they could do as they wish … but when 95% of what you supply came from others good grace, trying to control it seems somewhat of a slap in the face wouldn’t you agree … specially when you still claim to be following the meaaning of “Ubuntu”.

Well that’s me told isn’t it :-[

I half expected a reaction like this which is really why I posted it, I don’t fully understand the politics in all this and I’m just trying to learn and I have just learned a little more

Thank you Mark :slight_smile:


You’ve only got to look back a bit further - if Debian had pulled the kind of stunts that Ubuntu has, then Ubuntu wouldn’t be where it is now. Debian’s model was exactly what the open-source community desired, and exactly how it should have been implemented (read the GPL, or at least the principle). Ubuntu, now in a very similar position within the community as Debian was, is trying to implement rules that seem to fly in the face of the open-source world. It’s a bit cheeky - even Red Hat, argubly the only commercial company to “make it” in the open-source world, gives away their software in the form of Fedora (and to a certain extent, CentOS & Scientific Linux). Ubuntu are nowhere near as big as Red Hat, I really don’t know why they didn’t follow Red Hat’s model, if they felt Debian’s wasn’t up to scratch (even though it was good enough for them at the start)

I think what Ubuntu have done over the last 10 years is Amazing.

I just wish they didn’t have such a propensity for incomprehensibly poor decisions.

I have a number of examples, but to avoid wasting time, let’s just leave it at “Unity”.