Ubuntu reveals plans for Lucid Lynx
Summary
Ubuntu founder Mark Shuttleworth has detailed plans for the distribution's April 2010 release, code-named Lucid Lynx.
Topics
Ubuntu founder Mark Shuttleworth has detailed plans for the distribution's April 2010 release, code-named Lucid Lynx.
In a video message to attendees of UbuCon Atlanta, Shuttleworth said that 10.04 would be based on the Gnome 2.0 desktop and would extend the horizontal server scalability of Debian into cloud computing. Releases after Lucid Lynx would include the Gnome 3.0, which works on the desktop.
Lucid Lynx is the third biannual long-term support (LTS) release by Ubuntu; LTS releases are supported for three years for desktops and five years for servers.
"This is something that we get by virtue of the fact that we work with free software, you just couldn't do this with proprietary software because you don't have the visibility on the planning horizon," Shuttleworth said.
"Delivering Ubuntu 10.04 as an LTS, is the definitive proof that that two-year cadence works."Citing the Lynx deodorant namesake, Shuttleworth said: "This year's Ubuntu Developer Summit is going to be the sweetest smelling Ubuntu Developer Summit ever, despite the fact that it's happening in Dallas."
This article was originally published by ZDNet Australia.
Talkback Most Recent of 68 Talkback(s)
-
Linux distro's = future
Linux distro's have a BRIGHT future since the developers are driving this and the code is superior to ANY closed source proprietary lethargic old software vendor.
Christian_<><21st Sep 2009 -
Hallowed are the Ori21st Sep 2009 -
Guess they'll have to change their tune
As Linux makes its way onto the enterprise desktops, it's not the "future" anymore.
But old habits do die hard.
IT_User21st Sep 2009 -
HAHAHA Nice FUD
Actually its not superior at all. It has far more bugs, including security bugs, than Windows.
The things it has going for it are that at first it cost less if you don't count management/support and for now the distros are still easier to customize than non embedded Windows.
For some people those are worth sacrificing security for...
Johnny Vegas21st Sep 2009 -
Sacrifice security?
In what way? Actually my Ubuntu box is MORE secure than Windows because not only is my data encrypted (by default - set at install time), but I am using a non-administrative account and lets not forget SELinux (which is used by the NSA). Only way to access "administrative" tasks is by SUDO and supply a password in the "secure desktop", much akin to Vista. But there is currently no malware written for Linux either. So where exactly am I sacrificing security?
JT8221st Sep 2009 -
Just like in Windows ...
Actually my Windows box is just as, if not MORE secure than Linux because of Microsoft's Security Development Process that is now bearing fruit.
Not only that, but just like SOME versions of Linux, all my Windows machines' data is encrypted (set just after install time) and I am using a non-administrative accounts. And lets not forget Windows is used by practically every home, business, government and military agency in every country in the world.
Only way to access "administrative" tasks is by elevating a process and supplying a password in the "secure desktop", much akin to SELinux.
Whilst there is currently less malware written for Linux and apps running on Linux (although there is some), Vista & Win7 have significantly raised the bar making those OS' just as hard to hack (if not more so than Linux).
So I am able to get on with my life and enjoy some of the world's most powerful, productive and entertaining software and hardware without sacrificing security.
de-void-2116559065030180600283633778702321st Sep 2009 -
Uh....riiiiiiiiiiiight. Sure
Actually my Windows box is just as, if not MORE secure than Linux because of Microsoft's Security Development Process that is now bearing fruit.
Maybe.. but even then, only if it if the ethernet port is full of superglue so that it can't be connected to a network.
According to the Orange book, Windows on a network = no security.
akulkis22nd Sep 2009 -
Funny...
How much is Microsoft paying you to write that? I'm a little low on cash, I'd like to get in on this...
saraithegeek22nd Sep 2009 -
See for yourself
It's been published a long time ago, see http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/2008.06.bitlocker.aspx.
BitLocker encrypts the whole disk or disks. At the reboot time, it also guarantees that the system is not altered, which provides more protection, for example, in case a laptop is taken away and then returned to you.
In Windows 7 BitLocker to Go encrypts USB keys. An IT administrator can configure the systems to disable copying documents to a USB key if it is not encrypted. More here: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/dd408739.aspx.
Earthling22nd Oct 2009 -
SDL code, kernel layering,......
....and more processes restricted to user mode threads elevate the core OS security of Windows above that of Linux. But, as you point out, that's only one aspect of security.
Lester Young21st Sep 2009 -
It is false to say...
That one os is superior to another in terms of security.... Specially since Ubuntu(Linux distro) is similar to windows Vista/7 for security....
the potential of security related bugs is not greater or smaller in either Windows or Linux.
The only problems in Linux atm is the fact that you need to use bash command(command lines) to make some of the devices work(unfortunatly unlike Windows and Macs Linux require more steps for hardware "drivers" to work usually... althrough that is true for this old DV5000 series laptop...)
PS: comparing Windows XP to Linux... linux is more secure, but that is like comparing IE6 to FireFox 3.5...
Ceridan21st Sep 2009 -
Well thats true BUT..
the OS that will fit that "third" candidate will be one that does not bear the Linux title. People are afraid of that word. Ubuntu about has it right - just a few more tweaks and branding of "Ubuntu" [dropping the Linux] would spur more adoption. OEM's need to pick it up more too - there really are no "brick and mortar" channels for Ubuntu.
Its amazing what a little bit of advertising and marketing does for a product.JT8221st Sep 2009 -
Superior??? In your estimation and interests only.
Can Linux run MSN messenger??
Can Linux run Windows Live???
Can Linux run games or any Windows based programs without going through the hit and miss additional layer of Wine being installed??
Does Linux have simple plug and play functionality with all kinds and sorts of hardware to the point where pretty much anything works with a few clicks???
Those are some of the most SIMPLE and basic things the general public demands of an OS. There are dozens of other things the public loves that Windows does and Linux does not.
Still.
After all these years and all those expectations and promises.
Linux is marvelous for what it is, and on the flipside, it is garbage for what it is not.
Linux enthusiast, get it through your head; if Linux works for you, bow down and pay homage, but if it is not for you then there are absolutely outstanding reasons why Linux should be avoided. At all costs.
To each his own. Live with it.
Cayble2nd Oct 2009 -
to answer your questions...
1. no (though pidgin runs the protocol
perfectly, but we're not being logical right?)
2.Windows Live no, but it's nothing more than a
fancy looking waste of space, try Thunderbird
instead, you'll be glad you did.
3. Well, windows based programs are just that.
WINDOWS based. Can windows run Balsa, or
Transmission, or gedit or any other basic linux
based programs?
3. Yes, oh noob who is new to this "computer"
thing. Linux works natively with almost
anything. No you don't need a driver for
anything, even better, you don't need to
click... at all, are you sure you know what
plug 'n play is?
4. (discounting 1 and 2 for the reason listed
above) yes, yes it is, good thing linux has
been able to do it for many years now.
5. I really can't think of any reason that
anyone would need to avoid linux "At all
costs", as a matter of fact, my company
installs Ubuntu 9.10 Karmic Koala on all
machines by default.
finally, something we agree on, "to each their
own", i couldn't put it better.
but i'll leave you with this, can your run
your entire operating system, along with a
browser, e-mail client and instant messenger
with using no more than 350 MB? No, you can't
danastasio29th Oct 2009 -
RE: Ubuntu reveals plans for Lucid Lynx
Same boring linux distros trying to promise the world but don't deliver. Nothing separates this version of Ubuntu from its previous versions. You are still going to have to find the source code and recompile everything. Still going to run into the same hardware issues as before. Why do the linux guys just not get this? Linux offers absolutely nothing over any other operating system and that is why people are not using it.
Loverock Davidson21st Sep 2009
Talkback - Tell Us What You Think
The best of ZDNet, delivered
ZDNet Newsletters
Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox
Facebook Activity
