http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/13/ubuntu_linux_synchronization/
My take on this is that this idea is frankly silly.
Why?
The current staggered releases tht come from the major distros is a
great example of a continuous improvement system.
For example ( and this is an example and no criticism of any distros is
intended)
Debian releases a new version in say March 09.
After release it is discovered that there is a major problem with say
'ssh'.
All the other releases pick up on the security alert and make sure
they are not exposed.
Then RedHat release a RHEL Respin (say 5.2) that incorporates the ssh
changes
After is release, a problem was found with the ext4 libraries.
A fix is generates and all the other distros pick up that fix.
Etc etc etc.
Now if all the releases were sync'd to come out in timeframe of say 1
month then we start heading for
1) Internet traffic jams as all the downloading your fav distros happens
in a shorter timeperiod
2) Less chance for critical bugs to get picked up by other distros
before they release
3) then all the major distros release the same set of patches within a
short time period.
Which leads us towards what currently happens with Microsoft and their
'Patch Tuesday' method or update distribution.
What happens if the patch for some critical problem affect quite a lot
of systems (sorta like applying XP SP3 to an HP PC...)
If this is all done with a 'big bang' approach then I see more
repatching needed.
Personally, I think that the principle of continuous improvement is a
great way to develop software. IMHO, this seems to fly in the face of
that principle.
What do you guys think?
Stephen D
