I've long argued that the entire Linux mentality of distros and packages is broken, and one of the huge reasons why it'll never be widely adopted in the desktop.

Linking versions of trivial software like photo organizers or music players--or even more important software like browsers--to a specific version of the entire system makes it impossible to ever have a stable, yet reasonably up-to-date system. For example, what if you don't want Unity but do want Firefox 7? Or do want updated indicator applets, but don't want broken wifi because of a driver bug in 11.10? (Personal experience, that one.) Your only option is adding PPAs, hoping there's a .deb, or compiling from source, all of which are beyond an average desktop user. And even if you do that, if you wait long enough the distro will have advanced so far away from your personal setup that upgrading other things will become a nightmare.

Linux should move away from the monolithic distro paradigm and towards a stable, rarely changing core of essentials like compositing, video, wifi, hibernate, etc., with optional highly updatable packages of "smaller" software like Banshee, Firefox, etc. That way you can have the best of both worlds: stable core software that the user never sees, and individually updated smaller software that the user wants to be fresh.

There always been distros that work like that. There's no such thing as the "Linux mentality" that you're talking about.

Rolling release isn't quite the same, because you still get frequent updates to "core" software. For example I hear from many Arch users that it's great, but it breaks even more frequently than Ubuntu. (Though I've never personally used Arch.) It seems that Linux today is either ancient, stable, and frozen in a bygone era like Debian Stable, or fresh but frequently broken, like Debian Sid (or Arch). There's no inbetween.

And saying "my system works flawlessly, except that time when I had to Google how to modprobe my temporarily broken wifi, or when I had to boot into rescue mode to edit GRUB" doesn't count. You can't have a flawless system with "except".

I'm suggesting that Linux needs something inbetween rolling release and milestone release. Something that keeps invisible core software essential to basic system functionality like wifi and video on stable milestones, but has smaller user-facing software always up-to-date. I don't know if something like that is possible given the current state of Linux package management. But it's clear to me that both rolling and milestone based distros either 1) break too frequently for mere mortals, or 2) cram unwanted changes down my throat for the sake of just one or two new packages I want, or 3) have user-facing software older than my grandma.

Windows has managed to do it. You can still run Firefox 7 on Windows XP, and I can guarantee that upgrading to FF7 on XP won't suddenly change your desktop to a shoddy OSX clone behind your back or break your wifi.

> Rolling release isn't quite the same, because you still get frequent updates to "core" software.

You don't have to install updated versions unless you want to.

Which distros work like that? (speaking as a Ubuntu user that has never tried any other distros)

Gentoo and Arch are the ones that come immediately to mind. The term to look for is "rolling release".

I think I also read somewhere that Ubuntu is considering a rolling release model in the future.

You made me search for it. Apparently it was a rumor: http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2010/11/ubuntu-is-not-changing-to...

There were plans for a rolling release called "Grumpy Groundhog", which would exist alongside the stable releases.

Here's an Ubuntu wiki article created by Mark Shuttleworth on it, but note it hasn't been modified since 2008 - https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDownUnder/BOFs/GrumpyGroundhog

Well, you could always go for the short term releases is that is what you want.

It's already like this. The core is called Redhat or Debian, and the fluff is called Fedora and Ubuntu.

One use case I can think of where this makes sense - Big companies have policies where you have to get every version of an open source software approved by legal because the license might have changed. Having a frozen set of versions makes software an easy sell for such customers.

I would not do that if I was them.

It's as productive as if they would run an unrolled tight nop loops. A lot of heat dissipates and nothing comes out.

Anyway, I mostly talk about distros aimed at the desktop.

I'm happy with Firefox 3.5.16 in Debian stable. I have no problem visiting websites, and I don't have to sweat Vimperator breaking because of a browser rev.

I think that caring about the latest browser version is the domain of webdevs and teenagers.

Except the difference in speed is really noticeable.