It looks as though that might be he case. Although it really would be with heavy emphasis on the unknowingly, as there would be no reason to do it otherwise.
Leader of Canonical, Mark Shuttleworth, had begun speaking about the 6 month development cycle of Ubuntu and was heard to say that it would change, with the possibility of a daily update cycle on some things.
The Register was given to say that the word from Shuttleworth was one of constant changes –
Ubuntu is moving away from its established six-month-cycle and potentially to a future where software updates land on a daily basis.
Ubuntu founder Mark Shuttleworth said during an Ubuntu 10.10 conference call last month that a move to daily updates would help the popular Linux distro keep pace with an increasingly complex software and platform ecosystem as Ubuntu goes on more devices and syncs up Android and iPhones. This snippet got buried in the avalanche of Ubuntu 10.10 news, so The Reg circled back.
Software Center – barely a year old – is leading these changes, and Shuttleworth has promised this would "go further and faster than people might have envisioned in the past."
"Today we have a six-month release cycle," Shuttleworth said. "In an internet-oriented world, we need to be able to release something every day.
"That’s an area we will put a lot of work into in the next five years. The small steps we are putting in to the Software Center today, they will go further and caster than people might have envisioned in the past."
Ubuntu has been on a solid six-month release cycle since Edgy Eft, version 6.10, in October 2006 paved the way for Feisty Fawn, 7.04, the following year.
It’s not just Ubuntu that’s updated every six months but also modules and code from the other areas of the open-source world that make up an Ubuntu release.
So after some consideration, and a look around at a few othersâ€™ interpretations, it looks as though what will change is that anything considered really important will be sent down the pipe right away, without waiting on a new versioning of the main distribution.
This is, one one hand, a good thing, for the very best will always be available, but it also means greater difficulty with some things, as dependencies will change, and so that just might make for an entirely new set of problems.
What I am reminded of is the Windows equivalent of what may happen, which used to be called DLL Hell. It would happen when all the earlier features of a DLL were not carried over into a new one, and a program would fail because it was looking for those features in an identically named DLL file. It worked both ways, with some programs failing because their newer DLL had been overwritten by an older installation program , and the replacement of the newer DLL with one of earlier timestamp and functionality.
The fact however, that Ubuntu has the ability to act as a clearing house for all the code that works its way into the Ubuntu distribution should mean that these things will not happen. Still, there might be some hair pulling for the coordinators at Canonical along the way.