On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 7:36 PM, Juan R. de Silva
<juan.r.d.silva@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
> On my laptop I upgrade every 6 months. I'm willing to experiment and I do
> not mind things of a kind happen there. But IMHO LTS release should not
> go out with a bug of a kind. Looks like people are right saying fixed
> schedule hurts Ubuntu more than benefits it.
>
> Well, I've learnt my lesson - Ubuntu LTS is not Debian Stable, never
> upgrade to it at an early stage.
>
> Thanks for reply. I thought no one would take a ball :-).

You are confusing the label LTS with stable and bug-free. It literally
means Long Term Support. That would imply that the support for that
given version will be longer than that of the others. It has no
connotation around "Bug-free" or "Stable".

If you need a completely stable system, you should try the LTS and be
careful with what you do. If that fails you, you should try debian
stable. I hope you find what you need.


~SpaceGhost

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users

On Wed, 2010-05-12 at 19:42 -0700, Johnneylee Rollins wrote:
> On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 7:36 PM, Juan R. de Silva
> <juan.r.d.silva@gmail.com> wrote:
> <snip>
> > On my laptop I upgrade every 6 months. I'm willing to experiment and I do
<snip>
> means Long Term Support. That would imply that the support for that
> given version will be longer than that of the others. It has no
> connotation around "Bug-free" or "Stable".
>
> If you need a completely stable system, you should try the LTS and be
> careful with what you do. If that fails you, you should try debian
> stable. I hope you find what you need.
>
>
> ~SpaceGhost
>
How ever the designation of LTS does imply to the "average" user that
the system is stable and bug free. At least more so than windows.

The reality is that it isn't, and for the more technically challenged,
it is a nightmare to triage and fix.

You are lucky that you have the technical knowledge and know how to do
so. The bulk of the worlds desktop users don't, and that is the end
market Mr Shutlleworth is aiming for.

regards the kiwi


--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users

On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 10:57 PM, Christopher Chan
<christopher.chan@bradbury.edu.hk> wrote:
> On Thursday, May 13, 2010 10:42 AM, Johnneylee Rollins wrote:
>
>> You are confusing the label LTS with stable and bug-free. It literally
>> means Long Term Support. That would imply that the support for that
>> given version will be longer than that of the others. It has no
>> connotation around "Bug-free" or "Stable".
>>
>> If you need a completely stable system, you should try the LTS and be
>> careful with what you do. If that fails you, you should try debian
>> stable. I hope you find what you need.
>
> Is it me or does your last paragraph there sound rather ironic?

Ironic or not, even though an LTS-badged release seems to mean "a
longer period of security updates than other Ubuntu releases" this is
not what Canonical/Ubuntu means.

A developer replied to a query about having 2.6.33 included in 10.04
by saying that they were being more conservative than they would
otherwise be because 10.04 was an LTS release. So Canonical's intent,
even though it does not slap a "stable" on the name is that an LTS
release is a stable one - or at least a more stable one than a non-LTS
release.

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users