For continued happiness. I would never even consider using an Ubuntu distro outside of this LTS cycle. Dapper was wonderful, and Hardy was a huge improvement. Even though I missed all the steps in between, I much prefer it this way. I have better things to do than upgrades. Everyone who went to Karmic expecting stability are being rather...uh...stupid. I love Canonical's long term support series, and am getting ready to try Lucid Lynx in April. Most of you don't agree, but I like stability more than "being on the cutting edge".
Dapper->Hardy->Lucid
Archived thread 1315887 from Lucid Lynx Testing and Discussion (CLOSED). Markdown source: Lucid_Lynx_Testing_and_Discussion_(CLOSED)/thread_1315887_Dapper->Hardy->Lucid.md
syntr said: For continued happiness.
I would never even consider using an Ubuntu distro outside of this LTS cycle. Dapper was wonderful, and Hardy was a huge improvement. Even though I missed all the steps in between, I much prefer it this way. I have better things to do than upgrades. Everyone who went to Karmic expecting stability are being rather...uh...stupid. I love Canonical's long term support series, and am getting ready to try Lucid Lynx in April. Most of you don't agree, but I like stability more than "being on the cutting edge".
I wish I had your patience.
That's cool, but different people have different priorities :)
I like a combination of having the latest desktop and reasonably high stability :)
If I can make it to the next LTS, I'm hoping to be able to go LTS to LTS. My biggest risk, though, is "oooOOoooo shiny"
Although my Hardy didn't detect my webcam, Jaunty detected it and could take pictures and all, and Karmic (test machine) can actually do a little video. That's the only thing that got me to upgrade from Hardy to Jaunty.
Otherwise I was Dapper to Hardy.
I don't think calling folks "stupid" really works.
JillSwift said: I don't think calling folks "stupid" really works.
What a stupid thing to say. :)
I really really liked and still like Hardy; it's without doubt the most stable OS I've ever used, out of all the Linux distros I've tried. I still have it on my desktop merely for the reason I'm not home all that often, and when I am home it's not for long really. I just want my PC to work when I turn it on; don't have time for breakage on that. I'm skipping Karmic for that too.
EDavidBurg said: What a stupid thing to say. :)
That's stupid fresh.
Most of you don't agree, but I like stability more than "being on the cutting edge".
This is why there's an LTS release and the standard interim releases.
Please remember that without all the people who use the interim releases, the LTS editions would not be stable as all of the bugs won't be weeded out.
JillSwift said: I don't think calling folks "stupid" really works.
yeah totally, I mean Karmic and Jaunty were released as stable releases, not betas or RCs. They are supposed to be relatively "complete" :)
The main reason why I went to 9.10 was because I wanted ext4, wanted to check out the new gdm and grub2.
I'm going to beta test lucid when the betas start rolling out. I will probably stick with that unless 10.10 has a feature that I really want to mess with.
Sometimes I wonder if some things weren't shoved into Karmic so it could be worked through before including it in 10.04 LTS release.
The tedious, yet worthwhile task of upgrading to 9.10 has convinced me to become an Alpha/Beta tester. Now that I finally understand the whole partitioning thing, I will be able to run test releases directly on my computer, without having to sacrifice the working OS.
I'm looking forward to dabbling in Lucid.
syntr said: For continued happiness.
I would never even consider using an Ubuntu distro outside of this LTS cycle. Dapper was wonderful, and Hardy was a huge improvement. Even though I missed all the steps in between, I much prefer it this way. I have better things to do than upgrades. Everyone who went to Karmic expecting stability are being rather...uh...stupid. I love Canonical's long term support series, and am getting ready to try Lucid Lynx in April. Most of you don't agree, but I like stability more than "being on the cutting edge". I like stability as well and, on my hardware, Karmic is more stable than either Dapper or Hardy ever were. In fact, Dapper was the release that almost made me give up on Ubuntu and return to Fedora. To each his own.
Dragonbite said: Sometimes I wonder if some things weren't shoved into Karmic so it could be worked through before including it in 10.04 LTS release.
Probably. lol
But as long as Lucid turns out awesome and Karmic is reasonable (which I think it tends to be, I have yet to see a problem tbh), I am very happy :)
Redache said: This is why there's an LTS release and the standard interim releases.
Please remember that without all the people who use the interim releases, the LTS editions would not be stable as all of the bugs won't be weeded out.
Understood. I realize they are important as steps, but I think that average people might be better off with LTS releases.
Dragonbite said: Sometimes I wonder if some things weren't shoved into Karmic so it could be worked through before including it in 10.04 LTS release.
Like PulseAudio? (which I personally think is worth the occasional failure to work)
I echo your sentiments - for my feeling the last two releases (9.04 and 9.10) have been far too buggy with very few things to make it worth upgrading. This is opinion (subjective of course), but is based on testing those releases on a number of different machines with different hardware (e.g. range of Intel, ATI and nVidia graphics).
At the moment I find 8.10 to be a good balance of bug-free computing and reasonably up-to-date software. It's easy to install Firefox 3.5 and Openoffice 2.4 is good enough for my purposes.
How does one go about upgrading from Hardy to Lucid Testing at this moment?
once 10.04 comes out, ill probably use some itinerant of it to its full support life.
I am of the school that I prefer my OS/software to be very much tried & true before it gets installed on my computer(s). Right now, I will stick to Hardy Heron as it is t&t at the moment, although I am not knocking the too new but cuddly sounding Koala.):P
Although I do wonder why the heck I've a crashy Firefox :(
syntr said: For continued happiness.
I would never even consider using an Ubuntu distro outside of this LTS cycle. Dapper was wonderful, and Hardy was a huge improvement. Even though I missed all the steps in between, I much prefer it this way. I have better things to do than upgrades. Everyone who went to Karmic expecting stability are being rather...uh...stupid. I love Canonical's long term support series, and am getting ready to try Lucid Lynx in April. Most of you don't agree, but I like stability more than "being on the cutting edge".
And who said the S in LTS stood for stability? It's all about support, and what they're willing to support for a long *** time.
Agreed 100%. I couldn't use Dapper because my PC was too new. So I went Edgy - Fiesty - Gutsy (yuck) - Hardy, and I've stuck with it. There's no point in me setting up my computer the way I want it, and then changing it 6 months later. I'm much happier to get all comfy, make a mess, back it all up, and do a nice, fresh, clean install when the new version comes out.
Hardy has been wonderful the past couple years.
Come to think of it, it seems the April releases are pretty good 8.04 Hardy Heron (LTS) is not bad 9.04 Jaunty Jackalope isn't bad 10.04 Lucid Lynx (LTS) is ??? (probably going to be good)
JillSwift said: I don't think calling folks "stupid" really works.
Your right he should of said mentally challenged.
I actually purchased Hardy from Amazon after hearing how great it was. It sucked, so much broken in that OS for myself. I luckily waited it out until Intrepid was released and it was much better, then came Jaunty which was decent but Intrepid was better for my laptop. Now, Karmic is here and its awesome still I wish there were things I could pick out from Intrepid ( power management and wireless signal bars actually worked correctly in Intrepid)
Dragonbite said: Come to think of it, it seems the April releases are pretty good
8.04 Hardy Heron (LTS) is not bad 9.04 Jaunty Jackalope isn't bad 10.04 Lucid Lynx (LTS) is ??? (probably going to be good)
my theory is that the .10 release right before an LTS release is a kind of "very stable beta" where the upcoming LTS' new stuff is tested. 7.10, iirc, also had a lot of madness associated with it.
I've found that every year from 2005 to 2008, the October releases have caused me more problems than the April ones. I don't even look at October releases anymore and am tending towards just sticking with the LTS releases from now on.
Seriously
When are people going to learn that actually waiting a few weeks after a new version is released before upgrading usually saves a lot of time and effort and allows for a series of updates to be issued usually solving issues that plague many early adopters.
Dragonbite said: Come to think of it, it seems the April releases are pretty good
8.04 Hardy Heron (LTS) is not bad 9.04 Jaunty Jackalope isn't bad 10.04 Lucid Lynx (LTS) is ??? (probably going to be good) +1 7.04 Feisty Fawn was great for me, made me move to ubuntu permanently.
I'm going through that stage in my life where there's not much excitement, so I have to keep up-to-date with the latest distro.
There's no way I could use Hardy though; there are SO many issues with it. It doesn't work with my webcam, it doesn't auto-mount my mum's Walkman, it doesn't work with mobile broadband (without lots of hacking around) and my wireless reception and reliability is terrible. It makes me wonder how I ever used Hardy for a full six months.
I did like Intrepid though. I ran my server and netbook off Intrepid until 9.10 hit beta; I actually still wish I had both machines running Intrepid again.
Dragonbite said: Sometimes I wonder if some things weren't shoved into Karmic so it could be worked through before including it in 10.04 LTS release.
I certainly hope so. This is nowadays my feeling about Ubuntu:
4.10 dapper alpha
5.04 dapper beta
5.10 dapper rc
6.06 dapper
6.10 hardy alpha
7.04 hardy beta
7.10 hardy rc
8.04 hardy
8.10 lucid alpha
9.04 lucid beta
9.10 lucid rc
10.04 lucid
Upgrading from one LTS to the next was my original intention on my main desktop. Hardy and Karmic will be supported until the same time, so there's no harm in backing up your sensitive data and giving the new release a chance. Wait til April if you wish, but between now and then you may run into the odd application you want to install, only to find out that its (only or) latest version's dependencies aren't met by Hardy.
I run Hardy on my desktop. I've been thinking of changing to Karmic - I downloaded the live cd and I've given it a good few spins - but now I'm thinking I'll probably wait for Lucid.
I run the other releases on my netbook. Currently Jaunty. I will probably flip to Karmic when some of the wrinkles are ironed out. But I hate the name "Karmic". Whoever thought that one up needs a good talking to.
t0p said: But I hate the name "Karmic". Whoever thought that one up needs a good talking to.
What is wrong with the name? The "Karmic" has a lot of deep meaning, almost like the name Ubuntu itself.
coolbrook said: but between now and then you may run into the odd application you want to install, only to find out that its (only or) latest version's dependencies aren't met by Hardy.
I solved this problem, by running a new version of ubuntu (and Debian and...) in the virtualBox... This way I can have all the newest programs without touching my base system, which is 8.04 LTS.
koleoptero said: +1
7.04 Feisty Fawn was great for me, made me move to ubuntu permanently.
Yes, forgot Feisty. That was a good one too.
Wim Sturkenboom said: I certainly hope so. This is nowadays my feeling about Ubuntu:
4.10 dapper alpha
5.04 dapper beta
5.10 dapper rc
6.06 dapper
6.10 hardy alpha
7.04 hardy beta
7.10 hardy rc
8.04 hardy
8.10 lucid alpha
9.04 lucid beta
9.10 lucid rc
10.04 lucid
Nice summary. Although, isn't 4.10 Ubuntu's first release? I don't know if we can consider it a precursor to the LTS because LTS concept wasn't there at the time if I am right.
I did a quick look on Distrowatch between Ubuntu and Red Hat. I was trying to see just how old is one or the other in terms of application versions.
I was comparing Red Hat 5.3 (current) and Ubuntu 8.04 LTS.
From what I could tell, even Ubuntu 8.04 LTS has more up-to-date applications than Red Hat's current, 5.3! This makes me feel a little bit better about the "lag" in LTS from the bleeding edge of application versions.
Aside from the fact I'm a bleeding edge freak, I agee that from LTS to LTS is a good way to go, if your hardware is ok, and you had the fnctionality you need when you started.
Hardy was ok for my laptop, a few slight issues (wifi light works, but doesn't blink) but I probably couldn't stand it in the long term, if for (in general) trival issues like the pidgin in Hardy doesn't have personal messenges (the thing under the nicks) for MSN. It sounds tupid, but would of drove me crazy.
Since then, it's only been about upgrades to have some cool feature X, it's not essential. It's perfectly acceptable to stay with Lucid.. (except I'm a bleeding edge freak and is running dev already...).
Lucid will also be nice because it'll be the first LTS since netbooks were invented. That opens it up another whole section..
I am of 2 minds, on my laptop I have Karmic, on my desktop, Hardy. My laptop is just a basic internet browsing machine. I tried Karmic on the desktop machine w/ the disc. It was actually, to my surprise, snappier, slicker and it did things like easily got sound working that Hardy did not do. I've had no probs on my laptop and have for the 1st time, thanks to the tuxonice kernel ppa and an www.ubuntugeek.com tutorial, have got hibernate working. This was monumental. I am itching to get Karmic on the desktop, I think Hardy has more issues than Karmic, but I have so many things going on with that machine that I am afraid it would wrap me up for days. The 6 month release system is great for hyping Ubuntu and galvanizes the devs, but many users would be better served by a rolling release.
syntr said: For continued happiness.
I would never even consider using an Ubuntu distro outside of this LTS cycle. Dapper was wonderful, and Hardy was a huge improvement. Even though I missed all the steps in between, I much prefer it this way. I have better things to do than upgrades. Everyone who went to Karmic expecting stability are being rather...uh...stupid. I love Canonical's long term support series, and am getting ready to try Lucid Lynx in April. Most of you don't agree, but I like stability more than "being on the cutting edge". I think that when Lucid comes around I'll start to exclusively use the LTS releases.
Dragonbite said: Sometimes I wonder if some things weren't shoved into Karmic so it could be worked through before including it in 10.04 LTS release.
I would definitely say that this is a likely scenario :P
syntr said: Everyone who went to Karmic expecting stability are being rather...uh...stupid.
This is a good point. The in-between releases are not meant to be the stable ones. Don't whine about instability unless it's an LTS. But if an LTS isn't stable, you have every right.
forrestcupp said: This is a good point. The in-between releases are not meant to be the stable ones. Don't whine about instability unless it's an LTS. But if an LTS isn't stable, you have every right.
People are expecting each release to be stable.
If Ubuntu were to focus LTS releases for the masses, and in-between for the enthusiasts what would they have to do to get press time in-between? Throw chairs at executives?
As-is, they enjoy being in the fore-front of blogs and articles every 6 months with the current release schedule.
They would have to put a lot of effort into differentiating the two "versions" (Stable- and Unstable- doesn't cut it) and marketing the two versions very differently. That said, I don't think they CAN'T do it, just it will take more effort and is the effort worth the perceived gains?
forrestcupp said: This is a good point. The in-between releases are not meant to be the stable ones. Don't whine about instability unless it's an LTS. But if an LTS isn't stable, you have every right.
It might seem disappointing but people have the right to whine about whatever they want. It's called freedom of speech. Whether their whines are justified is another matter though.
Opposite here....Since dapper i have never missed a single release in between!!
If i want to follow your pattern I might stick to Debian instead!
I'll just repeat what I said in an other thread ( http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=8234708&postcount=74 )
I stick with LTS. My hardware isn't all that new and everything has worked flawlessly since Dapper, so in terms of hardware support, new releases have nothing to offer me.
I consider all the 6-monthly upgraders testers. By the time the next LTS comes around; canonical will once again have learned some valuable lessons about what works well and what doesn't, and they'll compose yet another LTS for me to effortlessly upgrade to. Meanwhile, thanks to everyone for helping them sort things out.
the biggest problem one is likely to encounter with an LTS -> LTS deployment model is with new hardware.
9.04 did not function well on my new i7 mobo/cpu. i would expect 8.04 to cause an explosion.
ended up putting arch on it. will leave it be until the install breaks. i update about once a month - to my surprise, the system feels stable.
earthpigg said: the biggest problem one is likely to encounter with an LTS -> LTS deployment model is with new hardware.
Or in the likely case of 8.04 -> 10.04 are things that canot be upgraded such as ext4 format and Grub2. I think there are other pieces in 9.10 which are only installed with a complete installation and not an upgrade.
As long as these major changes are kept to a minimum, going LTS to LTS should be relatively painless yet beneficial.
earthpigg said:
ended up putting arch on it. will leave it be until the install breaks. i update about once a month - to my surprise, the system feels stable. but Arch uses a rolling release model, right. So their repo management would reflect that. Ubuntu rebuilds its repo from scratch (ie takes e new snapshot from Debian) every 6 months
syntr said: For continued happiness.
I would never even consider using an Ubuntu distro outside of this LTS cycle. Dapper was wonderful, and Hardy was a huge improvement. Even though I missed all the steps in between, I much prefer it this way. I have better things to do than upgrades. Everyone who went to Karmic expecting stability are being rather...uh...stupid. I love Canonical's long term support series, and am getting ready to try Lucid Lynx in April. Most of you don't agree, but I like stability more than "being on the cutting edge".
Good for you! I expect you'll be doing an upgrade...
earthpigg said: ended up putting arch on it. will leave it be until the install breaks. i update about once a month - to my surprise, the system feels stable.
Don't act so suprised. :) There is a misconception on the Ubuntu forums that "rolling release" means "dangerous untested bleeding edge applications are thrown at you willy nilly." In reality, Arch has strict quality control and a "testing" branch just like any other distro.
koenn said: but Arch uses a rolling release model, right. So their repo management would reflect that.
Ubuntu rebuilds its repo from scratch (ie takes e new snapshot from Debian) every 6 months
yeah, not trying to turn this into an arch vs ubuntu debate.
in my case, here where my options when i realized Ubuntu 9.04 wouldn't support my new hardware:
-try 5000 conventional distros until i find one that works well with it.
-compile my own kernel and start mucking about under the hood of Ubuntu - which would likely lead to breakage due to Ubuntu being more complex than arch. the learning curve required for me to muck about with the low-level guts of Ubuntu would be far greater than such a simple system as arch.
-to hell with it, install arch. if *any* distro supports my hardware with minimal fuss, arch will.
all distributions are nearly identical anyways.
package manager, repos, default preinstalled apps, and where things are hidden in the filsystem. <-- i just listed all significant differences between virtually all linux distributions.
if you can manage packages, change your repo file, know the names of the various pieces of software you want installed, google, and migrate your /home... then you are fine with any distro. makes not one bit of difference. just pick the one with the repos that suit your needs best.
and, in the end, aren't repositories the *only* difference between an Ubuntu LTS release and a 6 month release?