Archived thread 1867921 from Ubuntu +1 (Precise Pangolin)(Closed). Markdown source: Ubuntu_+1_(Precise_Pangolin)(Closed)/thread_1867921_12.04_to_be_"extra"_LTS!.md
This makes me happy. :P I read that 12.04 will have 5 year support for both desktops and servers.
I always thought 3 years wasn't that long, considering that some competitors often support versions of their OS as long as 10 years.
This seems like a really good idea, both for home users who don't want to be bothered with upgrades, and for businesses who need something to integrate with over the long-term.
Thoughts/opinions anyone? :popcorn:
Yep, and I'll be very happy with it providing a stable version of Catalyst is included for GNOME 3 ;)
I wouldn't consider Ubuntu's releases to be quite the same as releases of Windows, or the shift from Classic MacOS to MacOS X. Those were major changes in which large parts of the OS were flat-out rewritten. At least in theory; Windows 7 and 8 could still be running on the Windows 3.1 code base for all we know.
Anyway, Ubuntu releases are more like "point releases" or service packs. They still have the same Linux core, still use X11, and any meaningful changes are likely to occur more gradually. Its not a bad thing, and it sure beats having a case of "ZOMG black screen of death, monitor says something about device not being certified to the premium content standards, DUCK PANIC!"
Five year support will be very nice, though.
Sure, they still use the Linux core, but the change from Natty to Oneric was pretty major (though not quite like 9x to XP to Vista or Mac OS to Mac OS X). It went to the 3.0 Kernel, GNOME 3, GTK+ 3, etc. I'd say that's the biggest change in a while since Unity was introduced in 10.10 (which was still built on GNOME 2 and GTK+ 2).
But yeah, I like the fact that Precise will be a 5-year LTS for desktops. Means some of us who may not like future changes will be sticking with it for a lot longer :)
There's a rumor going around that Lubuntu is not going to follow the same LTS cycle ................ but AFAIK just a rumor :)
I think it would be cool if Lubuntu had a 5 year LTS cycle.
The 5 year support cycle might also help with OEM adoption and commercial software development. Developers will be able to be confident knowing that their work won't break 6 months down the road.
kaldor said: The 5 year support cycle might also help with OEM adoption and commercial software development. Developers will be able to be confident knowing that their work won't break 6 months down the road.
A big ditto from me :)
I maintain about 40 machines total ............ not even in one environment, but spread out between about 3 dozen seniors (aka: elderly folks).
I'd found a perfectly sane way of doing that with Ubuntu while it used gnome2, but I've now had to change to Lubuntu ............ it's a matter of making things look and feel like Win98, ME, or XP ;)
I'm almost there with the LXDE UI, I just need to figure out how to change the clock/calendar font.
But LTS means I can get things working and generally forget about it for quite a while after choosing to only install security updates.
As long as you know you're secure and everything works as you're used to why upgrade :lolflag:
Yes, some of us want to play, but not with 40 old boxes at a time.
From reading the Lubuntu mailing list it appears to be true that Lubuntu will NOT follow the Ubuntu LTS cycle :(
So I guess I need to spend more time working on the classic Ubuntu/Gnome DE. No other choice really.
With the 3 year LTS lifespan and a new LTS coming every 2 years I had plenty of time to plan and get everyone upgraded. Without that I'd be in a frenzy.
kansasnoob said: A big ditto from me :)
I maintain about 40 machines total ............ not even in one environment, but spread out between about 3 dozen seniors (aka: elderly folks).
I'd found a perfectly sane way of doing that with Ubuntu while it used gnome2, but I've now had to change to Lubuntu ............ it's a matter of making things look and feel like Win98, ME, or XP ;)
I'm almost there with the LXDE UI, I just need to figure out how to change the clock/calendar font.
But LTS means I can get things working and generally forget about it for quite a while after choosing to only install security updates.
As long as you know you're secure and everything works as you're used to why upgrade :lolflag:
Yes, some of us want to play, but not with 40 old boxes at a time.
I'd almost recommend XFCE instead, in that case. I find it much easier to modify the desktop to look like Windows compared to LXDE.
They'd better make it rolling. 5 years is like centuries for open source development. The libraries will be so outdated by then.
It provides another option which is why it is such an excellent idea. No one is forced to stay with 12.04 for five years. One can upgrade after, six months, two years, four years etc. In the enterprise this will be highly welcomed.
I am really looking forward to 12.04 "extra" LTS.
Dr. C said: It provides another option which is why it is such an excellent idea. No one is forced to stay with 12.04 for five years. One can upgrade after, six months, two years, four years etc. In the enterprise this will be highly welcomed.
I am really looking forward to 12.04 "extra" LTS.
+1 I will be testing this one soon. :)
kaldor said: I'd almost recommend XFCE instead, in that case. I find it much easier to modify the desktop to look like Windows compared to LXDE.
I simply can't stand Thunar ;)
It's all a matter of personal choice, but I've been showing some folks my Lubuntu "replacement" for Ubuntu 10.04 and they mostly dislike it almost as much as they dislike Unity ................ so I'm going to spend more time on learning to tweak Ubuntu/Gnome's fallback-session :D
Unless I drop dead you'll hear much more from me from me over the next few months, I think my number one issue will be figuring out how to get "clearlooks" themes working in Ubuntu/Gnome3.
It's time for a few good challenges anyway :D
Agreed, I can't stand Thunar either. Having FTP access within the file manager is a must-have for me.
kansasnoob said: I simply can't stand Thunar ;)
It's all a matter of personal choice, but I've been showing some folks my Lubuntu "replacement" for Ubuntu 10.04 and they mostly dislike it almost as much as they dislike Unity ................ so I'm going to spend more time on learning to tweak Ubuntu/Gnome's fallback-session :D
Unless I drop dead you'll hear much more from me from me over the next few months, I think my number one issue will be figuring out how to get "clearlooks" themes working in Ubuntu/Gnome3.
It's time for a few good challenges anyway :D Right now I am using Xfce and really like it. It would be easy to get it to look like 98 (not sure what XP looked like).
As to Thunar, while not quite as opposed to it as you, I don't really like it all that well either. I am using Nautilus and have removed Thunar completely ("aptitude keep-all" is very handy for things like that).
Edit Clearlooks works fine.
Dr. C said: It provides another option which is why it is such an excellent idea. No one is forced to stay with 12.04 for five years. One can upgrade after, six months, two years, four years etc. In the enterprise this will be highly welcomed.
I am really looking forward to 12.04 "extra" LTS.
It surely would provide another option. But at the same time it would take manpower, workload. And yet after using a 12.04 LTS for five years, it would be a too big leap to the next release.
Really, only a rolling release would solve all these problems, for good. And, if Canonical can afford it, it is possible to create let's say three different levels of a rolling release:
wish 10.04 could have been an 'extra' LTS :-)
Seriously though will there be enough time to smooth out all the niggles from 11.04 by the 12.04 release date? Its evident the community is still divided over unity and gnome 3 etc so maybe more time is needed to resolve the issues.
M.
moldaviax said: wish 10.04 could have been an 'extra' LTS :-)
Seriously though will there be enough time to smooth out all the niggles from 11.04 by the 12.04 release date? Its evident the community is still divided over unity and gnome 3 etc so maybe more time is needed to resolve the issues.
M.
ditto here
ranch hand said: Right now I am using Xfce and really like it. It would be easy to get it to look like 98 (not sure what XP looked like).
As to Thunar, while not quite as opposed to it as you, I don't really like it all that well either. I am using Nautilus and have removed Thunar completely ("aptitude keep-all" is very handy for things like that).
Edit Clearlooks works fine.
I'm pretty sure I can get Ubuntu/Gnome3 fallback/panel mode to do what I want :)
Expect me to post much more beginning within the next few weeks, My kitchen remodel is finally reaching an end .......... I hope. It's far from perfect but I can make biscuits now :lolflag:
I'm in agreement with ^all^ of the above; my biggest learning curve occurred when I made the move from XP (refused to use vista, even on your system :D), to Gutsy; 'twas quite the challenge as I knew no one with any experience with any *nix, and was totally on my own. But thanks to you all, these forums, the #ubuntu channel, and most of all the psychocats site it all simply worked! Since then I've been proudly an LTS guy and have converted several fiends to ubuntu. After hearing all of the complaints about Unity I was rather concerned but it does seem that I'll have many options to install various desktop environments with Precise (I still think Pesky Penguin would've been better :P) and as long as, with a little more research, on my part, I can obtain something similar to the attached link, I will be happier than a pig wallowing in slop! Please, all of "you", keep up the good work! Suffice to say, if it wasn't for ubuntu, I probably would've trashed my 'puter and computing and taken up knitting.
Side
beew said: They'd better make it rolling. 5 years is like centuries for open source development. The libraries will be so outdated by then.
I have servers running versions of RedHat and CentOS that are well over five years old. It depends on your needs. I'm glad to see that Canonical has decided to introduce a bit more stability to releases. I'm sure they heard from potential commercial customers that stable long-term releases are a must in business settings.
beew said: They'd better make it rolling. 5 years is like centuries for open source development. The libraries will be so outdated by then.
yes or fixing this bug will become extremely important:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/software-center/+bug/578045
great news for companies that use Ubuntu on the office PCs
I'm curious to see what a stable version of unity will look like....
madjr said: yes or fixing this bug will become extremely important:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/software-center/+bug/578045
+1!
BUT I believe they have made some strides already regarding Backports. I've never actually used them but I think that may be part of the plan :D
Harry33 said: It surely would provide another option.
But at the same time it would take manpower, workload. And yet after using a 12.04 LTS for five years, it would be a too big leap to the next release.
Really, only a rolling release would solve all these problems, for good. And, if Canonical can afford it, it is possible to create let's say three different levels of a rolling release:
What a radical idea.
Sounds like Squeeze, Wheezy and Sid to me.
For the average user, there is no big difference. I feel that most of us prefer to update in every new version, even use the beta to squeeze more state of the art software.
I think the biggest benefit from this will be the enterprise users who actually pay for support. Five years of support on a single product is a huge selling point and I think it will increase Canonical's business.
Most individual users upgrade much more frequently than that, but doing a single upgrade is simple. Upgrading an entire office is not.
ranch hand said: What a radical idea.
Sounds like Squeeze, Wheezy and Sid to me.
Yes something like that. :guitar:
5 years of desktop support for LTS versions will be GREAT :) If you think that the libraries will be outdated by then, nobody is stopping you from upgrading to the next LTS version every couple of years.
Also don't you think that the 18 month support for regular versions is a waste of developer resources? I have a hunch that Ubuntu desktop users: 1) upgrade from version to version (every 6-7 months) 2) upgrade from LTS to LTS as soon as possible (every 24 months) 3) keep the same LTS as long as possible (clean install at LTS' *end of life*)
Who upgrades every 18 months? Wouldn't it be better to reduce the support for regular releases to something like 12 months?
danniel said: 5 years of desktop support for LTS versions will be GREAT :) If you think that the libraries will be outdated by then, nobody is stopping you from upgrading to the next LTS version every couple of years.
Also don't you think that the 18 month support for regular versions is a waste of developer resources? I have a hunch that Ubuntu desktop users: 1) upgrade from version to version (every 6-7 months) 2) upgrade from LTS to LTS as soon as possible (every 24 months) 3) keep the same LTS as long as possible (clean install at LTS' *end of life*)
Who upgrades every 18 months? Wouldn't it be better to reduce the support for regular releases to something like 12 months?
Actually if you check out the support sections of the forums, you'll see that some users upgrade every 6 months, others use a version until it EOLs and yet other users use LTS versions, that's the wonderful thing about using a Linux distribution, you can use it the way you want to, not the way others think you should.
danniel said: 5 years of desktop support for LTS versions will be GREAT :) If you think that the libraries will be outdated by then, nobody is stopping you from upgrading to the next LTS version every couple of years.
Also don't you think that the 18 month support for regular versions is a waste of developer resources? I have a hunch that Ubuntu desktop users: 1) upgrade from version to version (every 6-7 months) 2) upgrade from LTS to LTS as soon as possible (every 24 months) 3) keep the same LTS as long as possible (clean install at LTS' *end of life*)
Who upgrades every 18 months? Wouldn't it be better to reduce the support for regular releases to something like 12 months?
I've thought this as well, but the support is more on the business side of things. It is up to what Canonical things is going to be more profitable. Although it does seem like a waste of resources to me.
danniel said: 5 years of desktop support for LTS versions will be GREAT :) If you think that the libraries will be outdated by then, nobody is stopping you from upgrading to the next LTS version every couple of years.
Also don't you think that the 18 month support for regular versions is a waste of developer resources? I have a hunch that Ubuntu desktop users: 1) upgrade from version to version (every 6-7 months) 2) upgrade from LTS to LTS as soon as possible (every 24 months) 3) keep the same LTS as long as possible (clean install at LTS' *end of life*)
Who upgrades every 18 months? Wouldn't it be better to reduce the support for regular releases to something like 12 months?
yea i think so too, but the real waste of resources is the 6 month releases.
with this release cycle you end up having to support 4 or 5 very buggy releases within the 2 year frame.
**People dont even remember *recent releases* like merkat, and natty will be forgotten soon...**
longer cycles would be better. Opensuse does 8 months (so just support 3 releases in 2 years) and mandriva goes yearly, so even less releases to support.
less need to support, less need to upgrade, more time to polish, more time for users, Oems and developers to adapt, less backporting and fragmentation, etc.
I hope this "extra LTS" initiative helps open their minds and becomes the first step towards a better path.
cariboo907 said: you can use it the way you want to, not the way others think you should.
Of course, but reducing the support for normal releases could allow more resources for improving the LTS versions.
**For example**, in May 2012 there will be desktop support for:
That's four versions at once.
But if my math is correct, with five years of support for LTS versions, there will be up to 5 desktop versions to be supported at the same time starting with 2016 (sometimes 2 LTS + 3 regular, other times 3 LTS + 2 regular).
If the support for normal releases is reduced to 12 months, then there will be 2 LTS + 2 regular desktop releases or 3 LTS + 1 regular to be supported :)
Their are some issues with the LTS in my opinion. Software is essentially 'frozen' once the LTS is released. If large bugs are found in the software after release their is no way to fix them. The SRU process does not allow large changes. This is one of my concerns with the LTS idea.
duanedesign said: Their are some issues with the LTS in my opinion. Software is essentially 'frozen' once the LTS is released. If large bugs are found in the software after release their is no way to fix them. The SRU process does not allow large changes. This is one of my concerns with the LTS idea.
There is a bug report relate to that problem: http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=11399502&postcount=22
madjr said: **People dont even remember *recent releases* like merkat, and natty will be forgotten soon...**
Too true, I beta tested Maverick and now I don't even have it installed!
As I multi-boot between various releases I will probably keep 12.04 for longer than I would other releases. By 12.04 I mean Ubuntu _and_ Kubuntu. If I have the hard drive space available them it will remain installed but I will probably always use the latest release (of Kubuntu).
This morning I made room for 12.04, just waiting for the daily ISOs to be made available. :)
kansasnoob said: so I'm going to spend more time on learning to tweak Ubuntu/Gnome's fallback-session :D
Post your results and you will have a very popular HowTo. Especially with 5 years of updates, will see the hardware out nicely.
I can see them following a Cooker/Rawhide (or nightly/beta/release) approach with LTS based on a rolling development version (i.e. Ubuntu+1). Then there's only one current release to support, and two to test: the frozen-pool beta and the "nightly" development version.
Ubuntu needs two streams -
This is basically achieved now with the LTS and six-monthly releases, but major changes like the Unity environment are a big negative for those that use Ubuntu as a tool and not a toy.
I dread the end of the Gnome 2 interface with 10.04 LTS that some of us have spent a lot of time using productively just to be offered either a second rate "Fallback" interface or a touchscreen interface because it is the current fad.
As far as new programs (or "apps" for the current trendoids) go, backporting from the current release only to the latest LTS should keep a LTS almost as functional as a current release through the life on the LTS, with far less workload than backporting to all supported releases.
dcstar said: Ubuntu needs two streams -
This is basically achieved now with the LTS and six-monthly releases, but major changes like the Unity environment are a big negative for those that use Ubuntu as a tool and not a toy.
I dread the end of the Gnome 2 interface with 10.04 LTS that some of us have spent a lot of time using productively just to be offered either a second rate "Fallback" interface or a touchscreen interface because it is the current fad.
As far as new programs (or "apps" for the current trendoids) go, backporting from the current release only to the latest LTS should keep a LTS almost as functional as a current release through the life on the LTS, with far less workload than backporting to all supported releases.
Exactly! 10.04 should have had the extra LTS status it would have averted lots of negative feeling towards Ubuntu because quite possibly 5 years down the line nobody is going to bother with sidebars anymore because Apple or MS will find a better way to make things look trendy and eye-candy-ish and inevitably everyone else will follow.
Definitely agree, this announcement should have been about giving "extended LTS" status to 10.04, not 12.04 .
Yes, businesses care about stability and solidity over gimmicks, they just want the stuff to work. So full marks to whoever decided that Ubuntu needed to do more to encourage business uptake, and that businesses wanted consistency and stability rather than a steady stream of revisions, and also full marks for persuading Canonical that they needed to introduce five-year support on selected business-friendly versions, so that when businesses found a version that they really liked, they could stick with it for a while.
So "exLTS" for 10.04 could actually have been a brilliant move, and silenced the critics (Hate Unity? Just use 10.04 exLTS and shut up) ... but they again managed to screw it up.
----
This *could* have been an announcement saying:
"Dear businesses, we know what you are looking for in an operating system, and we know that you've been a bit apprehensive about our new Unity interface, but worry not - just for you, we've launched a special "Ubuntu for Business" initiative that isolates you from all these worries by taking the last LTS verison of Ubuntu that you really liked -- 10.04 -- and extending its support to a full five years! So you still have a simple, intuitive, familiar drop-in replacement for XP that runs on old hardware and that your employees can pick up quickly without needing lots of expensive retraining. It's been running live in businesses for over a year and a half now, so you know it's solid and reliable, and that there are no hidden issues or problems. We've now removed the last obstacle to your organisation doing a full install of Ubuntu, so you can start rolling it out tomorrow. Rejoice!"
... but it somehow ended up as an announcement saying:
"Dear businesses, we know that this is a critical time for you, as you decide whether to buy a whole stack of Win7 licenses before Microsoft try to foist Win8 on you, and we'd like to offer you an impressive alternative. But unfortunately we don't have one. In fact, we don't have anything for you at all."
" We *do technically* still have version 10.04, but support for that is about to stop in a few months, so you can't implement that in your business as a long-term solution, and you probably don't want to touch v11.04 with a bargepole, because it was a buggy experimental development version. So, because we know that you value mature, tried-and-tested solutions, we'd like to offer you v12.04, which is our recommended "extended LTS" business release, with five-year support. "
" ... Unfortunately, it's not *yet* a tried and tested solution. In fact, we haven't actually finished writing the thing yet, and it's not scheduled for first release until next year ... and because you probably have a policy of not installing new operating systems until they've been tested for six to eight months to find all the bugs, that probably means that you won't be taking 12.04 seriously as a large-scale rollout until nearly 2013. Which means that by then you'll have already bought a stack of Win7 licenses to make sure that you have continuity of supply before Win8 replaces it, so you won't be interested in Ubuntu again until *those* machines need replacing, which is, what, another three to five years, giving us ... 2015? 2017? "
" Anyway, when that time eventually comes around, we hope that you'll still remember us, and not draw too many adverse conclusions over the fact that when you actually needed our product, we had nothing suitable to offer you, because we preferred to promote a product that wasn't yet finished, at the expense of a product that did everything that you wanted, but which we no longer wanted to support. "
"PS: We hope that you business users like our new interface, specially optimised for low-resolution 16:9 widescreen netbooks and embedded TV set media-centre software. Because with 12.04, that's what you've got. Enjoy! "
dcstar said: I dread the end of the Gnome 2 interface with 10.04 LTS that some of us have spent a lot of time using productively just to be offered either a second rate "Fallback" interface or a touchscreen interface because it is the current fad.
Actually, Unity isn't currently //even// a touchscreen interface.
See, the software base for Ubuntu is mostly cross-plaform stuff that's designed primarily for desktops, so it tends to rely on things like F1 help, alt-clicking and shift-clicking, and right-click context menus. So, an OS platform that runs that software and supports touchscreen interfaces needs to have an additional chunk of GUI infrastructure that lets the user trigger those events using a touch interface. It's easy enough to do ... if you have a launcher strip, you tap a few times on its page pad to get to the "modifiers" strip, and then you tap a modifier pad followed by a screen location to get the extended functions.
Unity doesn't have that additional translation feature to allow its software library to be used reliably on a touchscreen device. There's no obvious way to right-click on something. That's why people who care about UI design tend to hate Unity, because Unity is essentially a fake. It's like a graphic designer's mockup of how a touchscreen interface might look, without the actual functionality. The other thing that offends UI designers about Unity is that is that its design (or lack of) suggests a totally derivative approach to user interfaces that concentrates on blindly copying distinctive features from other OSes, without any real understanding of why those features were there, and whether or not they still work in different contexts. So the people behind Unity have probably not felt that the ability to trigger modifier-key functions is important, because the associated GUI components don't appear on iOS or Android. But iOS and Android apps are custom-written for an environment in which right-clicks and Crtl/Shift/Alt keys don't exist, so their OS interfaces don't have to bother simulating those functions. Ubuntu is a different sort of platform, with different demands, and when it comes to running desktop software on a touchscreen device, it's supposed to be the job of the OS to make that transition work. It's not supposed to be the app writer's job to rewrite their app for different hardware, it's supposed to be the job of the OS, as a platform, to seamlessly provide the software with equivalent input on the different hardware devices.
Since Ubuntu/Unity doesn't yet provide this conversion for touchscreens, Ubuntu is not yet a touchscreen OS, and Unity is not yet a touchscreen interface.
There's nothing instrinsically wrong with the idea of a pad strip, and we could design a brilliant touchscreen interface whose screenshots looked superficially like Unity. But Unity itself, in its current incarnation, is still a bad joke.
@ErkDemon, how do you know Canonical hasn't done this already, with commercial customers. From what I understand they customize a release to the customers specification. Most commercial customer don't upgrade, because there is a new version available, they usually test it thoroughly before deploying it on their desktops, so there aren't any surprises for them.
Oneiric is the second release to have Unity as the default desktop, unless an Ubuntu user completely avoided any computer news sites, forums or any source of computer news, they couldn't avoid knowing that Unity is what you get when you install Ubuntu.
That being said, unless you started using a Linux distribution 6 months ago, you know that you can customize it to suit yourself, you aren't forced to keep the default desktop as with other operating systems.
Wouldn't it be possible to just get Ubuntu 10.04 server edition, swap out all the included server stuff for ubuntu-desktop etc, and then find oneself with a nice 5 year supported "desktop" Lynx ?
10.04 should have had the extra LTS status it would have averted lots of negative feeling towards Ubuntu because quite possibly 5 years down the line nobody is going to bother with sidebars anymore because Apple or MS will find a better way to make things look trendy and eye-candy-ish and inevitably everyone else will follow.
It is OK if u feel that way, but i must tell you until then Unity kick their ***.
It's a good idea to make a survey, to find who and how many are using LTS versions. Personally I believe that there are not so many.
viperdvman said: Sure, they still use the Linux core, but the change from Natty to Oneric was pretty major (though not quite like 9x to XP to Vista or Mac OS to Mac OS X). It went to the 3.0 Kernel, GNOME 3, GTK+ 3, etc. I'd say that's the biggest change in a while since Unity was introduced in 10.10 (which was still built on GNOME 2 and GTK+ 2).
The change to 3.0 Kernel was a *complete non-event*. It was simply a version change like every other kernel release before it. Gnome 3 is *less of a mind-shift* than Unity was. This is nothing compared to the disruption that Win 9x to XP was. XP is based on NT tech as are all the releases after it to this date, but 9x was DOS (aaaargh!).
Of course there are those that want to believe it's major, *but that is not based as much on fact as it is belief*.
Longer support for an LTS release is good news indeed. It's fun upgrading a personal desktop, but it's an entirely different matter doing that for hundreds of machines! To me this is an indication that Canonical understand what the IT support challenges are in businesses, which is excellent.
BillyBoa said: It's a good idea to make a survey, to find who and how many are using LTS versions. Personally I believe that there are not so many.
am sure many want to stick with the LTS , but they cant, specially until they fix this bug:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/software-center/+bug/578045
which gladly might happen sooner than later.
madjr said: am sure many want to stick with the LTS , but they cant, specially until they fix this bug:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/software-center/+bug/578045
which gladly might happen sooner than later.
And that's why my production machine is running on 11.04 and not 10.04.
BillyBoa said: It's a good idea to make a survey, to find who and how many are using LTS versions. Personally I believe that there are not so many.
I think you'b be surprised how many companies are still running an LTS version, Canonical keeps track by compiling specific repositories connections. then again this may not give an accurate number, as companies have many systems running behind routers with just a single ip address being shown.
Keep in mind that enterprise doesn't allow their users to just upgrade any time they want, the upgrade has to be tested before being deployed, and by pushing updates from their own servers, they save on bandwidth.