On Mon, 2009-11-16 at 22:05 +1100, Norm wrote: > You know, > > This may sound a little like heresy, but is a new release every 6 months > sustainable? Or even necessary? Is it just me or is each new release becoming > just a little more buggy? > > It just seems like they're coming out of a sausage factory with the casings > not > quite tied off. I keep going back to Hardy for a "good experience" > > Perhaps an "update pack" every six months and stick with the current LTS > schedule for mainstream releases?
I see the non LTS releases as developer snapshot builds. There are some occasions where you will run them in production, like I am currently doing with Karmic for the virtualisation improvements. At the same time 80% of the boxes I have deployed in production environments (desktops and servers) run LTS releases. Why? because I want it to be solid and don't want to have to upgrade every 6 months. The only machine which is regularly running alphas/betas/rc/just released versions of ubuntu is my primary machine - my laptop. It has only completely died once - corrupted cryptroot on a karmic alpha +updates. Why? because if something is seriously busted I want to know about it well before the version goes gold and also I like shiny stuff. I do think that ubuntu and canonical need to review their marketing strategy for non LTS releases. I think that there is too much emphasis on promoting them to Jo/e Average user, where most of them would be better off on an LTS release. Can you imagine that chaos in the retail IT sector if MS released a new version of Windows every 6 (or even 12) months? Cheers Dave -- ubuntu-au mailing list ubuntu-au@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-au
