>> Anybody else fear that with the pace of change in Linux a 6-month >> release schedule is becoming rather a challenge? I realise it's neat >> and tidy to do it, but wonder whether it is rather ambitious. >> > > Yup. After hassle with 8.10 upgrade, I've reverted back to 8.04 and > sworn to only use LTS releases. And to only migrate to new LTS releases > three months after their official launch date. > > The LTS releases are essentially Ubuntu's "stable" branch. > > In any case, seriously, who has time to upgrade all of their PCs every 6 > months? I've got 5 Ubuntu PCs, a wife, three kids and a full time job. Sadly, I'm with you there Andrew, especially after the catastrophic upgrade on my own Dell Vostro from Intrepid to Jaunty. Mashed upgrade, and the fresh install wasn't too hot either...
That said, one of my kids PC's died yesterday (hardware I think) so that's getting taste of Karmic and depending on the results going back to Hardy (8.04.3!)... Going back to original post, I don't think the release cycle is too ambitious, I think it's the amount of stuff in each release that's too ambitious... Looking though the forums and Launchpad, there seems to an amazing amount of stuff that gets broken and re-broken on each release. Being a ex-developer I understand why this happens, but from an end user perspective, it looks pretty bad. I.e. They have a perfectly working machine. Out comes the latest version of their favourite OS (which is better/faster/prettier) but now several things don't work any more. I appreciate they get fixed and pretty rapidly, but I'm finding it pretty difficult to justify new upgrades to people I've converted to Ubuntu for fear that something will break and I'll have to spend a load of (unpaid) time fixing it... Lee -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/
