1. Newbie evaluation. 2. Gutsy>Hardy: request for advice.

[Derek Broughton]

Bas Roufs wrote:

>> I have been upgrading since feisty (dapper to feisty upgrade broke my
>> swap partition due to using UID to identify partitions).
> How can prevent happening something like this? When having that problem,
> did you 'install from scratch' (clean install) or did you use an upgrade
> option via e.g. adept?

It would have had to be an upgrade.  I really doubt it was "broken" to the
extent it couldn't have been fixed by a really simple edit to /etc/fstab. 
With the feisty upgrade, a script modified /etc/fstab to use UUID (not UID)
so as to cause fewer problems with the feisty->gutsy upgrade, where many
systems were going to have their hard drive device names changed (and it's
happening again going to hardy).  I recall having problems there too, but
it wasn't a big deal to fix my fstab so that the swap continued to work.

>> Sadly, resuming from suspend doesn't work on my laptop in Hardy so I had
>> to go back to Gutsy.
> 'Resuming from suspend': what does this expression mean in this case?

Resuming after suspending :-)  "suspend" would be either "suspend to RAM"
or "suspend to disk" (hibernation).  This stores everything about the
running state of the system on the swap partition, and resume reads it
back.  I've seen a couple of notes about systems that aren't finding the
suspend signature in the swap file, and so won't resume.  Again, I'd be
surprised if there isn't a workaround.
> 
>>  I don't think Hardy was stable enough for a LTS release ....
>>   
> 'LTS Release': to be honest, the information about this issue is
> confusing. So far I understood that Ubuntu Hardy is meant as 'Long Term
> Support' however Kubuntu Hardy not. Can someone explain a bit more on
> this issue?

Kubuntu isn't, and won't be, LTS, because of KDE4 issues.   Ubuntu is, and
this is part of the Ubuntu core, so strictly I guess he has a point.  otoh,
having been here for many releases now, I'd say Ubuntu 8.04 is _clearly_
stable enough for an LTS release (otoh, I haven't had the nerve to make the
switch myself!).  Because 1, or even 100, users have a problem that wasn't
uncovered before the release, hardly makes a case for a too-early release,
and complaints actually seem fewer than with previous releases.

> On the other hand: if Hardy is still not 'stable' now, can we expect
> that so-called 'updates' can sufficiently effectively eliminate the most
> important bugs?

Absolutely.
-- 
derek