Updating software between releases - where backports/SRU isn't enough

[Tim Hull]

>
>
> I run a current stable machine as my workstation, so at the moment it's
> running Feisty. For me that's fine, I can update, compile, fix, etc. but
> I would never expect my users to do that. In terms of time spent
> maintaining it, I've upgraded from Dapper to Edgy, then from Edgy to
> Feisty, both in addition to the 10 minutes a week on normal maintenance.
> That means if I were to multiply that time investment across all my
> clients, one of us would go broke, either the client, or me. (Let alone
> the logistics of getting the updates to the client and rolling them out.)
>
> I will concede that there may be an argument for running an LTS machine
> that I am not aware of that is causing you to make your request. If so,
> please enlighten me. Otherwise I think you're using an LTS scenario for
> the wrong reasons and you should be running the current release.
>
>
I have not, and do not, in fact, run an LTS release.  I've actually been
running mostly Feisty, though I've been going back and forth between OSes as
of late (OSX and Debian have been the others - though I may try FreeBSD
next).  My issue is basically that issues with hardware support pop up that
are fixed after release (for example, my aforementioned suspend issue). As I
said, most of the "Install Ubuntu on XYZ" articles include "compile X" or
"install from unsupported repository Y".  It seems like there is room for
improvement here - most users would encounter a scenario like this and run.
 Getting updates like Firefox, etc was a secondary concern - though I still
think there should be a way to do so simply within the package system.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel-discuss/attachments/20070728/6efb5d31/attachment.html>