Bug 0 review pls

Daniel Robitaille robitaille at gmail.com
Mon Jun 2 22:36:29 UTC 2008

On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 11:59 AM, Matt Darcy
<ubuntu.lists at projecthugo.co.uk> wrote:

> 2.) LTS fixes and backports. There is no enough fixes, updates and
> upgrades to make LTS a viable long term (3 year) stratergy for business
> use. Too much focus is on "fix for next release" or "upgrade product for
> next release", which relates to point 1. If a server model is to be
> considered usable it needs to have regular fixes applied to that
> release, not pushed out into current +1. I understand why this is done
> as unless the bug is mission critical it makes more sense from an ubuntu
> standpoint to target the fix into the next release, as that release will
> have updates in and is less than 6 months away. This is not an option
> for a long term server audience. The 6.06 release was crippled on later
> edition dell servers due to the lack of back ports on the kernel for
> specific hardware controllers, if the LTS edition is to be truly LTS,
> then I'm afraid kernel updates/back-ports will need to be on the radar
> more, and things learnt from the non-LTS products need to be pushed back.

Being the owner of a Dell server running 7.04 because that was the
only version of Ubuntu that could deal with its hardware when it was
set up in the spring of 2007, I totally agree with that paragraph.
Doing a double upgrade (7.04 to 7.10 to 8.04) on a production box is
not something I look forward in the next 6 months I have before
Feisty's support runs out.   Given the choice last year, we would have
used an older LTS version instead of a currenty  non-LTS version, but
we simply didn't have the option while continuing using Ubuntu.


Daniel Robitaille

More information about the ubuntu-server mailing list