If you want a Google Wave invite let me know [EOM]

[Rajiv Gunja]

Nate,
In my understanding, the whole point of "Ubuntu" is to introduce latest and
greatest or cutting edge with a hint of some stability and sanity in their
releases. Yes, TLS are supposed to be more stable than the other releases,
but whom are we kidding, when we pick any software hot off the stove and try
to put it in production, there always seems to be issues. This is not only
true for Linux, but all software in general.

Of course, I will never run latest Ubuntu release on my main desktop which
has all my data as I always fear what cutting edge software they will put
into the OS, which will not be compatible with my hardware/software or how
my daily interaction will be affected. Isn't that true at the companies we
for too? Will our companies switch to Windows 2008 server the day it is
released or to the nightly build of OpenSolaris each night?

The weird thing is that 9.04 installed well on my old hardware, but 9.10 did
not even boot up properly. But when I tried "Ultimate Linux 2.4" which is
based on 9.10, everything worked well, including 3D acceleration and openGL.

I think people who are serious about their desktop should only stick to TLS
and people who feel lucky and want to play around with their OS should
upgrade their OS every 6 months.

I run Mandriva on my main computer and Ubuntu 9.10 (Ultimate Linux 2.4) on
my older computer.

-GGR

--
Rajiv G Gunja
Blog: http://ossrocks.blogspot.com


2009/11/20 Nate <omegamormegil at gmail.com>

> I have had some issues with 9.10, but to be fair to Canonical and the
> Ubuntu
> release guys, regressions aren't really their fault.  Many problems aren't
> discovered until after the release because the new version wasn't tested on
> their hardware.  While I don't exactly understand why this is necessary,
> it's apparent that the kernel hackers (upstream, not Canonical) seem to
> introduce a few hardware regressions every release while they are improving
> other features.
>
> That said, it is their fault when they choose to include brand new
> virtually
> untested software such as Grub2 in Karmic and the new Intel graphics
> drivers
> in Jaunty.  While buggy software can be very frustrating, I am making the
> choice to upgrade every six months as opposed to sticking with the LTS
> releases and upgrading every two years.  I prefer getting all the new stuff
> they are working on than sticking with a much more stable OS.  Because
> users
> have the option of sticking with an older release, Canonical chooses to
> push
> new tech into their 6 month releases.  If they didn't, it would NEVER get
> testing.  For example, if Grub2 hadn't been included in Karmic, it would
> have been just as buggy if they waited and added it to Lucid.  Now that
> it's
> getting testing in Karmic and the bugs are being found, it should be a much
> more stable bootloader for Lucid.
>
> For the past few releases I wished Canonical would change the release
> schedule so that there is more beta time for testing and less alpha time
> where everything is in a state of flux. Surprisingly, they have implemented
> this for Lucid - there will be 3 Alpha releases and 2 Beta releases adding
> about two weeks of time for beta testing (compared to 6 Alpha releases and
> 1
> beta release in previous versions of Ubuntu).
>
> See:  https://wiki.ubuntu.com/KarmicReleaseSchedule
>         https://wiki.ubuntu.com/LucidReleaseSchedule
>
> Also, in an effort to hopefully improve stability, new packages in lucid
> are
> being pulled from Debian Testing instead of Debian unstable, in the hope
> that the packages from the more tested repository will contribute to less
> bugs in Lucid from the beginning.  Pulling from Debian Testing may be a
> permanent change for LTS releases if it goes well, but I'm not sure about
> the release schedule.
>
> Nate
> (Sorry for the long email :)
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 9:14 AM, Ron Swift <rswift at swiftstaffing.com>
> wrote:
>
> > The problems that some of us are experiencing with the 9.10 release are
> > real and troublesome. I have a number of workstations, laptops and
> > netbooks that are running it just fine, but as I have mentioned before,
> > two Dell Dimension 2400 workstations that freeze when running 9.10.
> > I would hope that Canonical focus on backward compatibility as it adds
> > new and exciting features to future versions. I also think that quality
> > and getting it right should trump meeting release deadlines. Also, why
> > do we need new releases every six months?
> > Thanks
> >
> > Josh Rhoderick wrote:
> > > I think it's funny that people are having so much trouble with Karmic.
> > It's
> > > the first version of Ubuntu since Gutsy that works perfectly for me on
> > all
> > > of my various hardware. Either way, the next LTS is going to rock.
> > Besides,
> > > you don't innovate by "leaving well enough alone."
> > >
> > > Look here for an explanation of wave:
> > > http://wave.google.com/help/wave/about.html
> > >
> > > -- Josh
> > >
> > > On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 12:09 AM, ERLEBUD <erlebud at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >> why not?  the latest version of Ubuntu is a disaster waiting to
> happen.
> > >> They should have left well enough alone while everything was working.
> > Best
> > >> motto in the world: IF IT WORKS DON'T FIX IT!   WHAT IS A GOOGLE WAVE?
> > >> We'll see how long it takes to set it up. It is 12:09 a.m. right now.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>  leg
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> > --
> >
> > Ron Swift
> > President
> > www.swiftstaffing.com
> > 410-788-7011 ext 5005
> > -----------------------
> > Celebrating 20 Years in Business!
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Ubuntu-us-md mailing list
> > Ubuntu-us-md at lists.ubuntu.com
> > Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
> > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-us-md
> >
> --
> Ubuntu-us-md mailing list
> Ubuntu-us-md at lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-us-md
>