Jaunty still in Beta?

H.S. hs.samix at gmail.com
Sun Apr 26 06:50:40 UTC 2009

Thorny wrote:

> I know how the Debian system works, that's why I corrected you in your
> previous statement. It just isn't correct to think of testing and
> unstable as beta and alpha RCs, so they can't be used as examples in the
> way you did in your previous post. Judging by what you wrote just above,
> you too realize your previous statement wasn't correct because now you've
> changed it.

Yes, I did. I wasn't being very precise earlier, it was a very vague
example. Thanks for pointing it out.

> Having been through several Debian release cycles and monitoring several
> Debian lists and forums, I believe I can say lots and lots, because that's
> what I observed. Your personal experience is, naturally, limited. Don't
> misunderstand, I'm not knocking Debian, just correcting information. Just
> because your upgrade went well doesn't mean everyones does. In addition,
> you may be better at handling issues than many others, people running sid
> are supposed to be, sadly not all are. You might be surprised at the

Well, I have learned my lesson a while back. Using Unstable is not for
the feint of heart. Using Testing, one needs to be careful. Regardless,
one has to be always careful during upgraded, even in Ubuntu. Else, it
is just like playing Russian roulette with one's system.

> number of people who use "testing" in their sources.lst instead of
> codename and get a big shock right after release when migration starts
> again.

Yes, that happens with many users. Primarily because they are not clear
about what a release really means and how Testing differs from a named
release. But users learn this quite fast after the lack of this
knowledge bites them on their behinds :)

> And the change in the way the kernel enumerates drives and udev and etc.,
> etc.

Yes, that happens. But to fair though, I experienced that in Hardy as
well several months ago. Kernel upgrades created a problem with labels
and uuids of disks. It was on our univ. network. I was quite surprised
since it was on an LTS. And the other common problem is the change in
naming of ethx devices by udev. This has confused many an admins when
they loose network after a new kernel and/or udev upgrade I think.

Coming back to Ubuntu though (and on topic), going the update path is
not everyone's cup of tea. I have a feeling Ubuntu does not really
encourage that overtly. Take Nvidia driver for example. After the
installation of the driver, the package manager always tells the user to
reboot when a simple gdm restart suffices. I have taken this as Ubuntu
devs taking the safest route assuming a very novice user. We can call
this being conservative, erring towards side of extreme caution.
Thinking in this manner, I wouldn't be surprised users are given big
warning regarding upgrading from alphas to betas to rcs to stable
releases ... just an attempt to keep things clean.


Please reply to this list only. I read this list on its corresponding
newsgroup on gmane.org. Replies sent to my email address are just
filtered to a folder in my mailbox and get periodically deleted without
ever having been read.

More information about the ubuntu-users mailing list