9.10 is a black eye for Ubuntu

[thomas]

dean wrote:
> Rashkae wrote:
>> thomas wrote:
>>   
>>>  > It's the most stable it's been in 18 months, and it's
>>>  > working for almost everybody.
>>>
>>> You are not being trufull in this statement. Version 9.04,
>>> which was the first that I used, was much better. There
>>> are too many problems to go into details again since so
>>> many people have mentioned them in their postings. I
>>> agree with the statement.
>>>
>>>     
>>
>> 9.04 was a disaster by comparison.  KDE updated to KDE4, before it was
>> ready by far, Amarok destroyed, god help you if you had an Intel graphic
>> chip and upgraded without taking the warning in release notes to heart..
>> Early adopters of ext4 having config files truncated to 0 bytes,
>> followed by a kernel that would lock up when you delete too many files
>> that wouldn't get patched for months; I could go on.
>>
>> I love 9.04 personally, but subjectively, to say that 9.04 release was
>> 'better' than 9.10 is a joke.
>>
>>   
> http://laserjock.wordpress.com/2009/11/04/the-myth-of-the-bad-ubuntu-release/
>
> I rest my case :)
I see that I need to correct my posting.  The corrected version of 9.04 
was a lot
better than the first version of 9.10.

Thomas