9.10 is a black eye for Ubuntu
shellycat.gw at ntlworld.com
Fri Nov 6 18:31:16 UTC 2009
Avi Greenbury wrote:
> Walter Garcia-Fontes <walter.garcia at upf.edu> wrote:
>> What I don't understand is why the two paths stable-> Hardy (LTS) and
>> bleeding edge -> Karmic has been lost. When I adopted Ubuntu (it was
>> around Edgy) I remember that the first thing that I saw when I arrived
>> to www.ubuntu.com was that if wanted stability I should install Dapper
>> (was that the name?) and if wanted bleeding edge but didn't mind
>> risking some instabilities I should install Edgy.
> I don't recall ever seeing this between LTS and normal releases - I've
> always seen them regarded as equally stable in the crashing sense, but
> the LTS retaining the stability (in the software volatility sense) for
> longer than the normal release.
> I've always inferred that at time of release, both should be release
> ready. People who want bleeding edge and crashes would be running Debian
> Sid. I don't know what ubuntu offers now as far as people who want
> to help test for 10.04, but it doesn't appear to follow the same
> snapshot-of-testing approach as Debian does, and I've never really
> wondered about other ways of doing it.
> Avi Greenbury
> http://aviswebsite.co.uk ;)
I have been using Ubuntu since Dapper and have used every version since
except 8.10 (because I was having such a great time with 8.04). Anyway
during all that time whenever a new version is released, all we hear
and read are complaints about how Ubuntu have really screwed it up this
time. But over the next couple of months as bugfixes and other updates
are released, everybody comes to love the new version. I suspect it
will be the same with this release.
Admittedly, I've only had minor problems so far and I might be
complaining as loudly as anybody had it been otherwise.
Still, that's my 2p's worth.
More information about the ubuntu-users