Karl - grub2 and ext2/ext3/ext4

[Jordon Bedwell]

On Tue, 2010-08-10 at 09:03 -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> is it actually true that an LTS release will *necessarily* be more
> reliable out of the box?  i just thought it meant that it would have a
> longer life span.  is there a more rigourous Q/A process for LTS
> releases?

I would assume they do more QA because it's the one they plan to support
like upstream would, Non-LTS is stable [at least it always has been for
me, even on my hardware which is generally bleeding edge too], the
packages are certainly more stable packages on LTS, what you see is
learn from non-LTS and put what you learned into LTS.  Think of Non-LTS
having say PHP 5.3.2 and LTS having PHP 5.3.2-2 (bad example I know ~
but lots of possible upstream patches and definitely bug fixes) at least
this is what I've noticed in my experience.  I can't speak for how they
actually do it, just what I notice.  So what you see in non-LTS is new
packages being prepped (in my opinion) and then LTS finally gets the
most stable version.  Yeah they have testing for all that too, but it's
different than it being bundled as default.

On computers that aren't my own, for example servers, I do tend to have
more luck with LTS and stability than I do with non-LTS, but that's
expected :P.

The only way to truly find out though is if we hit up Devel and ask for
word from the horses mouth because all I'm doing is assuming based on
what I notice, I have no access to the inner workings of Ubuntu.