Karl - grub2 and ext2/ext3/ext4
glgxg at sbcglobal.net
Thu Aug 12 01:13:47 UTC 2010
On 08/11/2010 03:32 PM, Tom H wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 8:56 AM, Jordon Bedwell <jordon at envygeeks.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 2010-08-10 at 06:27 -0600, Karl Larsen wrote:
>>> It's a shame that Ubuntu version 10.04 works so well. You
>>> install, update and then just use it. Maybe this is because it is a LTS
>> Generally yes it's because it's LTS.
> I saw a post before 10.04 was published by a Ubuntu developer who, in
> replying to whether a certain version of an application would be
> included, said that given that 10.04 was an LTS version, they were
> being more conservative than for other releases.
> That said, I don't think that LTS can be considered "stable" in the
> same way that Debian and Red Hat publish stable versions, simply
> because an LTS edition is much more cutting edge when it is published
> than a Debian or Red Hat stable edition.
Given the issues with 10.04 I don't think that LTS can be considered
"stable" in *any* way past 8.04.
More information about the ubuntu-users