Karl - grub2 and ext2/ext3/ext4

[Karl Larsen]

On 08/11/2010 07:39 PM, chris wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-08-11 at 18:13 -0700, NoOp wrote:
>    
>> 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
>>>>> version?
>>>>>            
>>>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>      
> and this is the weakness with the ubuntu system  the insane rush to
> produce a "new" version every 6 months, when most users want bugs fixed
> and stability.
> Don't know how we get this through to them
> Cheers the kiwi
>
>
>
>    
         I can't get the Ubuntu leadership to do anything but I plan to 
stop D/L all versions but the LTS versions. I agree version 8.04 LTS is 
a landmark version but do not know why. I still have 8.04 and when 
something on 10.04 is a bug, I check it against 8.04. To date 8.04 has 
no bugs that 10.04 has.

         Yes it would seem that a new version once a year is enough.


73 Karl



-- 

	Karl F. Larsen, AKA K5DI
	Linux User
	#450462   http://counter.li.org.
         Key ID = 3951B48D