Karl - grub2 and ext2/ext3/ext4
tomh0665 at gmail.com
Thu Aug 12 18:20:21 UTC 2010
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 9:39 PM, chris <chevhq at gmail.com> 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
It isn't an insane rush. Fedora has the same schedule and users seem
to expect it.
It is a weakness of Ubuntu users to believe that LTS == stable!
Perhaps Ubuntu should start calling the ".1" release of an LTS edition
"LTS stable" since by the time ".1" is published (hopefully) most
teething problems have been ironed out.
More information about the ubuntu-users