Karl - grub2 and ext2/ext3/ext4

[Tom H]

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.