Karl - grub2 and ext2/ext3/ext4

[Ric Moore]

On Thu, 2010-08-12 at 21:48 -0400, Tom H wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 4:04 PM, Ric Moore <wayward4now at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2010-08-12 at 14:20 -0400, Tom H wrote:
> >> 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.
> >
> > Fedora users know from the get-go (or at least should know) that their
> > distro is nothing more than a beta-test bed for RHEL. Stuff breaks
> > routinely, and that is an accepted way  of life there.
> 
> "Stuff" doesn't break more routinely than on Ubuntu. You have to be
> realistic. Fedora and Ubuntu are aiming at more or less the same users
> so Ubuntu has to be published at the same rate as Fedora.

How do you figure? "stuff" on Fedora is guaranteed to break. Granted if
you want to be on the tip of the ice burg, for innovation, they are
there. And, when it breaks, you get to keep the pieces. If Fedora had
been successful in creating a stable, while relatively up-to-date
distro, Ubuntu wouldn't have had a niche to fill. I just went to their
website and all of the disclaimers that said up front to NOT install
Fedora, if you want stable, are gone. But that is most likely due to
Ubuntu eating their lunch. And, after using apt-get, YUM basically
sucks. 

> >> It is a weakness of Ubuntu users to believe that LTS == stable!
> >
> > It is the promise of Mark Shuttleworth that Ubuntu was to be a stable
> > experience and promised not to become another Fedora. It's why I first
> > signed on. I had just one too many breakages with Fedora, and the insane
> > rate of development, that we never had before during the Bob Young days.
> 
> Are all promises always kept? 

Depends on the character of those who make them. Character is what you
are in the dark. I put Mark in the same league as Bob Young. He kept his
promises ...always. 

> Anyway, Hardy is still current, is
> stable and no one has forced anyone to upgrade to Lucid. By the time
> Hardy is EOL, perhaps Lucid will be stable enough for those who
> consider it not-stable-enough at the moment.

I have had practically zero problems with Lucid. Some folks did a really
good job. Xvfb stayed broken on Fedora through several releases, back
when. I switched to 8.04 and it just worked. End of story. I was home. I
would hate to see a broken release shoved out the door because it was
time to. Ric