PDA

View Full Version : [ubuntu] Should i switch from 9.04 to 8,04 LTS?



Ernesto RD
July 22nd, 2009, 05:28 AM
I read in the book "Ubuntu pocket guide and reference" that LTS (like 8.04 hardy) versions are more stable and less buggy than non LTS ones (like the 9.04 jaunty).
And since im using jaunty right now, an i do have encountered a few minor bugs, im wondering if i should change to hardy (or other versions?)

are there any significant changes in the included software? eg, diferent version of openofice, etc?
Any reasons why i should (or shouldnt) change to hardy?

what do you guys think?

All opinions welcomed and appreciated.

AndThenWhat
July 22nd, 2009, 06:04 AM
Although it is true that the Long Term Support releases have less bugs, it can be more beneficial to use the latest version as long as the bugs you experience on the latest version are minor.

Finalfantasykid
July 22nd, 2009, 06:13 AM
I like to stay on the edge of technology, so I always use the newest version of the software(not always alpha/beta releases, but I do often use alpha/beta firefox).

As long as you are not using Ubuntu for business, or doing some critical work on, then I would stick with the latest release. If you are using it for business, then you wouldn't want to interrupt anything by having to do a re-install or anything like that.

I agree with the above poster, as long as there are no major bugs, then I would stick with the newest version.

Bucky Ball
July 22nd, 2009, 06:15 AM
I have a flavour of Hardy 8.04 LTS on the three machines at home and they are all rock solid. They have to be; both my wife and I are studying and a computer or network connection can't go down three days before an exam (so I have to choose when and what to tweak when I want to play and experiment as I can't afford to break too much or the time to fix it, as much as I would sometimes like to just sit around solving Linux puzzles). Been running it since it came out, April '08.

I have been thinking about sticking Karmic Koala on a partition and playing around with it though and definitely will do over the christmas holidays if not before (these ones are almost over already!). After all, it is named after my eucalyptus loving neighbours. They're drunk, not esoteric! Maybe both ... :)

fballem
July 22nd, 2009, 06:35 AM
I read in the book "Ubuntu pocket guide and reference" that LTS (like 8.04 hardy) versions are more stable and less buggy than non LTS ones (like the 9.04 jaunty).
And since im using jaunty right now, an i do have encountered a few minor bugs, im wondering if i should change to hardy (or other versions?)

are there any significant changes in the included software? eg, diferent version of openofice, etc?
Any reasons why i should (or shouldnt) change to hardy?

what do you guys think?

All opinions welcomed and appreciated.

One of the significant differences between 8.04 and 9.04 is OpenOffice. In 9.04, it's OpenOffice 3. In 8.04 it's OpenOffice 2.4. There are other differences in software versions.

It depends on your comfort level and your requirements. Given that 8.04 is an LTS, and if it's working for you, then there is no compelling reason to change. If you want to push the envelope a bit, get a more recent version of software, or if a more recent version of software contains a new or upgraded feature that you want to use, then you may want to consider the switch.

An observation, based on an unscientific view of ubuntu postings, is that if you are changing versions, you will generally encounter fewer problems by doing a clean install of the new version, as opposed to an upgrade.

Just make sure that you have a solid backup on an external drive of any data that you want to keep. At minimum, this should include all of your documents, pictures, videos, and similar items. I also keep a very recent external backup of my Evolution data, using the backup function from the file menu.

Hope this helps,

Ernesto RD
July 22nd, 2009, 07:16 AM
Thanks for all your input guys.

You know, my computer is absolutely critical to my work. Bad computer = No work. So i need to be extra shure, that my system is 1000% rock solid Thats one of the main reasons i went away from windows in the first place.
Now, i havent found any serious problems with 9.04 yet, but then again ibe only been using ubuntu for a couple of weeks, some programs i havent even used yet.
Im affraid that a few days/weeks/months from now, ill try to do something and find out that i cant because of a "bug"! or that my system begins to lock up for whatever reason.
and besides, im kindof a "perfectionist", i like things to work exactly as they should as bug-trouble free as possible. (within reason of course)
So i guess my absolutely top priority is stabiity

i guess what i need to know now, to make a decision is... how much more stable - bug free is 8.04 compared to 9.04?
would you trust your work computer (vital for your business) to 9.04 over 8.04?

Again, thanks for all your comments

Bucky Ball
July 22nd, 2009, 08:09 AM
8.04 LTS then. Like I say, computers and network being up critical for me also. You can update OpenOffice to 3.0 in 8.04 no problem (also on all three of my machines). There are some minor (and major) differences but neither here nor there for your purpose, which is stability.

Having said that, 9.04 will only get better and you should probably get daily updates for now if you are sticking with it.

Post back with any further queries. :)

* Yes I would and do trust my three computers for work, uni and life in general! The difference between the two is 12 months, so, 8.04 has had fifteen months to mature and stabilise whilst 9.04 has had three months.

Gone fishing
July 22nd, 2009, 09:01 AM
Well I'd stick with 9.04 personally - I wasn't too happy with Hardy (things like, raid 1 not working properly even now you have to patch it and are warned that an update could break the patch) and Hardy is not going to be supported for that much longer.

If ultimate stability was my goal how about The latest Debian Stable? But Jaunty is however, very stable and if you are not experiencing any problems now why should it go wrong unless you are changing it?

philinux
July 22nd, 2009, 09:11 AM
I read in the book "Ubuntu pocket guide and reference" that LTS (like 8.04 hardy) versions are more stable and less buggy than non LTS ones (like the 9.04 jaunty).
And since im using jaunty right now, an i do have encountered a few minor bugs, im wondering if i should change to hardy (or other versions?)

are there any significant changes in the included software? eg, diferent version of openofice, etc?
Any reasons why i should (or shouldnt) change to hardy?

what do you guys think?

All opinions welcomed and appreciated.

What are your minor bugs?

t0p
July 22nd, 2009, 10:00 AM
I have hardy on my desktop machine (for the same reason as you're thinking of swapping to it: 'stability'), and jaunty on my other box. And I prefer jaunty, lots. Jaunty has many features that hardy lacks. Mostly network stuff, though there are other things in jaunty's favour too. Jaunty's cool, and I haven't encountered any major bugs yet. Probably won't.

Dullstar
July 22nd, 2009, 10:21 AM
Never used Hardy, but Jaunty's great, isn't it?

ken2009
July 22nd, 2009, 10:45 AM
I am suprised to see nobody mentioning about Intrepid :(
I had updated to Jaunty a month ago... but had to re-format and install Intrepid again.
Jaunty posed quite a few problems (frequent system hangs etc). Intrepid is flawless :)

Dullstar
July 22nd, 2009, 10:53 AM
It could be that some of us started Ubuntu after Jaunty was out. Though for the others, I don't know.

Cheesemill
July 22nd, 2009, 11:20 AM
and Hardy is not going to be supported for that much longer.

Support for Hardy continues until April 2011, I think that's quite a long time personally :)

Sef
July 22nd, 2009, 11:26 AM
Support for Hardy continues until April 2011, I think that's quite a long time personally :smile:

For the Desktop, it continues until April 2013. For the server, support continues until April 2013.

theozzlives
July 22nd, 2009, 12:50 PM
I run my business website on 9.04 without issue. Of course I run the latest Alpha, Beta, RC, and Final Release versions available. Except I'm running Karmic in a VirtualBox now days instead of a production machine.

I keep swearing to myself I'm gonna stop, but I can't help it. :D

panhandle
July 22nd, 2009, 01:12 PM
I suggest staying with 8.04 LTS.

True, the latest release may not be "buggy," but at the same time, it's difficult to know exactly what bugs will be encountered through your normal use. This rationale works for both releases, however 8.04 LTS at least will be better documented and you know it will be supported.

Don't worry about staying "on the edge." Worry about staying in business.

Bucky Ball
July 22nd, 2009, 03:06 PM
Don't worry about staying "on the edge." worry about staying in business.

+1. As I suggested before, if you want to stay 'on the edge' you can run a non-production partition with Karmic.

moredhel
July 22nd, 2009, 03:15 PM
I suggest staying with 8.04 LTS.

True, the latest release may not be "buggy," but at the same time, it's difficult to know exactly what bugs will be encountered through your normal use. This rationale works for both releases, however 8.04 LTS at least will be better documented and you know it will be supported.

Don't worry about staying "on the edge." Worry about staying in business.

Did you read the original post? He's already on Jaunty, and is asking should he go backwards back to the LTS.

I would stay with Jaunty, I think everyone is utterly overestimating how unstable the latest version is - hell, it might even be more stable in places with newer versions of programs. It's a stable release, just not a LTS. AFAIK LTS is a concept more for people/business who don't want to upgrade every 6 months, and so Canonical make sure these release are really stable. This doesn't mean that the non LTS are bug ridden debian sid-esque releases.

Arup
July 22nd, 2009, 03:24 PM
Sometimes old is not good, I have tried 8.04 for stability's sake but guess what, the cam module in it consumes way to much CPU with Skype, a problem thats totally non existent in Jaunty, also you get the benefit from many improvements that are there in the latest distro. LTS is for massive deployment like companies and institutions and other places where upkeep and update of new cutting edge just won't do.

Mighty_Joe
July 22nd, 2009, 03:34 PM
Dual boot? :D
My home file server's running Hardy because I don't want to screw with it. My laptop is running Jaunty because I want the newest-latest toys.
Have you tried Hardy (Live CD, Persistent USB Flash Drive)? You may have the same bugs in both versions. Best to search Launchpad for the bugs you've found and see if other's have them (and report them if they're not).

egalvan
July 22nd, 2009, 03:36 PM
Well I'd stick with 9.04 personally -

and Hardy is not going to be supported for that much longer.



As others have stated...

Desktop Hardy supported until April 2011
Server Hardy supported until April 2013

Intrepid is supported until April 2010for that much longer
Jaunty is supported until October 2010
Karmic is supported until April 2011

So Hardy Desktop support will outlive Jaunty, the current version. :)

And the Server version will survive until Outlandish Otter 11.10 comes out. :D

Ernesto RD
July 24th, 2009, 05:59 AM
Thanks for all your sugestions :)

Heres what i did...
I removed my original hard drive (the one witn 9.04 and windows), installed another (empty) drive on my computer, and I installed hardy there (so i wouldnt loose my 9.04 installation). So i ran hardy for a while, and i decided to stay with 9.04.
why? well, i belive it or not, for some reason 9.04 runs much Faster on my computer than hardy does. the diference is obvious, in startup, opening programs, and even shutdown.

About the bugs, well i did find a couple of small bugs on hardy too, for expample,
- the screen with the progressbar you see while shutting down looks very weird (like in incorrect resolution or something).
- i cant set the clock on my panel to display 12hr time even if in the properties box i do set it to be displaied that way (well i cant in 9.04 either).
- i find it impossible to make the system sounds play, you know sounds for error/question messageboxes, logout etc. (i cant make them sound in 9.04 either)

- Some small errors and weird behaviour in desktop effects, the only thing that "improved" for me using hardy over 9.04 was that in hardy i can usethe fancy ring and shitf window switchers, in 9.04 my desktop crashes back to the login screen if i try to use either of those.

So, after seeing that both versions (hardy and 9.04) have some small bugs, and either of them have a bug serious enough to keep me from using them, i decided to "trust" 9.04.
As for support and upgrades times, well 18 months is long enough.
And so, i removed the temporary drive i installed to try hardy, installed my original drive, and now im happily back to 9.04 :)

Thank you guys very much for all your input.

Bucky Ball
July 24th, 2009, 02:51 PM
You will find that whatever you stick with, you will tweak and improve your install as time goes on and you learn more about Ubuntu. The OS needs to be tuned usually, just like any.

Have fun. :)

oldrocker99
July 24th, 2009, 06:38 PM
I am suprised to see nobody mentioning about Intrepid :(
I had updated to Jaunty a month ago... but had to re-format and install Intrepid again.
Jaunty posed quite a few problems (frequent system hangs etc). Intrepid is flawless :)

Same here. I'm stuck with a seven month old laptop with a graphics chip that ATI has declared "legacy." The drivers that ATI provided, called fglrx, are incompatible with Jaunty's XOrg, the program that displays to the screen, basically. The ATI drivers, on the other hand, work very well indeed with Intrepid 8.10, and it's pretty damn solid. When I upgraded from Hardy to Intrepid, I loved Intrepid. I used Jaunty for a few weeks and was disappointed in the open-source drivers, which produced glxgears scores of less than half what I got with the fglrx drivers under Intrepid. So, back to Intrepid I went, and I'm a happy camper, hoping (a) that the open-source "radeon" drivers will improve (as they surely will), and (b) that Karmic allows installation on lots and lots of the machines which have "legacy" ATI cards or chips.

I've been an AMD/ATI customer for years, and, from now on, it's strictly Intel and nVidia for my future purchases.

:guitar:

Bucky Ball
July 24th, 2009, 06:44 PM
AMD processors: never had a problem and like 'em better. Used to use intel when I built a machine but use AMD always now and only do Linux specific builds (twice a year!).