PDA

View Full Version : What is meant by "18 months of free update" ?



emigrant
October 31st, 2009, 03:34 PM
hi all,
what is mean by 18 months of free updates? for each ubuntu desktop release? (not the LTS ones)
that means after 18 months the update manager won't work?
or the user won't be able to install new apps?

if i want to install jautny in 2015, i just get what it is in the cd and can't do any updates which are available on the internet right now? all these updates will get deleted by 2015?

please i want a clear answer :KS

thank you very much :)

RiceMonster
October 31st, 2009, 03:35 PM
It means Canonical with stop supporting it after 18 months and there will be no more updates.

emigrant
October 31st, 2009, 03:42 PM
:)
what im asking about is, if some one installs jaunty in 2015 will he able to get anything beyond what is in the cd?
will his addremove/progs and apt-get udpate and other apt-gets work?

23meg
October 31st, 2009, 03:44 PM
if i want to install jautny in 2015, i just get what it is in the cd and can't do any updates which are available on the internet right now? all these updates will get deleted by 2015?


If you install any release past its supported lifecycle, you won't get any stable release updates (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates), and won't be able to install anything from the repositories, since they will have been removed.

As should be obvious, it's not a good idea.

stmiller
October 31st, 2009, 04:36 PM
Ubuntu releases a new version every six months. So a given release (unless it's LTS) gets 18 months of security updates, patches, etc.

So for example Ubuntu 5.04 from 2005 is no longer receiving security updates, etc.

From wikipedia:

Version Code name Release date
4.10 Warty Warthog 2004-10-20
5.04 Hoary Hedgehog 2005-04-08
5.10 Breezy Badger 2005-10-13
6.06 LTS Dapper Drake 2006-06-01
6.10 Edgy Eft 2006-10-26
7.04 Feisty Fawn 2007-04-19
7.10 Gutsy Gibbon 2007-10-18
8.04 LTS Hardy Heron 2008-04-24
8.10 Intrepid Ibex 2008-10-30
9.04 Jaunty Jackalope 2009-04-23
9.10 Karmic Koala 2009-10-29
10.04 LTS Lucid Lynx 2010-04-29

It's not a big deal because you can simply upgrade to the latest release when the new release comes out. :)

emigrant
October 31st, 2009, 04:41 PM
yes, i understand now.
but im thinking whether the latest releases would be enough compatilbe with older machines...

jpmelos
October 31st, 2009, 04:42 PM
It's not a big deal because you can simply upgrade to the latest release when the new release comes out. :)

Make a backup before you upgrade, since it can and might crash the system. Wait, if you already have the backup, why not fresh install? I'm saying that because lots of people report bad upgrades. Fresh installing is more recommended, plus, formatting the computer every six months is very healthy. Every system accumulates lots of garbage over time, that may make it less stable or fast.

Tipped OuT
October 31st, 2009, 04:47 PM
yes, i understand now.
but im thinking whether the latest releases would be enough compatilbe with older machines...

Should be. Ubuntu isn't like Windows, where each new release the hardware requirments go up.

If not, you can try other distro's that are light weight, like D.S.L.

Wim Sturkenboom
October 31st, 2009, 05:03 PM
Should be. Ubuntu isn't like Windows, where each new release the hardware requirments go up.Doubt that. Upgrade from 6.06 to 8.04 made my system slower: longer boot time, firefox takes longer to produce the save dialog. So sorry, but I don't believe you.

Giant Speck
October 31st, 2009, 05:05 PM
Should be. Ubuntu isn't like Windows, where each new release the hardware requirments go up.

The system requirements didn't really change between Windows Vista and Windows 7.

Pogeymanz
October 31st, 2009, 05:09 PM
Should be. Ubuntu isn't like Windows, where each new release the hardware requirments go up.

If not, you can try other distro's that are light weight, like D.S.L.

Well, it doesn't increase the requirements as much, but you certainly can't put 9.10 on a computer that once ran 1.10 (if there was such a version).

emigrant
October 31st, 2009, 05:10 PM
@ Pogeymanz (http://ubuntuforums.org/member.php?u=452867) :D

Tipped OuT
October 31st, 2009, 05:20 PM
Well, it doesn't increase the requirements as much, but you certainly can't put 9.10 on a computer that once ran 1.10 (if there was such a version).

lol I knew someone was going to say some thing like this.

aysiu
October 31st, 2009, 06:16 PM
If you're having performance issues on an old computer, the solution isn't to use an older version of Ubuntu (in fact, 9.10 is much speedier than 8.10 or 8.04).

The solution is to use a lightweight window manager (IceWM, OpenBox, Enlightenment) instead of a desktop environment (Gnome, KDE, Xfce). Also use lighter-weight programs (Sylpheed instead of Evolution, Dillo instead of Firefox).

You can build Ubuntu from scratch if you're worried the default installation brings in too many services:
http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntu/minimal

emigrant
October 31st, 2009, 06:28 PM
thank you for your inputs.
at the moment i have a core2duo 3.0 GHz, 2GB, 256VGA machine, how long would you think i can keep putting latest releases? :D

aysiu
October 31st, 2009, 06:51 PM
thank you for your inputs.
at the moment i have a core2duo 3.0 GHz, 2GB, 256VGA machine, how long would you think i can keep putting latest releases? :D
Indefinitely. Those specs are fine.

I'm running Ubuntu 9.10 on a 1.6 GHz Atom processor with 2 GB of RAM, and it flies.

Tipped OuT
October 31st, 2009, 06:57 PM
thank you for your inputs.
at the moment i have a core2duo 3.0 GHz, 2GB, 256VGA machine, how long would you think i can keep putting latest releases? :D

Woah, you're worried about those specs? That's a nice A computer you got there :D. No worries at all.

emigrant
October 31st, 2009, 07:00 PM
:KS thanks:popcorn: