PDA

View Full Version : 10.04 LTS vs 10.10 ?



obazsm
February 17th, 2011, 03:02 PM
Which do all of you prefer 10.04 LTS or the new 10.10 Maverick? and why?

on my acer aspire one netbook 10.04 seems to be faster.

TeoBigusGeekus
February 17th, 2011, 03:06 PM
Everyone has a different experience on that one.
IMO LTS releases are much more stable; go with 10.04.
10.10 has fixed a lot of issues, but it has introduced a lot of others and it's gonna get worse with Natty (unity) and subsequent releases (wayland).

Grenage
February 17th, 2011, 03:06 PM
Newer versions tend to have newer software, and newer software tends to be use more resources.

LTS is a good choice if it works well for you, and/or you simply want long-term support.

Rubi1200
February 17th, 2011, 03:23 PM
If you want a stable, secure OS go with an LTS release.

And, +1 to the points made by TeoBigusGeekus and Grenage.

obazsm
February 17th, 2011, 07:52 PM
i think i'll go back to the LTS, for the reasons above thanks for the feedback

beew
February 17th, 2011, 09:36 PM
Actually in my experience 10.10 is faster and overall more responsive, multimedia works better and I don't find it more buggy (actually less, but I guess that depends on your hardware and what applications you use)

One thing for sure is that the software is definitely newer. I use a lot of ppas in my Lucid box to keep up to date but still there are things you either can't or don't want to get from PPA's. With due respect to other posters my suggestion is to go with 10.10 and then upgrade to maybe 11.10 or 12.04 (11.04 is too soon and it is likely to be buggy because the change to Unity seems to be a major one)

I think "stablity" is overrated. In Ubuntu language "stability" doesn't necessarily mean things work reliably, rather it means it doesn't change which can be good or bad. The bad part includes old bugs don't get fixed and being stuck with 2-3 byear old software(in opensource developmental cycle this is a long time) I remember when I installed Lucid I found that evince (the document reader) was crappy and slow and then when Maverick came out 6 month later it was super fast and rendered pictures much better. In between there has been several versions but if you go for stability you would still be stuck with a crappy version of evince. If you want to keep update with ppas then your system would no longer be "stable" so you may as well go for the newer Ubuntu release.

After a while many of us would find the need to either get some software from ppas or install from source because the Ubuntu versions are either outdated, broken, or lack certain features (see the multimedia help thread for example) That renders the whole argument about the stability of LTS moot.

I think the release cycle of Ubuntu is in a way too long and in some other way too short. A new release every 6 month is too short, but LTS is way too long. Imagine still using openoffice 2X (as in Debian stable) I know some institutions such as my bank which are still unbelievably using Windows 2000 and office 2003 (or even 9X) so unless you are that kind of user I don't know what would be the advantage of using LTS.

hansolo4949
February 17th, 2011, 09:44 PM
If you are just going to be using it for day to day purposes, 10.10 should work fine. if you will be running a lot if software, and programming either in the terminal or in a program a lot, go with 10.04, which has long term support, and is a bit more stable.

Paqman
February 17th, 2011, 09:49 PM
On a netbook the main difference is the interface. That all comes down to personal preference. Some people preferred the old netbook interface, some people prefer Unity. Try both and see which one you like.

LTS releases aren't any more stable than non-LTS releases, that's a common misconception. They're "stable" in the sense that they're supported for longer, but not in the sense of being more reliable. In fact newer releases are likely to include bugfixes that haven't or won't be backported to an older LTS release and they have newer drivers for hardware, so sometimes a newer release will be more reliable than an LTS.

obazsm
February 18th, 2011, 06:49 PM
i should have clarified this comparison is about the netbook remix versions, and like pacman said
On a netbook the main difference is the interface. That all comes down to personal preference. Some people preferred the old netbook interface, some people prefer Unity. Try both and see which one you like.

and i will be installing the 10.04 lts netbook remix. i just don't like the feel of unity. jmo. thanks to all the replies

Antarctica32
February 18th, 2011, 06:54 PM
In my opinion, 10.04 will be the best version ever. Even though there are some clear problems with some things, it is very stable. It uses little resources. Soon, when ubuntu goes unity, I believe it will be taking a wrong turn. We should stay with gnome, it is what attracted me and many others to linux in the first place. I personally believe that 10.10 is not as good as 10.04, but they are the best there is and will continue to be for a long time if everything goes to unity.

NightwishFan
February 18th, 2011, 07:21 PM
Ubuntu is still using Gnome, even after versions with Unity. The only real difference is lack of gnome-panel, which is still supported and installed by default in Natty at the very least.

I agree with the assessment. If you do not specifically need the newer 2.6.35, or do have no particular need to update every 6 months stick with the lts release.

FiremanEd
February 18th, 2011, 07:24 PM
You can use the same netbook interface on 10.10 installing "netbook-launcher-efl" found in Synaptic, no?

TeoBigusGeekus
February 18th, 2011, 07:28 PM
I abandonded gnome for openbox (and ubuntu for arch, but that's another story) 8 months ago and I'm never looking back.
Try it and you won't regret it.

obazsm
February 19th, 2011, 05:10 PM
any opinions on pinguyOS ?

http://pinguy-os.sourceforge.net/

Antarctica32
March 6th, 2011, 03:34 AM
any opinions on pinguyOS ?

http://pinguy-os.sourceforge.net/

I think it looks pretty cool, maybe I'll try it some day.