Why must LTS die?

[Lupi]

In my experience, LTS have been the most stable and the best releases I've ever used.

[kevdog]

Couple of opinions here. I've recently moved one of my computer to Arch which a true rolling release. The other home servers I have run Ubuntu. Again a lot of the threads have reiterated what your needs are -- do you need stability -- like running a server -- or do you need new software? I've actually found that using Arch is a lot more stable that I thought it would be, and in fact after using it for about 3-4 months -- I would never go back to a 6 month release cycle. Upgrading a computer or doing a complete reinstall every 6 months is a major major pain!!! -- hence the reason for LTS solutions. Just going with a rolling release seems to be much much easier than dealing with an upgrade every 6 months. Arch might or might not be the ideal rolling release cycle -- recently they upgraded pacman which caused me a little bit of a hiccup and lets just say their forums weren't exactly the most friendly when a lot of people asked the same question a few times -- Arch forums (which are serious, stiff, RTFM) are in no way Ubuntu forums (which are kind of warm and fuzzy). It's really fun running bleeding edge software however I could see applications where this wouldn't exactly be the most practical.

[craig10x]

kevdog....ubuntu development has become pretty darn stable...oh sure, there is an occasional minor breakage (which usually gets corrected pretty quickly) or can easily be fixed on your own...The quality control on ubuntu development's updates have become quite reliable...and they will be adding something that will make it possible to go from one development version to the next, automatically (without the need to upgrade to it)...it will simply point to the new version, as it were...

so, although ubuntu apparently will have no "official" rolling release...development has basically become one (and will be made even more so with the new transition method)...they have already voted to do this, just a matter of whether they will have the feature implemented before 13.04 goes final...in a way, it will kind of be ubuntu's "arch"...

i use to run Linux Mint's LMDE when it was pointed to debian testing (prior to them introducing "update packs" that were supposed to add more reliability)...i have had a FAR smoother ride in ubuntu 13.04 development then i had with LMDE...

[mikodo]

@kevdog I installed Manjaro distro yesterday. It is based on Arch, but with the novice/casual user in mind with helpful ideas to that end. See the link, for them. It looks promising, and will be fun to watch it develop. Even as bloated as it is compared to a lean Arch install, it blows away my Xubuntu 12.04 on the same hard-drive for speed. http://manjaro.org/ EDIT: I just booted into Manjaro. I know how to update: sudo pacman -Syy && sudo pacman -Su How do you install a package/app. ex. "sudo aptitude install xcalib" with pacman would be what? I'll ask here. Probably friendlier? ;p

[perrya]

I was on a google+ page the other day and there was a huge feud of people saying that LTS should be done with and die, why would people feel this way. I have always ran LTS, I will occasionally upgrade to the interim release but a lot of problems in terms of packages like emapthy, Virtual Machine, and Steam stop working even if I do fresh installs with the up to date packages I never have good luck. So I pretty much stick with the LTS. I know Canonical has no plans of dropping the LTS which is good because I would have to jump to openSUSE being that is the only distribution I have had good luck with when it comes to the interim releases. I am just curious why I read on the web why so many people are against the LTS?

As a general rule of thumb I ALWAYS go with a Linux distro that is AT LEAST a year old and the most PREVIOUS version.

Why?

Simple; it tends to have all the Kinks worked out.

Further, if Ubuntu say LTS (Long Term Support) means 5 years then I hope they keep to that and I think a company/community like Ubuntu will as it is good for it's reputation to have WORKING products.

The latest and greatest ALWAYS suffers from teething issues, especially when it comes to open source and Linux.

Perry

----
Perry Anderson
Unified Objects, Inc.

[hainen]

Couple of opinions here. I've recently moved one of my computer to Arch which a true rolling release. The other home servers I have run Ubuntu. Again a lot of the threads have reiterated what your needs are -- do you need stability -- like running a server -- or do you need new software? I've actually found that using Arch is a lot more stable that I thought it would be, and in fact after using it for about 3-4 months -- I would never go back to a 6 month release cycle. Upgrading a computer or doing a complete reinstall every 6 months is a major major pain!!! -- hence the reason for LTS solutions. Just going with a rolling release seems to be much much easier than dealing with an upgrade every 6 months. Arch might or might not be the ideal rolling release cycle -- recently they upgraded pacman which caused me a little bit of a hiccup and lets just say their forums weren't exactly the most friendly when a lot of people asked the same question a few times -- Arch forums (which are serious, stiff, RTFM) are in no way Ubuntu forums (which are kind of warm and fuzzy). It's really fun running bleeding edge software however I could see applications where this wouldn't exactly be the most practical.

I like the Arch forum. Their policy make it very easy to find stuff. The effect is I have never really needed to ask anything arch related on their forum. If its an updating related problem, probably the answer already is in one of the top threads. The rest is in their usually very updated wiki.
And it isn't that strict. If you search for a strict support forum try freebsd their forum is kinda extreme

[kevdog]

@kevdog I installed Manjaro distro yesterday. It is based on Arch, but with the novice/casual user in mind with helpful ideas to that end. See the link, for them. It looks promising, and will be fun to watch it develop. Even as bloated as it is compared to a lean Arch install, it blows away my Xubuntu 12.04 on the same hard-drive for speed. http://manjaro.org/ EDIT: I just booted into Manjaro. I know how to update: sudo pacman -Syy && sudo pacman -Su How do you install a package/app. ex. "sudo aptitude install xcalib" with pacman would be what? I'll ask here. Probably friendlier? ;p

Well, sometimes the package names are going to be different in arch than ubuntu, so I first do a search for the package to make sure its in the repos:
sudo pacman -Ss xcalib

And let's say its in the repos, install it by:
sudo pacman -S xcalib

Thats pretty simple.

I usually use packer as a front end to pacman and the aur, but that's just my personal preference -- some use yaourt which is more full featured.

Manjaro linux -- yes a mighty nice distro. Hopefully it catches some legs. Reminds me kind of what ubuntu used to be.

[mikodo]

Well, sometimes the package names are going to be different in arch than ubuntu, so I first do a search for the package to make sure its in the repos: sudo pacman -Ss xcalib And let's say its in the repos, install it by: sudo pacman -S xcalib Thats pretty simple. I usually use packer as a front end to pacman and the aur, but that's just my personal preference -- some use yaourt which is more full featured. Manjaro linux -- yes a mighty nice distro. Hopefully it catches some legs. Reminds me kind of what ubuntu used to be.

Thanks. It seems xcalib is not in the repos. I couldn't install it either. Thanks for the commands. I'll use it for other packages. I guess I will have to learn to compile for this distro. My best. ;p

[kevdog]

Thanks. It seems xcalib is not in the repos. I couldn't install it either. Thanks for the commands. I'll use it for other packages. I guess I will have to learn to compile for this distro. My best. ;p

No -- its in the AUR:

packer -Ss xcalib
aur/xcalib 0.8-4 (196)
A tiny monitor calibration loader for X.org

Either install yaourt or packer (both which can access the AUR), and install it. The nomenclature for yaourt or packer is the same. A lot of people don't like the AUR, but for the most part in works for me!!!

[forrestcupp]

As a general rule of thumb I ALWAYS go with a Linux distro that is AT LEAST a year old and the most PREVIOUS version.

Why?

Simple; it tends to have all the Kinks worked out.

I'd say that sticking with LTS is going to be a lot more stable than the most previous version. They usually use the "in between" releases to try out new stuff, and the LTS versions for stability, rather than trying out new things. For that reason, I think even a new LTS would be safer than the most previous non-LTS version, even at the end of its current run.