Why must LTS die?

[DMGrier]

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?

[ManamiVixen]

Because LTS don't make sense in the world of Linux. There are thousands upon thousands of contributors and programmers around the world writting new, and updating software for linux. Meaning there is always a new and improved package for whetever availible for a Linux based computer. So with a LTS, these updates are being held back. Look at 12.04 and 12.10 of Ubuntu, In six months there were HUGE advancements including new GTK, Unity, ALSA drivers, X.Org libraries, and even Wayland picking up. 12.04 is absolutely ancient now. IN SIX MONTHS. Companies like Microsoft and Apple are the onlp companies who really develop their software. So they can afford holding back stuff till the next release as they are the developers and push out more methodically. So that is why LTS is hated. It forces users to use badly outdated software.

[deadflowr]

Don't worry about it.
People say a lot of silly things.
LTS releases are probably, at this point, one of the few areas that might be sacrosanct.

[Megaptera]

Because LTS don't make sense in the world of Linux.........So that is why LTS is hated. It forces users to use badly outdated software.

Rather harsh - please quote your sources if you don't mind thanks.
LTS are not 'hated' ... some people prefer LTS and some don't.Some people need LTS and some don't.
A more comprehensive explanation of pros and cons of LTS here: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/LTS

[monkeybrain2012]

Because LTS don't make sense in the world of Linux. There are thousands upon thousands of contributors and programmers around the world writting new, and updating software for linux. Meaning there is always a new and improved package for whetever availible for a Linux based computer. So with a LTS, these updates are being held back. Look at 12.04 and 12.10 of Ubuntu, In six months there were HUGE advancements including new GTK, Unity, ALSA drivers, X.Org libraries, and even Wayland picking up. 12.04 is absolutely ancient now. IN SIX MONTHS. Companies like Microsoft and Apple are the onlp companies who really develop their software. So they can afford holding back stuff till the next release as they are the developers and push out more methodically. So that is why LTS is hated. It forces users to use badly outdated software.

You have some valid points, but upgrading your OS every 6 months is kind of a hassel especially when the quality of the interim releases may vary. So I tend to upgrade once a year and keep up to date with ppas and compiling (so my 12.04 is quite up to date except for compiz and unity, it is running on kernel 3.8.4, even more up to date than raring) This makes the new plan of supporting non LTS for only 9 months not very sensible to people with my tempo of update/upgrade. I usually stay away from a new release for about 2 months before installing (instead keep it on a test partition) to ensure that major bugs are ironed out. The shorten support period of non LTS is problematic unless either 1) new developments are backported to the LTS much more frequently than it is now,--so at this point I would like to see the core packages in 12.04 to be up to the level of 12.10) and/or 2) ensure that interim releases are more stable and are ready to go without having to wait several months to get serious bugs fixes.

For the really conservative types who only use LTS as is (no ppa or other new "additives" that may carry even an infinitesimal chance of instability) and are happy to be frozen in time for 3-5 years (like people who are still on Lucid) I can't understand why they don't simply switch to Debian, which seems a lot more suit to their use cases.

[forrestcupp]

...So that is why LTS is hated. It forces users to use badly outdated software.

And who forces people to use LTS releases?

[ManamiVixen]

Nobody is forcing them, but you are assuming the mass public of the world is far more compentent than they actually are. Most people will look to the media, Canonical, and other software and hardware companies for what to run. Of course they all will be sayin "Use Ubuntu 12.04, it the latest from Canonical!" It's only true as in terms of stable release. But the software will be outdated and the mass user who isn't fully aware of Linux and how it works will likely never get new sofware believing they have already have the current and latest.

[deadflowr]

As long as software is supported and maintained it is not outdated.

Newer doesn't necessarily mean better.

[ibjsb4]

Because LTS don't make sense in the world of Linux. There are thousands upon thousands of contributors and programmers around the world writting new, and updating software for linux. Meaning there is always a new and improved package for whetever availible for a Linux based computer. So with a LTS, these updates are being held back. Look at 12.04 and 12.10 of Ubuntu, In six months there were HUGE advancements including new GTK, Unity, ALSA drivers, X.Org libraries, and even Wayland picking up. 12.04 is absolutely ancient now. IN SIX MONTHS. Companies like Microsoft and Apple are the onlp companies who really develop their software. So they can afford holding back stuff till the next release as they are the developers and push out more methodically. So that is why LTS is hated. It forces users to use badly outdated software.

And your running Kubuntu 12o4, thats funny.

[DMGrier]

I have only had problems with the interim releases, I am not saying there bad but there are a lot of people who I have installed Ubuntu on there computers as a primary desktop and the few who have upgrade would have me come over to to put back the LTS. For me I don't care about the latest packages, what is the point of the latest and greatest if some of my favorite applications stop working? There is non.