Why I cant use Hardy 8.04 Part Two

[philipuknovice]

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=775602

The thread has been closed before I could make a reply to beta.tester post of : Well a possible explanation maybe that you are not asking for help, simply cut and pasting another message in another forum

If you need help, please ask and we will see what we can do to help. I have not, for example, used Vista and would not dream of going on amicrosoft site quoting an anti-windows post to them and ask for comment, if I have misunderstood your post I apologies, but it appears you are asking opinions on someone elses opinion

Need help = ask and see



My post was stating a post from another user as to why Hardy is so broken and unusable. I post this chaps post because I felt the same. I wwas hoping the post was obvious to everyone as to what I was asking.
Im sorry to beta.tester if it was too difficult for him/her. Ask them to program in 4 languages and they can do it. Read a simple post and its difficult. I was hoping someone could have replied with an explanation as to whether or not the post was valid.

So my obvious question is : Is Hardy Heron broken, totally broken, worse than 7.10, or is it the norm and just some disgruntled user sounding off ?

[arctic]

8.04 works with most systems. I am using it since it came out and am not encountering any problems so far, so it cannot be that bad.

[philipuknovice]

8.04 works with most systems. I am using it since it came out and am not encountering any problems so far, so it cannot be that bad.

Your one of the lucky people. Ive looked through the forums, Debian & Ubuntu and have read a lot of bad reports about it. So if its working for you, then your lucky, apparantly

[Vermind]

Hello,
I have used Ubuntu for quite a while now, and I tried Debian stable and unstable a long time ago. It seems I missed testing.
I read that post You referred to just now, and it seems like a reasonable approach not to take the bleeding edge as a base for a stable distribution. I was also disappointed with my upgrade from 7.10 to 8.04, since it didn't boot on my desktop (software raid configuration was moved to a different file without telling me), X did not start (mouse configuration was changed without telling me), and the compiz scale plugin bindings broke.

However, I am now using 8.04 on my desktop and laptop, since I fixed these issues.
I should probably try Debian testing one of these days.

[arctic]

Your one of the lucky people. Ive looked through the forums, Debian & Ubuntu and have read a lot of bad reports about it. So if its working for you, then your lucky, apparantly

Yeah, apparently I am lucky.

Well, if someone needs his system for mission-critical tasks, I'd say anyway: Use Debian stable or RHEL/CentOS instead of the bleeding-edge distros.

[philipuknovice]

Yeah, apparently I am lucky.

Well, if someone needs his system for mission-critical tasks, I'd say anyway: Use Debian stable or RHEL/CentOS instead of the bleeding-edge distros.

Since when has Ubuntu been bleeding edge ? That would make it a rather risky OS to use in businessess if its unstable and bleeding edge ?? The whole idea of the original post was to point out that their making an apparent stable distro, on the unstable branch of debian !!!!! (Correct me if im wront, which I probably 90% am).
Canonical are making their money on support, and aiming at both home users and companies (large or small), so knowing how companies work, their not going to install a free ubstable bleeding edge OS, pay for support, and have their workers on the phone with problems which shouldnt have been there in the first place ?

Companies have a 4-5 year life cycle on their laptops / desktops, but keep them for a lot longer. And the OS is on the machine for the life of the machine. Windows XP is the norm now in companies. Its stable, easily repaird, updated, practically all hardware runs on it, whether it takes 5 + mins to install or 20. If I run a large company of 100+ staff, I wouldnt go to Ubuntu purely for the departmental costs of having a down machine, and a worker sat on their butts drinking coffee.

Hence why I feel that Ubuntus 6 monthly release cycle doesnt work. If they admitted this and went to a slightly longer release cycle, dropped a lot of the eye candy, then people would respect them even more. As Ive said in previous posts, eye candy is something the end user does after installing the base system. So the dev team could have spent the time working on more critical stuff than eye candy. Hope you get the polite drift here.

[3rdalbum]

Ubuntu does tend to suffer from driver conflicts, simply because it contains so many drivers from the get-go that if you have the wrong configuration of hardware, you can get problems.

[FredB]

So they must be around - at least - 50% of lucky upgraders.

The rule is : you'll never heard of happy people when they upgrade. You will always hear about people complaining, making the worst mistake human spirit could think of.

If you have problem with ubuntu, don't be masochist : feel free to look at other distro. It is the strenght of free software : you're FREE to use what YOU want to use.

End Of Topic.

[arctic]

Since when has Ubuntu been bleeding edge ? That would make it a rather risky OS to use in businessess if its unstable and bleeding edge ?? The whole idea of the original post was to point out that their making an apparent stable distro, on the unstable branch of debian !!!!! (Correct me if im wront, which I probably 90% am).

Ubuntu has always been a bleeding edge distro, like Mandriva, Fedora, OpenSUSE and ... tadaaa... Debian unstable (aka Debian SID = Still In Development ). All of them ship usually with the latest kernel, with the latest KDE or Gnome, with the latest Firefox and so on. There is nothing wrong with developing bleeding edge distros, but using them for mission critical tasks is rather risky IMHO.
Ubuntu used SID as its basis. Sid is unstable. All the Ubuntu-devs can do is to try to maximize the stability of the unstable, bug-ridden SID packages. The result is an OS that is a compromise. Were Ubuntu really stable, then it would only receive minor bugfixes and security-patches. But it receives major updates, just like Mandriva, Fedora end the other bleeding edge distros.

There are some even less stable branches (mandriva cooker, fedora rawhide,...) but those are usually really only used for the development of the new system by coders and are never used by "mere mortals".

An enterprise-ready system would be something like Debian Stable or RHEL, which had more than enough bugs squashed out over a long period and gone through proper testing. Same with Windows. Vista has so many bugs that almost nobody wants to switch the enterprise-systems to Vista but happily stays with XP or 2003 until Vista can be defined as "relatively stable". (...or they switch to a stable Linux, BSD or Solaris system. )

[philipuknovice]

Ubuntu has always been a bleeding edge distro, like Mandriva, Fedora, OpenSUSE and ... tadaaa... Debian unstable (aka Debian SID = Still In Development ). All of them ship usually with the latest kernel, with the latest KDE or Gnome, with the latest Firefox and so on. There is nothing wrong with developing bleeding edge distros, but using them for mission critical tasks is rather risky IMHO.
Ubuntu used SID as its basis. Sid is unstable. All the Ubuntu-devs can do is to try to maximize the stability of the unstable, bug-ridden SID packages. The result is an OS that is a compromise. Were Ubuntu really stable, then it would only receive minor bugfixes and security-patches. But it receives major updates, just like Mandriva, Fedora end the other bleeding edge distros.

There are some even less stable branches (mandriva cooker, fedora rawhide,...) but those are usually really only used for the development of the new system by coders and are never used by "mere mortals".

An enterprise-ready system would be something like Debian Stable or RHEL, which had more than enough bugs squashed out over a long period and gone through proper testing. Same with Windows. Vista has so many bugs that almost nobody wants to switch the enterprise-systems to Vista but happily stays with XP or 2003 until Vista can be defined as "relatively stable". (...or they switch to a stable Linux, BSD or Solaris system. )

OOOKay !! I can see that, good point. But as Ubuntu is aiming at both home / business user, it sort of still makes silly sense to have businesses install an unstable distro on an office environment network. If you look at Canoncials website thet give Ubuntu away free, all versions, and make their money on selling support per machine, either 9am-5pm mon-fri or 24/7, hence why their selling to businesses. Plus LTS is only about 3 yrs (I think but but Im 90% sure Im wrong).
As said earlier, somewhere, with a machine lifecycle being 4-5 years, and LTS being 18 months or the 3 yrs. A company isnt going to upgrade to the next available LTS. This might work in any other country than the UK, but over here, companies just wouldnt go for that. Hence why Ubuntu will probably never seriously take off. But Im probablu talking complete garbage, normally do, so why break the habit of a life time