How does one live with an everchanging OS?

[jfloydb]

I used Windows 98 for years. I have been using XP for years. Now I'm using Ubuntu regularly. I used 8.04 for a few months; then I used 8.10 for awhile; now I'm using 9.04. Each Ubuntu version seems to have it's own issues: where one version works another version may not. Also, there are more unsupported (old) versions of Ubuntu than supported versions, all since 2004. Is this the world of Linux in general and Ubuntu in particular? Will I have to "upgrade" my OS annually or bi-annually to keep up in the Linux/Ubuntu world? How does the average Linux/Ubuntu user deal with an ever-changing OS. I'm not really complaining; I simply want to get my mind set for a future using Ubuntu...

[ddrichardson]

Different distributions have different philosophies on cycles. Arch is rolling - as soon as an update package is available its released, Debian Stable is hardly ever updated, save for security updates.

Really, the Ubuntu model is only slightly different from Microsoft's model because all though the time between new versions is significant in Windows, service pack releases are more akin to the six month releases.

The long term support version (currently 8.04) is supported for 2 years.

This is the advantage of OSS, you can choose the system that suits your needs.

[Mehall]

I used Windows 98 for years. I have been using XP for years. Now I'm using Ubuntu regularly. I used 8.04 for a few months; then I used 8.10 for awhile; now I'm using 9.04. Each Ubuntu version seems to have it's own issues: where one version works another version may not. Also, there are more unsupported (old) versions of Ubuntu than supported versions, all since 2004. Is this the world of Linux in general and Ubuntu in particular? Will I have to "upgrade" my OS annually or bi-annually to keep up in the Linux/Ubuntu world? How does the average Linux/Ubuntu user deal with an ever-changing OS. I'm not really complaining; I simply want to get my mind set for a future using Ubuntu...

You don't have to always upgrade, there's a reason for releases like Hardy (8.04) calling themselves LTS, or "Long Term Support", it means you can just upgrade every few years.

There is an old mantra for FOSS: Release early, release often. If you want the newest everything, you will constantly be upgrading, but if you are happy with what your computer does, and don't need any features newer software has, then you have no need to upgrade.

Of course, some people dislike upgrading incrementally, so there are distros out there for that (best two examples being Debian testing, and Arch linux) which use Rolling Release, meaning there is no actual "version", and they package things together for the install, but overall it's the same version, you are constantly getting all the updates.

[chucky chuckaluck]

there are some 'rolling release' distros (arch, and i think fedora) you might be more comfortable with. also, except for a version not being supported any longer, no one says you have to update. ubuntu has lts versions that last longer than six months. that might suit you as well.

[gymophett]

It's different for every distribution. Some release once every year, or every 2 years. Some just keep updating as newer things come out. Ubuntu has LTS versions though. Like 8.04 LTS and it is supported until 2011, and it isn't necessary to upgrade evry release. Some people still run 6.06 and 7.04.

[jfloydb]

I've used 8.04, but had wifi problems; I used 8.10, but had video problems. I'm now using 9.04 and everything is working -- I love it. I sort of hate to see that it will only be supported until 2010. Again, I'm not trying to complain, I'm trying to get my head into the Linux/Ubuntu world...

I also see that many of you casually refer to other versions of Linux. Do you guys use these versions as well as Ubuntu? I mean: do you have more than one, perhaps several, Linux versions on a single computer? If so, is that a common practice?

Again, don't think that I'm complaining. I'm not. I'm trying to understand the Linux world...

Thanks

[SuperSonic4]

I have no idea how many people run more than one linux distro on their pc but you can run as many as you have hard drive space for, especially if you know how to edit grub properly :p

I used to run Kubuntu and Arch but got rid of Kubuntu because I prefer the rolling release model

[tubezninja]

for what it's worth, I've found Ubuntu to be among the easiest to keep upgrading. Pretty much everything else out there has a rather disruptive process for upgrading to a new version. Save for Arch of course.

[Archmage]

The long term support version (currently 8.04) is supported for 2 years.

Actually it is three years for the desktop and five for the server. But if you want to change from LTS to LTS you need to change every two years.

Nothing wrong with that. Look at Microsoft. They are having each month a different system. (They are updating the Internet Explorer and they defined this as there system.)

[ddrichardson]

Actually it is three years for the desktop and five for the server. But if you want to change from LTS to LTS you need to change every two years.

Nothing wrong with that. Look at Microsoft. They are having each month a different system. (They are updating the Internet Explorer and they defined this as there system.)
I meant to type "another two years" but you're right in what you say.

[JK3mp]

Some people use multiple ones, either for testing or something of that nature usually. I use multiple ones bc i have Arch on my Desktop and Ubuntu on my Laptop since it handles my wireless better. I also have Fedora on my Desktop that i play around with but don't use much. Many people here started on ubuntu and moved up to a bit more advanced and easier modified distro like Arch, Gentoo, or Slackware.(seen ALOT that have moved to arch lol).

[MikeTheC]

I'm not sure that describing Linux in general -- or Ubuntu in specific -- as "ever-changing" is really the right mental model to use. All OSs change over time, with bug fixes and feature upgrades and tweaks (oh my!). So, unless you've installed a system, perfected it for that box and what you're using it for and (likely as not) pulled the 'net plug and used it as a stand-alone workstation, it's going to change.

A more appropriate way to view OSs (say, Microsoft vs. Linux) is to describe Linux as "dynamic" and Windows as "static". With that view, the only thing more "static" on an instance-by-instance basis than Windows would be Debian which, as mentioned up-thread, has a deliberate development model which basically says that stability is king, and thereby eschews technological advances for long-term stability, eventually absorbing things once the technology and/or concept has become mature and the code implementation itself has been beaten into stability and maturity.

The differences between Debian and Microsoft vis a vis their respective OS products (otherwise) couldn't be more stark, however.

[Dok]

Trying different distros is a right of passage for anyone new to Linux. Go crazy for awhile and try them all. You will find what you like soon enough. Once you get that out of your system you will probably land on one distro and stick with it. I've been using linux since '96 and still try different distros occasionally.

As for ever changing operating systems, that's your choice too. Every distro has a different upgrade concept, so find one you like. Ubuntu tries to cover frequent upgraders with 6month releases and those who like to stick with the same OS for years can stay with the LTS releases.

The point here is with Linux, you have choices.
Dok

[SomeGuyDude]

(seen ALOT that have moved to arch lol).

I really wonder how many Archers did so after reading about it on here. I dare say the Ubuntu -> Arch conversion might be one of the most ubiquitous.

By the way, the OP is one HUGE reason I'm on Arch. Never worry about huge new releases that come with a bucket of problems. When updates come piece by piece you always know what broke something and can VERY easily roll it back. No scrapping the entire new version over a wifi break, just downgrade the wi-fi driver and you're still up to date everywhere else.

[Bart_D]

I used Windows 98 for years. I have been using XP for years. Now I'm using Ubuntu regularly. I used 8.04 for a few months; then I used 8.10 for awhile; now I'm using 9.04. Each Ubuntu version seems to have it's own issues: where one version works another version may not. Also, there are more unsupported (old) versions of Ubuntu than supported versions, all since 2004. Is this the world of Linux in general and Ubuntu in particular? Will I have to "upgrade" my OS annually or bi-annually to keep up in the Linux/Ubuntu world? How does the average Linux/Ubuntu user deal with an ever-changing OS. I'm not really complaining; I simply want to get my mind set for a future using Ubuntu...

If you are comfortable with the installation process(manual or automatic partitioning, or even minimal/alternate install), then upgrading to the latest version will not be time consuming at all. And you'll enjoy better hardware detection with the latest release....

[mkendall]

How does one live with an everchanging OS?

How does one live with everchanging people in an everchanging world? One adapts and continues.

[SuperSonic4]

I really wonder how many Archers did so after reading about it on here. I dare say the Ubuntu -> Arch conversion might be one of the most ubiquitous.

By the way, the OP is one HUGE reason I'm on Arch. Never worry about huge new releases that come with a bucket of problems. When updates come piece by piece you always know what broke something and can VERY easily roll it back. No scrapping the entire new version over a wifi break, just downgrade the wi-fi driver and you're still up to date everywhere else.

And then you edit /etc/pacman.conf to stop the upgrade in the future (like I've done with amarok-base) :p

[mamamia88]

if one version of ubuntu works for you i see no need to really upgrade to the next version. big pull for me in jaunty was ext4

[wispygalaxy]

Why don't you try Debian. The releases are less frequent than Ubuntu's. There is a commitment to producing stable software, so it takes longer for Debian to be released. I had Ubuntu before going over to Debian, and it's not a big shock.

I truly think that a changing OS is a good thing. Technology progresses, whether people like it or not. If people want to stick with the same things, then innovation will be stifled. But I understand that people want programs/apps to be familiar and do not want to relearn things; I have noticed this a lot with older people. As a result, there should be a compromise between new features and familiarity.

:KS

[cariboo]

As far as people using different distributions, I use the version that work best for what I want to do. I have two systems running Juanty, a server running Intrepid, a Freenas sever which is based on FreeBSD, an old Compaq desktop running AntiX and a really old AST Bravo runiing DSL. All do different things and all run well at the tasks they are used for.

[phrostbyte]

Ubuntu releases every 6 months, but has a "LTS" release every 2 years. The idea is people who don't like to upgrade or can't upgrade often for whatever reason go with LTS releases (every 2 years), and others go with regular releases. The next LTS release is April 2010.

[jfloydb]

I find it rather amazing (in a good way) that so many people using other Linux versions (other than Ubuntu) visit and comment on this forum. As previously stated, I have been using Windows for a long time and I have never once visited a Mac forum. But, then again, perhaps Windows and Mac is like comparing apples and oranges, while comparing Linux versions is more like comparing milk chocolate, semi-sweet, and dark chocolate (if you will)...

I am enjoying all the comments... Thanks.

[fballem]

I used Windows 98 for years. I have been using XP for years. Now I'm using Ubuntu regularly. I used 8.04 for a few months; then I used 8.10 for awhile; now I'm using 9.04. Each Ubuntu version seems to have it's own issues: where one version works another version may not. Also, there are more unsupported (old) versions of Ubuntu than supported versions, all since 2004. Is this the world of Linux in general and Ubuntu in particular? Will I have to "upgrade" my OS annually or bi-annually to keep up in the Linux/Ubuntu world? How does the average Linux/Ubuntu user deal with an ever-changing OS. I'm not really complaining; I simply want to get my mind set for a future using Ubuntu...

Another way to think about it (conceptually) might be to consider what would happen if you had to install Windows Vista to-day from scratch. I am assuming that you have your data saved on an external drive.


Install the core operating system from the CD.
Apply the updates. On my machine, the first set of updates took about 2-1/2 hours to download.
Find all of the other programs and drivers that you need. For example, Adobe for Reader, Flash, and Shockwave, HP for printer (in my case), Logitech for keyboard/mouse driver,
Install programs. In my case, it would be Microsoft Office 2007 Professional. I have the original CDs.
Updates to programs and other installed components. In my case, this takes another 1-1/2 hours.
Copy the files that you saved on the external drive.
Run and configure the programs.
Process, from beginning to end, takes about 1-1/2 to 2 full days.


You can think of the ubuntu releases as the operating system, with included service packs and other updates, along with the applications, and drivers. Making the same assumption about my data, I can do a clean install of ubuntu and have it working the way that I want, in 3 - 4 hours.

I just finished setting up a machine for a friend of mine. It's a Dell Inspiron 6400 laptop. From start to finish, with ubuntu 9.04, OpenOffice, Banshee, VLC, Evolution, Pidgin, and Firefox installed, wireless network working, and tested, including synch to an iPod and rip of a CD, the whole process took me about 6 hours. To get the same level of functionality using Windows XP, Office 2003 Professional, Windows Media Player, Windows Messenger, and Internet Explorer, with all of the other items working and tested would have taken me about 2 days.

I like the short release cycles. The advantage of a short release cycle is that the updates tend to be fewer in number and smaller in size. Consider that Vista was released in January 2007 (more than 2 years ago), and that's why the updates to the core operating system itself takes 2-1/2 hours.

Just my view,

[kevdog]

Ill be the first to tell you honestly -- although installing the latest greatest Ubuntu version every 6 months gives a a renewed sense of anticipation and excitement -- its a pain! Just when you get your system the way you like it -- start over again! In some cases you might find the latest and greatest to be actually worse than the older tried and true! Your experience may vary!

[yabbadabbadont]

Ill be the first to tell you honestly -- although installing the latest greatest Ubuntu version every 6 months gives a a renewed sense of anticipation and excitement -- its a pain! Just when you get your system the way you like it -- start over again! In some cases you might find the latest and greatest to be actually worse than the older tried and true! Your experience may vary!

We Gentoo users thrive on it... (or we become former Gentoo users ;))

[Tibuda]

Ill be the first to tell you honestly -- although installing the latest greatest Ubuntu version every 6 months gives a a renewed sense of anticipation and excitement -- its a pain! Just when you get your system the way you like it -- start over again! In some cases you might find the latest and greatest to be actually worse than the older tried and true! Your experience may vary!

You don't have to update. Intrepid end of life is on April 2010. See https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Releases

[kevdog]

Personally I find users of Ubuntu that refuse to update to the latest version -- those using LTS -- to be boring! Its much more fun to complain and trash the new stuff than actually work with stuff that is proven!!

Anyway -- just my 2 cents -- Hardy wasn't any different for me than any other release -- its just they branded it a LTS. They may support it a lot longer than the intermediate release -- but stable it was not!

[Wiebelhaus]

I'll probably be using this current installation of 9.04 for a year at the very least.

[liamnixon]

For a stable system, check Slackware. They just put out new releases when they're ready, and god is it good. :D

[samjh]

I find it rather amazing (in a good way) that so many people using other Linux versions (other than Ubuntu) visit and comment on this forum. As previously stated, I have been using Windows for a long time and I have never once visited a Mac forum. But, then again, perhaps Windows and Mac is like comparing apples and oranges, while comparing Linux versions is more like comparing milk chocolate, semi-sweet, and dark chocolate (if you will)...A lot of the ubuntuforums.org users who use other distros were former Ubuntu users. I'm one of them (used Ubuntu for about 2 years, then switched to Debian).

I think others have pointed it out already: a Windows release undergoes massive changes during its lifecycle. Windows XP has 3 service packs, 2000 has more. Each service pack is analogous to a new Linux distro version.


there are some 'rolling release' distros (arch, and i think fedora) you might be more comfortable with. also, except for a version not being supported any longer, no one says you have to update. ubuntu has lts versions that last longer than six months. that might suit you as well.
Fedora is not a rolling-release distro. Their cycle is approximately every six months.

[Peasantoid]

I like Arch's rolling release system, but I have a while to go before I get it configured properly. After that I'll back it up onto various external hard drives and stick them in secret Swiss bank accounts so I don't have to go through the process again.

[MaxIBoy]

The change is a Good Thing. Back in "the day," when Linux was still in the 0.9x range of versions, BSD users would laughingly say that Linux users belonged to the "kernel of the week club," because of how often new kernels would come out.

No one is laughing now. The technique is proven to work. Sure, the BSDs are much more well-written, stable, and elegant, but Linux is eons ahead in functionality.




A Linux distribution consists of hundreds of pieces of software, each consisting of anywhere from two to twenty packages, and each with its own development team on different release schedules. A lot of distros develop software in-house, but this is usually not more than five or ten projects per distro. Then there is the optional software in the repos. Debian has about 20,000 packages available in its repos, Ubuntu has about the same. Not a day goes by without at least two or three of these software projects being updated. No one expects that every single update is going to be pushed into the of repos right away (on the contrary, this would be a nightmare for stability,) but if you neglect a package for too long, guaranteed it's going to cause problems for someone, somewhere.

If you read the previous paragraph with horror and dread at how messy the whole thing must be, you wouldn't be alone. However, consider this: the open source ecosystem is collectively undergoing progress at a heart-stopping rate, and progress is good. Sure, there are enough changes to make your head spin, but with few exceptions, each change brings some kind of new feature or bug fix. Each change is an improvement. No proprietary software could hope to compete by any objective measure.

[SomeGuyDude]

Personally I find users of Ubuntu that refuse to update to the latest version -- those using LTS -- to be boring! Its much more fun to complain and trash the new stuff than actually work with stuff that is proven!!

There's a reason I have Arch's testing repo enabled. :KS

[ddrichardson]

I like Arch's rolling release system, but I have a while to go before I get it configured properly. After that I'll back it up onto various external hard drives and stick them in secret Swiss bank accounts so I don't have to go through the process again.
I get asked to put Arch on Aspire Ones a lot (they're very popular where I work) but some people like Gnome, some KDE, and some XFCE.

So I installed a base system with Xorg and created a disk image, installed Gnome and created another. Then reverted to the base and repeated with KDE, then XFCE.

Then each machine is configured for that user, an image created and stored - I have a 250Gb HDD that's nothing but Arch images!

[ddrichardson]

The change is a Good Thing. Back in "the day," when Linux was still in the 0.9x range of versions, BSD users would laughingly say that Linux users belonged to the "kernel of the week club," because of how often new kernels would come out.
There's a lot of truth in that but even now new kernels are apt to change something and break everything, I've had that on Arch more than once - I always read over the kernel news on LWN before I update now.

Not as bad as it was but it still happens.

[k2t0f12d]

Its constant fun. Every night, with another "pacman -Syyu" you are guaranteed any combination of the following;
get a fun exciting new change get a fun exciting new bug to fix have everything work exactly the same way as it did yesterday
I've never seen a change that included a bug the completely broke the system.

[ddrichardson]

Its constant fun. Every night, with another "pacman -Syyu" you are guaranteed any combination of the following;

get a fun exciting new change
get a fun exciting new bug to fix
have everything work exactly the same way as it did yesterday

I've never seen a change that included a bug the completely broke the system.
I have, kinda - a kernel update but not a show stopper as the fallback was good.

Most annoying bug recently was the XFCE update that lost all the icons.

[glotz]

How does one live with everchanging underwear?

[jfloydb]

I was looking at this thread ("jaunty fails hard")

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1136106

How is it that what solved all my problems (upgrading to 9.04 on my acer Aspire One) caused so my problems for so many others? Does this sort of thing usually happen with Linux upgrades? I know that in the Windows world Vista "broke" many peoples systems, but that was after a decade of XP success. Do Linux/Ubuntu users have to worry about these sorts of problems every 6 months? Again, I love 9.04, I'm having a lot of fun with it, but can/should I expect that to change with 9.10. Just wondering aloud...

[sgosnell]

Who knows? But you can certainly wait until you get feedback from the community about 9.10 before you actually do the upgrade, or you can wait for 10.04. There is no legal requirement to do every upgrade that comes along, and certainly not as soon as it comes along.

[oomingmak]

Ill be the first to tell you honestly -- although installing the latest greatest Ubuntu version every 6 months gives a a renewed sense of anticipation and excitement -- its a pain! Just when you get your system the way you like it -- start over again! In some cases you might find the latest and greatest to be actually worse than the older
I agree completely.

Not only do things sometimes get worse, but even when they improve, there are often incompatibilities with config files, so all your carefully tweaked settings from your previous install don't work, and you have to set the whole thing up again from scratch.

I haven't bothered to upgrade since Linux Mint 4.0 Daryna (based on Ubuntu 7.10) because every version since then has had nothing in it that was worth it for me (in many ways they got worse) ..... that is until now. Ubuntu 9.04 is actually a reasonable upgrade from where I am now, and so at some point I will go through the hassle of setting everything up again.

However, I've already found annoyances just from trying the Live CD (such as the new integrated user switcher panel applet, new style notifcations, behaviour of the update manager, missing Network activity applet, no ctrl + alt + backspace etc.) all of which have to be "fixed" in order to get them back to working the way I want them to. This is in addition to all the standard tweaks that I usually have to apply anyway. I'd certainly not want to be going through all that every 6 months.

Staying on an existing Ubuntu version is fine up to a point, but without decent backports it's a pain. I use Windows 2000 as my main OS, and if I want the very latest brand-new version of Winamp, I can just go and get it and install it. I do not need to upgrade my entire OS to Vista or Windows 7 just to get a new feature in a tiny MP3 player. On Ubuntu however, trying to get a newer version of Audacious to run on Mint 4.0 (the repo version has a bug that keeps crashing the player on certain wav files) turned into an absolutely hellish experience of code-chasing and compiling (due to incompatible debs and unprovided dependencies) that didn't work even after trying on and off for several months.

If only Sidux did a ready-made Gnome version, I'd dump fixed release distros altogether.

[k2t0f12d]

Staying on an existing Ubuntu version is fine up to a point, but without decent backports it's a pain.To actually get what it is that you say you want out of GNU+Linux, you have to go to Debian and *at least* enable testing. Its the only real sweet spot between unstable and stable in the GNU+Linux world, acts as a rolling release, and is reasonably well tested before getting pushed. Otherwise, go for sid and pray.


I use Windows 2000 as my main OS, and if I want the very latest brand-new version of Winamp, I can just go and get it and install it. I do not need to upgrade my entire OS to Vista or Windows 7 just to get a new feature in a tiny MP3 player.During WWII, there was a public service announcement aimed at conserving fuel by inducing folks to ask themselves, "Is this trip really necessary?" (used as a play on words gag in Bugs Bunny cartoons after tricking an antagonist into a fall). Ask yourself, is this upgrade really necessary? If its something really prolific, like webcam support on Pidgin (has that happened yet?), I could see why some users would be chomping at the bit. But it comes down to the importance of the features that you might be missing out versus the value of the distribution's design. What you want is to be found in Debian, but its going to take you a little bit more work to get there then it did to get here.

Couple of other observations here.

Windows does not have a package manager as such, and therefore cannot put everything you'll use in one convenient location accessible by one program. So the ability to upgrade single programs isn't because someone overcame the glass ceiling of program versions in the non-existent Windows repository by coming up with piecemeal upgrades, there simply is no other way to do it on that system (cygwin not included).

Software developers that vend on Windows may or may not show the same level of transparency in their projects as free software developers do. Often their newest changes are left unannounced anyway, and while the timetable before you get those changes might be the same as the length of time you'd wait for a free software upgrade to hit Ubuntu's repo, you wouldn't complain about the former because you didn't know about a new version yet.

Lastly (I promise), other than package management, there isn't any difference between Windows and GNU+Linux here. You can upgrade a single program on either operating system anyway. If you really care about package management on GNU+Linux, just get the newest version, build a deb (or whatever), and install it. I'm pretty ambivalent about package managers myself. Most of the programs I use frequently that aren't put on during installation I've often built from source and packaged up in a simple tarball that I untar on root '/'. Even that step is a bit much, since you can always just 'make install' it on the bare system. If a developer distributes a binary package, like Assault Cube, use that instead. There's a few programs that come in binary archives that I just pop in my /home directory and then run from their own path. If I'm very ambitious, I'll create an icon or menu item so I don't have to ALT + F2 and type it in to run it.

[Johnsie]

I used to like the 6 month release cycle. But now I think replacing 100% of your packages on all your machines every six months is a little drastic and time consuming.

I'm thinking that the arch approach may be better. One thing I like about windows is that I don't have to wait on the repositories to have the latest version of a program, because I get my software directly from the vendor.

After three and a half years using Ubuntu the novelty of getting a new version has worn off. This is the 7th or 8th time I've had to upgrade all the packages on the machines I use and alot of the applications haven't changed that much. A two or three hour upgrade isn't worth it just to get the latest firefox or pidgin ;-)

[MaxIBoy]

While my upgrade from 8.04 to 8.10 on my laptop went smoothly, I basically concur, which is why I've moved onto Debian Sid/Squeeze+Experimental, with Lenny still around for upgrades that break things (yeah, I'm looking at you, nm-applet!)



I was looking at this thread ("jaunty fails hard")

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1136106

How is it that what solved all my problems (upgrading to 9.04 on my acer Aspire One) caused so my problems for so many others? Does this sort of thing usually happen with Linux upgrades? I know that in the Windows world Vista "broke" many peoples systems, but that was after a decade of XP success. Do Linux/Ubuntu users have to worry about these sorts of problems every 6 months? Again, I love 9.04, I'm having a lot of fun with it, but can/should I expect that to change with 9.10. Just wondering aloud...This kind of thing is happening all the time. It really depends on your hardware. A lot of times, when one chipset is buggy, the driver programmers avoid fixing the bug because they know it'll break some other hardware. It's a real juggling act.

[jfloydb]

Somebody on this thread (forgive me for not remembering who) said something to the affect of "go crazy and try all the distros you can". Are there any other Linux versions out there that can be installed as a wubi installation? If so, please tell me which ones they are; I would like to play with them...

[MaxIBoy]

Only Ubuntu, Kubuntu, and Xfce will work with Wubi, unfortunately. You could probably rig something like that up manually, but it would take ages to get it working.


Your best bet is to install virtualbox and try them out that way. That's what I do.

[mamamia88]

i think i might be sticking with jaunty for awhile

[glotz]

Somebody on this thread (forgive me for not remembering who) said something to the affect of "go crazy and try all the distros you can". Are there any other Linux versions out there that can be installed as a wubi installation? If so, please tell me which ones they are; I would like to play with them...Debian's got one unofficial at
http://goodbye-microsoft.com/

[jfloydb]

glotz: Debian's got one unofficial at
http://goodbye-microsoft.com/

Will this install as/like a wubi without re-partitioning my hard drive? If so, would it sit next to Ubuntu without interference or conflict? Thanks...


MaxIBOY: Your best bet is to install virtualbox and try them out that way. That's what I do.

Thanks, I will look into virtualbox (at the moment I know nothing about it).

[glotz]

I believe it allows you to choose whether to remove winders or leave it there, partitioning needed.

[forrestcupp]

Also, there are more unsupported (old) versions of Ubuntu than supported versions, all since 2004.

To be fair, there are a lot more unsupported versions of Windows than there are supported versions.

But like others said, if you don't want to keep updating, just stick with the LTS version for as long as it lasts.

You have a choice. You can either have the latest and greatest by upgrading all the time, or you can stick with one version and not have the latest and greatest. It will be that way no matter which distro you go with, except the rolling release distros that are continually updating.

[mister_p_1998]

Ill be the first to tell you honestly -- although installing the latest greatest Ubuntu version every 6 months gives a a renewed sense of anticipation and excitement -- its a pain! Just when you get your system the way you like it -- start over again! In some cases you might find the latest and greatest to be actually worse than the older tried and true! Your experience may vary!


+10!
I only upgraded my Dapper install because the LTS was due to expire.. I now run Hardy which is very nice, but Im not overly impressed that it will too stop being supported in just two more years. A five year plan would be nice.
My Gutsy laptop just stopped getting support yesterday but it would be nice if they kept the Repos open for a few more years without any updates, as its only a casual use machine and I dont want the agro of upgrading.
Steve

[collinp]

I've used and am now using ArchLinux, awesome distro. I love the rolling release part of it, no massive updates to a new version.

[jfloydb]

I've used and am now using ArchLinux, awesome distro. I love the rolling release part of it, no massive updates to a new version.

If something breaks in Arch, is it easy or difficult to roll-back an update?

[Chame_Wizard]

I only install the x.10 version every January/February.:lolflag:

[BrokenKingpin]

I keep my server on the LST, and I usually upgrade my desktop to each new release. I don't think I will be doiing this anymore though. The 6 month release cylce is too short and seems to introduce more bugs than they fix. I think if they went to an anual release schedule things would be a lot more stable.

[BugenhagenXIII]

I prefer rolling release models. The only major downside (aside from a higher risk of something breaking), is that if you don't update for a while, it can be even more of a pain to get it fully updated again than it is to reinstall Ubuntu every six months.

I run Gentoo, and for about five months had no internet access. When I finally got internet, it took forever to get my system fully updated (and not just because everything gets compiled from source in Gentoo). It took several days to sort out blocked packages and other major changes. It probably didn't help that I run a full testing system. And I was lucky, as there wasn't anything as serious as the e2fsprogs issues or expat issues. If there had been, it probably would have taken even longer to sort out.

That being said, I'm not badmouthing Gentoo. No matter what distro I go and try, I always end up back with Gentoo. I'm just pointing out an issue with rolling release distros that doesn't really get talked about as much. It is, as with most things, a trade-off.

[jfloydb]

I prefer rolling release models. The only major downside (aside from a higher risk of something breaking), is that if you don't update for a while, it can be even more of a pain to get it fully updated again than it is to reinstall Ubuntu every six months....I'm just pointing out an issue with rolling release distros that doesn't really get talked about as much. It is, as with most things, a trade-off.

Thanks.