Should newbies be steered to the latest version of Ubuntu?

[rgarand3006]

Sequence: someone hears about Linux, does a bit of digging, finds out about Ubuntu, goes to ubuntu.com ready to try it out. The latest and greatest version of Ubuntu Linux is then downloaded and they become converts for life. This was what I expected would happen for me a few weeks ago after deciding I was fed up with having to reinstall MS Windows yet again. It also appears to be what the powers-that-be for Ubuntu are thinking when you consider that the absolute latest version of Ubuntu is always the one that greets visitors/newbies to ubuntu.com. After two costly weeks of combat, I am back to being primarily an MS Windows user. Why? In short, I got tired of spending at least 30 minutes trying to do anything "new". It didn't help that only about 1/3 of each new thing ended up working when that 30(++) minutes was over. Eventually I realized that one of the most polished versions of Ubuntu was not the 64-bit Kubuntu 9.10 I was running but instead the 32-bit Ubuntu 8.04 LTS version. This brings me to my question to the community: why are Ubuntu newbies used as guinea pigs? If I were king, I would prominently feature the friendliest, most polished, most stable version of Ubuntu, not the most bug-ridden. Sure the latest interface is the prettiest, but when I can't: get multiple displays to stretch my desktop, use my soundcard, use Skype, network "out" from a VM on my Linux install, and so on, I won't care if the interface looks like Mac's latest eye candy or Windows 3.11. I understand that Ubuntu is a community effort and progress will only come through people installing the latest version and hammering out the bugs together, but I have to believe that unwittingly putting the newbies on that bleeding edge is turning a lot of people away. As for me, I now have a Hardy Heron VM puttering along in my MS Windows and an awesome USB key with Fedora 11, but they will be side hobbies while my real work takes place in Windows, just as it has since Windows 3.1. Linux will be a side hobby, just as it has been since I first tried it in 1997. I will probably try again, older and wiser, six months from now. Next time, I won't be on the bleeding edge, but I will be more realistic about the pace of change from MS to Linux that I can handle. You will be pleased to note that Xubuntu is the daily interface for all my children as they use the home PC.

[MelDJ]

thats why 8.04 is called LTS.
if you want stability, use debian

[t0p]

OP: So what are you suggesting? That we have a cutting-edge version for the adventurous and a more stable version for those users who need stability? What a great idea, let's start a petition,

Hold on - Ubuntu does that already. Curses, foiled again!

[Grenage]

Sequence: someone hears about Linux, does a bit of digging, finds out about Ubuntu, goes to ubuntu.com ready to try it out. The latest and greatest version of Ubuntu Linux is then downloaded and they become converts for life. This was what I expected would happen for me a few weeks ago after deciding I was fed up with having to reinstall MS Windows yet again. It also appears to be what the powers-that-be for Ubuntu are thinking when you consider that the absolute latest version of Ubuntu is always the one that greets visitors/newbies to ubuntu.com. After two costly weeks of combat, I am back to being primarily an MS Windows user. Why? In short, I got tired of spending at least 30 minutes trying to do anything "new". It didn't help that only about 1/3 of each new thing ended up working when that 30(++) minutes was over. Eventually I realized that one of the most polished versions of Ubuntu was not the 64-bit Kubuntu 9.10 I was running but instead the 32-bit Ubuntu 8.04 LTS version. This brings me to my question to the community: why are Ubuntu newbies used as guinea pigs? If I were king, I would prominently feature the friendliest, most polished, most stable version of Ubuntu, not the most bug-ridden. Sure the latest interface is the prettiest, but when I can't: get multiple displays to stretch my desktop, use my soundcard, use Skype, network "out" from a VM on my Linux install, and so on, I won't care if the interface looks like Mac's latest eye candy or Windows 3.11. I understand that Ubuntu is a community effort and progress will only come through people installing the latest version and hammering out the bugs together, but I have to believe that unwittingly putting the newbies on that bleeding edge is turning a lot of people away. As for me, I now have a Hardy Heron VM puttering along in my MS Windows and an awesome USB key with Fedora 11, but they will be side hobbies while my real work takes place in Windows, just as it has since Windows 3.1. Linux will be a side hobby, just as it has been since I first tried it in 1997. I will probably try again, older and wiser, six months from now. Next time, I won't be on the bleeding edge, but I will be more realistic about the pace of change from MS to Linux that I can handle. You will be pleased to note that Xubuntu is the daily interface for all my children as they use the home PC.

For the love of all that is good, format your text!

[Bios Element]

The enter key is your friend and 30 minutes is less then it takes to install Windows.

[K.Mandla]

Should newbies be steered to the latest version of Ubuntu?
Yes, and

For the love of all that is good, format your text!
+1.

[woodmaster]

OP: So what are you suggesting? That we have a cutting-edge version for the adventurous and a more stable version for those users who need stability? What a great idea, let's start a petition,

Hold on - Ubuntu does that already. Curses, foiled again!

I think what the OP was driving at is that a noob will first see 9.10 and think it will be a quick, painless install to get his computer up and running to dump MS. I did, and it was not. 3 Months later, I still get random crashes that noone seems to be able to help me fix. I even tried 8.04 but that didn't have Mobile Broadband support so I couldn't use it.

[ssam]

newer versions on average support more hardware and have less bugs.

whats really needed is more beta testing.

[w0mbatharcos]

I'm a newbie too, but I don't feel like rgarand3006...

Sure, there can be problems with hardwares and softwares, but I have not read any article that said: "Install Ubuntu, and everything works out of the box".

And I remember the times using Windows too, when after a 45 min installation, I started to find and install the latest drivers, and well.. some of them don't worked well.

I think, 9.10 is great for everybody starting with Linux, and as I see, (for a newcomer) it's pointless to install an older edition. 90% of newbies, when they see "You can upgrade to a new version", they upgrade.
And I think, a clean install is always a better choice.

[Morbius1]

Here's the problem as I see it. Each new version is going to have better device support. So if you have a component that ubuntu doesn't play well with in version x, it might in version x+1.

On the other hand, and keep in mind this is just my personal observation, every other release has some bug fixes but also introduces a lot of beta software where the bugs haven't been resolved yet. How does Grub 1.97 Beta in 9.10 become Grub2 ? It sounds like with a few more weeks of testing it might be ready to become GRUB 1.97 - not GRUB 2.

What I do is install the LTS version and then skip one:

8.04 - 9.04 - 10.04 is what I'd install

Again, if I had a video driver or a network card that the current version didn't work with I'd be forced to install the newest version.

[ubunterooster]

I always have used the latest. And I'm in charge of 4 complete newbies; they are using the latest

[madnessjack]

The OP needs to realise that just because it didn't work for him doesn't mean it's the case for everyone else.

I started on Jaunty as a complete Linux newbie and it worked fine for me.

I've since installed Karmic on a casual PC users machine (also unaware of Linux) and they've had no trouble.

Yes I'm aware people have had trouble, but this isn't the case for everyone. Using old releases isn't a viable option.

[HarrisonNapper]

The other thing to keep in mind is that sometimes people WANT the latest and greatest. If you go to the Linux is NOT Windows link in my sig it will explain about everything I would have to say on this, but to reiterate the most important point: the essence of linux; the way it works, the people who use it, etc; is fundamentally different from that of windows. Most of us like those differences and while we would like people to share in our enjoyment of the things that are great about linux, we don't want to make it like windows to attract them to do so. Leastways, I could go on about it, but I'll just say read the article, it's a great one.

[NCLI]

Maybe it would be enough to promote the LTS some more? Showing it alongside the latest version, marked as the more stable, but older of the two.

[thatguruguy]

I always have used the latest. And I'm in charge of 4 complete newbies; they are using the latest
^^^ this.

I guess the question is, "Who is doing the steering?" My kids (10 and 9) use 9.10. So does my wife (on a PPC Mac, no less). So does my sister and her kids. None of them are particularly good with computers, but I'm able to manage their computers and trouble-shoot problems for them.

There are pros and cons to using the latest version vs. the last LTS release, which is now almost 2 years old. If you're willing and able to help the "newbie", feel free to steer him or her to the latest version. But recognize that the newbie probably won't (and probably shouldn't) deal with any possible bugs him/herself. That will be your job.

On the other hand, if you are the newbie, or you know someone who is willing to try out ubuntu but who doesn't have access to a lot of support, you may consider using the LTS version, at least until you are (or the newbie is) comfortable enough with ubuntu generally to try the latest version.

EDIT: I strayed a bit from the original question; i.e., who is doing the steering. If you, as a user advising another user, are doing the steering, I think it's worth considering what I wrote above. If it is Canonical doing the steering (e.g., on the ubuntu.com page), I think there is some value in listing the LTS on the front page of the site along with the latest/greatest, with a description of the differences between the two. It is argued constantly that Linux is about the freedom to make choices; one such choice should be given right up front.

[HarrisonNapper]

I started using linux on Red Hat and Ubuntu 7.1 and had only the man pages to comfort me while I cried myself to sleep at night. However, there is something to be said for baptism by fire (primarily that it's much more interesting for on-lookers than a traditional baptism) in that you learn a lot more about the operating system. I'm sure many Windows users who now consider Windows "simple" started on MS-DOS, maybe Windows 3.1, or possibly just Windows 95, but in any case, it was hours of frustration and confusion, but it all amounted to an understanding of the OS that made using it later even easier.

[rgarand3006]

the essence of linux; the way it works, the people who use it, etc; is fundamentally different from that of windows. Most of us like those differences and while we would like people to share in our enjoyment of the things that are great about linux, we don't want to make it like windows to attract them to do so.
I read "Linux is not Windows" and it was VERY helpful. I am feeling a bit humbled at the realization that Linux has never really been intended to compete with other software; it's just there for the use and enjoyment of whoever wants to join in. I wish I had read that piece in 1997, but many of the dynamics were definitely different then.

When I saw the bloated nightmare that was Vista getting rejected en masse, I thought Linux's time had come and about that same time, Ubuntu seemed to pick up enormous momentum. I still get the impression that Ubuntu is the most common distro most newbies encounter. It seems like if Ubuntu was to embrace the "newbie" niche, as someone else here said, perhaps the LTS could be plainly described as a good alternative to the latest version, side-by-side on the download page rather than just getting a mention. Like in this forum, the Pros and Cons of the latest distro and the LTS could be spelled out and the newbie then takes their chances. (Red pill/blue pill?)

If Ubuntu is trying to be the best distro for most people interested in running Linux, maybe the current approach is the best approach. Just keep in mind that Ubuntu among Linux distros has the largest mindshare IMO. If Ubuntu is the biggest distro and keeps burning newbies by using them as guinea pigs, LINUX will get the reputation for being more trouble than it is worth.

I came to Linux because I was tired of bloat, sloth, reinstalls, and wearing handcuffs. I now can see that I can get an OS that is lean, fast, rarely even needs a reboot much less a reinstallation and is free as in freedom. I can also see that I am not going to be able to make that switch quickly, though.

As far as the "Linux is not Windows" point of the Mac OS X as a commercial alternative to both Windows and Linux, I have just never cared for Mac. Mostly, I'm too cheap and am willing to put up with some hassles to save some money. I even got a hand-me-down iMac in Bondi Blue that I tried for a few months and ended up hating it. If Windows put me in handcuffs, the Mac put me in an iron maiden. Different horses for different courses.

Idea #2 - Maybe I should bite the bullet and pay for a commercial version of Linux as a straddle between the MS approach and the FOSS approach.

Idea #3 - Maybe I should download the smallest, GUI-free distro and start learning GNU/Linux from the bottom-up, adding features only as needed? "If I am going to learn this slowly, I might as well learn it thoroughly," is the thought behind this notion.

[HarrisonNapper]

I think your point about Ubuntu is right on the nose, personally. The stated goals of Canonical and Ubuntu are to make Ubuntu an accessible desktop distribution and to do that, you have to look at what accessibility is in a day and age where it is, in fact, defined in part by the history and movement of Windows. I agree that LTS should be offered up front as an alternative to newcomers and that those versions should only come equipped with stable applications and a host of tested drivers. I furthermore think that Ubuntu has uncharacteristically succeeded in doing this compared to many other Linux distros.

There are distros out there that are even more geared toward working out of the box and appealing to newcomers. Ubuntu also has goals besides being accessible which sometimes conflict with that very goal. Sticking to the use of applications licensed under open source-friendly licenses is a great example of that.

If you're going to go the direction of Idea #2, you might consider Linux Mint or Mandriva (ex-Mandrake). Linux Mint is free and based on Ubuntu, but includes a color scheme and menu layout more familiar to Windows users and additional drivers and codecs that make more hardware and multimedia work out of the box. Mandriva takes a similar approach, but you have to pay for the version with all of the extra stuff :)

I think Idea #3 is grand, but be careful what you wish for. I think there are distros like Suse, Red Hat, and Ubuntu that form a happy medium. They open up opportunities for bottom-up and top-down learning while minimizing the amount of frustrating work on things you may not want to encounter right off the bat. If you really want to go all-out with this idea, you might try Arch-linux or, even better, Slackware. Running Slack and building your box is like running MS-DOS and building Vista from there (if all of the apps were open source and you could just compile the code).

One of the great things about having so many distributions is that linux can be virtually anything to anyone from a kiosk for checking email and listening to music to a way of life, an ideology, and a career path. But I suppose if I talk any more, I'll have to submit this as an article instead of a post. Sorry about the tl;dr.

Cheers.

[forrestcupp]

newer versions on average support more hardware and have less bugs.

whats really needed is more beta testing.

+1 for more hardware support

While the newer versions are going to have some new bugs, they also fix a lot of old bugs, add hardware support, and add new features.

The newest version is the one that is most generally supported on the forums. If you give them old versions, they will have all the old bugs and wonder why things don't work like what people are describing in the forums.

FYI, every version ever released had people complaining about problems and things not working. Giving new people an old version won't help.

[k64]

thats why 8.04 is called LTS.
if you want stability, use debian

Or, use Lucid Lynx. ('http://cdimage.ubuntu.com/releases/lucid/alpha-2/lucid-desktop-i386.iso') It's also LTS.

[thatguruguy]

Or, use Lucid Lynx. (http://cdimage.ubuntu.com/releases/lucid/alpha-2/lucid-desktop-i386.iso) It's also LTS.

...and still in alpha testing. Brilliant suggestion.

[ikt]

I can't:
- get multiple displays to stretch my desktop
- use my soundcard
- use Skype
- network "out" from a VM on my Linux install

Did you make any posts or ask for any help with these?

[thatguruguy]

it's a lot easier to complain about something being broken than it is to ask for help fixing it.

[rgarand3006]

Did you make any posts or ask for any help with these?
No, did not ask or post. Just hacking around and reading all over I resolved:
- Indirectly-supported printer in the office (SuSE driver worked great as Dell did not have one for Ubuntu)
- Setup of VMWare Player (after failures with VMWare Server and Virtualbox)
- Installation of much software from a Konsole
- Working with the NIC from a Konsole
- Remotely managing servers using KDE's RDP/VNC application (very nice)
...and so on.

I'm used to providing support to others, finding fixes online via Google, and working my way through my own problems (and my users'). I got overwhelmed by all the problems/adjustments and eventually accepted that transitioning from Windows to GNU/Linux will take months of concerted effort, not just a couple weeks of determined hacking. I ran out of time this go-around and the Linux project must rest on the back burner along with a thousand other things until I can scare up some free time to pound through more transition issues. In the meantime, I have a VMWare appliance of Ubuntu 8.04 (LTS) that is getting a little time each day.

Next time I will go ahead, swallow some pride, and post. What the heck, rgarand3006 isn't my real name anyway. Out here, nobody knows I'm a dog.

As far as "it's easier to complain", I really want to see Microsith get a lot more competition so this industry's products can be improved through competition. I WANT Linux to succeed and I sincerely believe that tossing newbies into the deep end of the pool by pushing them towards the absolute latest release is often counterproductive. It reminds me of my high school buddy who majored in Computer Science. The attrition rate was incredibly high and this didn't (and doesn't) bother the vast majority of College CS Departments. In my experience of teaching in various scenarios, such a high attrition rate would get me fired. Again, there's different philosophies people follow, some are more inclusive/exclusive than others. If this community is content with an estimated 1-3 percent share of the desktop market even in the face of probably Microsoft's biggest bungle of all time (Vista), then just keep the focus on having this as a hobbyist/server OS. Heck, I can't wait to get the hang of this hobby. It's just a shame that the golden opportunity for Linux Desktops to break out seems to be slipping away. The golden opportunity is: the Great Recession, the Vista débâcle and Windows 7 hasn't even hit Service Pack 1 yet, and a lot of unemployed folks trying to upgrade their skills while they wait for the job market to recover. Computers are now found in about every line of work, but in spite of GNU/Linux's many great tools (Open Office, speedy networking, Firefox, and free optional software as far as the eye can see), it isn't making inroads.

Vista had a complete overhaul of the TCP/IP stack compared to XP (which a Microsoftie told me had basically the same IP stack as Windows 3.11). I ended up downloading the same ISO twice in rapid succession, once in Kubuntu 9.10 x64 and once in Vista x64. The Kubuntu download was about 3X faster. I was floored. This is the kind of thing that kept me going like a nut for 2 solid weeks. But I ran out of time.

[phawnex]

i am a new convert to Linux.
recently installed Ubuntu, the dualbooting went flawless. had to do some configuration and trouble shooting with sound and wireless card but it works like a beauty.

ubuntu has definitely been helping me learn basic Linux a lot. its a good and easy interface to use. i havent had any problems with it yet.

[HermanAB]

Well, actually Ubuntu is not the easiest Linux. It is sort of intermediate, which is probably why it remains popular with power users.

If you want to give a new and unsophisticated user an easy to use system that will install and work properly right off the bat, then the older distros like Mandriva, Fedora or Suse cannot be beat, with maybe Mint in there too, but not Ubuntu I am sad to say.

[Skripka]

thats why 8.04 is called LTS.
if you want stability, use debian

Whatever the Goddess Stability actually is, and however it is that it is gotten to, and whyever it is desirable....

[Roasted]

OP: So what are you suggesting? That we have a cutting-edge version for the adventurous and a more stable version for those users who need stability? What a great idea, let's start a petition,

Hold on - Ubuntu does that already. Curses, foiled again!

This comment. Wins.

[Andreas1]

OP: So what are you suggesting? That we have a cutting-edge version for the adventurous and a more stable version for those users who need stability? What a great idea, let's start a petition,

Hold on - Ubuntu does that already. Curses, foiled again!

you are right, but consider this:

the user who knows what he wants (you, me) will end up with either the current version or LTS, depending on his preference, but the new user will go to ubuntu.com, click Download, and end up with the current, less stable version, because that's what you get when you click download. Never underestimate the suggestive power of the default choice.

I therefore would suggest switching the default download option, so the "newbies" get the stable, and the experienced will make their choice, as always.

[d3v1150m471c]

If by latest release you mean Lucid Lynx aka ubuntu 10.04...absolutely not. It's still being developed.

[XubuRoxMySox]

There is absolutely no excuse at all IMO to include Beta software by default in a distro that claims to be "beginner-friendly," as Ubuntu did in Karmic (PulseAudio, Grub2, etc). Users of bleeding edge, high-risk distros like Sidux understand, expect, and accept the risk (and the fun) of buggy, unstable, troublesome software. But buggy, unstable, troublesome software might frustrate a newbie and send him/her looking elsewhere for an OS.

Seriously, for a newbie I would recommend either the latest LTS release (because they're based on Debian Testing) rather than the latest in-between (which are based on Debian Unstable). Or a completely different distro like Mepis, which is built on Debian Stable and is well-tested and proven and completely reliable.

-Robin

[Sylslay]

Old version have old bugs (distro -itself), and if You don't update, it stell has old bug,
so what is the point using old distro if has less hardwere support, by deflaut.

So if Juanty had "50" bug on day of relise it steel have "50" bug for newbie during installation process , after updatig will have less bug, say only "20"

So better use more latest distro, also with '"50" bugs. and after update it will have say "40" bugs, But both realise have bugs for newbie and You don't get fixed in 30min.
"Develpers" don't build twice ISO cd, only fix bugs throw network update?

[Swagman]

The newer releases have more stuff working.

Your bit about newbies beta testing is probably bang on the mark and that's a good thing.
If anyones gonna bust it a n00b will and as long as he/she whinges in the right places it will get heard and corrected pretty quickly.

(The squeaky wheel gets the oil)

So.. Welcome to Linux-Land
... Cry that River !!

(Our Devs DO listen)

[samjh]

I think what the OP was driving at is that a noob will first see 9.10 and think it will be a quick, painless install to get his computer up and running to dump MS. I did, and it was not. 3 Months later, I still get random crashes that noone seems to be able to help me fix. I even tried 8.04 but that didn't have Mobile Broadband support so I couldn't use it.

If that is the case, giving the newbie an older version of Ubuntu will not help them.

All releases will have bugs. For the vast majority of users, the latest releases are reliable enough and work well enough. So for the vast majority of newbies, they should be given the latest release which will feature better hardware support, more up-to-date (therefore less buggy and more feature-rich) software, and longer remaining support period.

It doesn't make sense to give them something that has worse hardware support, older, more buggy, and less functional software, and shorter remaining support period.

Now, you might say that newer software doesn't mean less buggy or more feature-rich, but in general it does. Bug fixes and features are more often than not, incorporated into new releases. Some distros may backport those changes into their packages, but they may not.

[Techsnap]

I don't know where you should point newbies, the latest version has some real issues (GRUB2 not working on some configs, Possible FS corruption on files over 512MB on EXT4) or you could point them to LTS which may not work on their newer hardware and then you'll have to explain to them that they'll have to screw around backporting drivers and software. At this point they'll probably switch back to Windows.

I don't want to derail this thread but for the above reasons this is why I recommend OpenSUSE and Mandriva to new users over Ubuntu.

[MelDJ]

Or, use Lucid Lynx. (http://cdimage.ubuntu.com/releases/lucid/alpha-2/lucid-desktop-i386.iso) It's also LTS.

?
its still in alpha. but be my guest :)

[Swagman]

?
its still in alpha. but be my guest :)

Maybe the guy meant to wait until it's released before moving over ?

[MelDJ]

Maybe the guy meant to wait until it's released before moving over ?

looking at the post, i dont think so

[jbruced]

it's a lot easier to complain about something being broken than it is to ask for help fixing it.

+1

I can't even imagine any other commercial companies providing the same knowledgeable support I receive on these forums.(and I have called the other companies support in the past) It's pay as you go, and usually a first level support tech and needs to be researched.

The facts are that every hardware manufacturer makes sure they have working ******* device drivers for their own equipment. We (Linux community) don't have the clout to demand the same attention.

The way I look at it is, any of the time I spend getting my Ubuntu system working correctly is far less than all the virus scanning, defragging, uninstalling, malware removal I've always done in the past(on a regular basis) with the other OS.

In my experience, once you're set up in Ubuntu, it's solid and maintenance free.

My 2 cents.

P.S. Hope you give it another go, and get over the hump. I'd certainly be willing to help in any way I can.

[3rdalbum]

?
its still in alpha. but be my guest :)

It's actually pretty good for an alpha. I'm using it on my netbook. Some background programs crash, there's a program that sometimes eats up my RAM until the kernel panics and they haven't fixed the mobile broadband problems yet - but that's all I can complain about. I would have expected the system to be completely broken.

[Andreas1]

let me sum up my impression of what has been going on for a while now in countless different threads:

there are two groups of people, one complaining ubuntu is unstable, the other claiming it is stable. both are driven mostly by personal experience: unstable for me = unstable, works for me = stable. while i personally count myself to the "unstable" group, the limitations of such reasoning are obvious, aren't they?

what we would need is numbers, statistics, some kind of evidence: how many people encounter problems, how many systems are unstable, to which degree unstable, how many function? this however is more easily said than done. you can't do polls on a support forum, obviously, that would create a huge bias. so what do we do? any suggestions?

here's an attempt: you have to separate the decision about participating in such a poll from the outcome, which means: first you sign up for the poll, then you make your experience (install ubuntu), then you do the poll, regardless of whether you had problems, because you signed up before. so much in theory. what do you think?



EDIT: an extra note, less constructive perhaps ;-)
saying "works for me = stable" is imho more wrong than saying "unstable for me = unstable", because "stable" implies that it should always work.

[llawwehttam]

I was never a real noob to ubuntu as I came from a long list of other distros so I had some linux experience but real 'Linux noobs' without any linux experience should be treated more kindly. ( ie don't give them slackware and tell them they have to set it up from a command line)

Personally I would prefer that noobies were steered towards the newest LTS version as this will mean they will get used to the way ubuntu works before they have to deal with any bugs and they will get support for a good long while without having to upgrade too much.

[koleoptero]

Where's the "throw newbies to the fire" option? :confused:

[aysiu]

I've been using Ubuntu since 5.04, and I have not found the LTS releases to be stabler than the non-LTS ones.

LTS stands for Long-Term Support, not for Long-Term Stability.

It just means it's supported for longer (3 years on the desktop, 5 on the server) than other releases (1.5 years).

[Paqman]

I'm starting to think it might be best to bill the LTS releases as the default version of Ubuntu, and the non-LTS as technology previews.

As Ubuntu expands it'll be mostly taken up be people who are non-technical and don't want to be part of a "community". These folks should have the most stable system possible, and that means not being on the six-month cycle. An upgrade or a reinstall every six months onto a newly-released version is bound to cause trouble, and should only be an option for those who want the latest toys.

The average Joe has absolutely no problem with using an OS that only gets updated every two years.

[aysiu]

I'm starting to think it might be best for Ubuntu to provide more venues for new users to buy Ubuntu preinstalled and preconfigured.

The primary way of new users experiencing Ubuntu being download-.iso-burn-or-extract-to-usb-reboot-set-bios-to-boot-from-media-repartition-drive-troubleshoot-hardware-issues is never going to result in mass success rates, even if LTS meant (and it does not) stabler releases.

[rgarand3006]

An upgrade or a reinstall every six months onto a newly-released version is bound to cause trouble, and should only be an option for those who want the latest toys.

I saw a lot of posts in the forums and around the online Linux community along the lines of "I upgraded to Linux Distro ---- version -- last week and my ----- is still not working." Upgrades almost universally cause trouble in just about every piece of software I have seen since I started in 1979. You have to be a glutton for punishment and the latest toys to stick around on a six month upgrade cycle.


The average Joe has absolutely no problem with using an OS that only gets updated every two years.

Considering how many people seem content with an OS that came out in 2001, the average Joe comment is spot on.

[chessnerd]

I think the latest version is fine (especially because of hardware compatibility) but I also think that older versions of Ubuntu are fine. I loved using Hardy and I still use Jaunty on my desktop.

Recently, I was given the oppertunity to give someone an Ubuntu LiveCD. I had a Jaunty one and a Karmic one. Karmic had just come out and so many people were complaining of bugs, but the guy was going to be using it on a newer laptop so I wanted to make sure that he didn't have hardware issues.

In the end, I explained to him the benefits of each and he picked Karmic. I think that would be a better idea than just having one option on the website. Have two or three that say things like:

"Ubuntu 9.10: use the latest and greatest software with optimum hardware support"
"Ubuntu 8.04: run your computer with confidence using the most stable and time-tested Ubuntu release available."

That way, people can decide what they want. Features or stability.

[XubuRoxMySox]

The primary way of new users experiencing Ubuntu being download-.iso-burn-or-extract-to-usb-reboot-set-bios-to-boot-from-media-repartition-drive-troubleshoot-hardware-issues is never going to result in mass success rates, even if LTS meant (and it does not) stabler releases.

Ready-pressed CDs in computer publications and store shelves might be cool... but I think I disagree with you about LTS being more stable. Here's why I think so, and please correct me if I'm jumping to a wrong conclusion:

Ordinary non-LTS releases of Ubuntu are built on Debian Unstable, are they not? And the LTS releases are built on Debian Testing, true?

According to the Debian Wiki (http://www.debian.org/doc/FAQ/ch-getting.en.html#s-version), Testing (currently Squeeze) is "more stable" than Unstable (currently Sid). So it stands to reason that a distro built on "Unstable" might be less stable than a distro built on one built on Debian Testing, which Debian says is more stable than Sid.

Seems like it's only natural to reach the conclusion that a house built on unstable foundation will be less stable than one built on a Stable or at least a "tested" foundation.

-Robin

[aysiu]

Ready-pressed CDs in computer publications and store shelves might be cool... No, I don't think that goes far enough. It still relies on the user to install, configure, and troubleshoot Ubuntu (including potential hardware incompatibility). Preinstallation is the only viable mass solution (there are, of course, a handful of people who can install and configure an operating system themselves, but the vast majority of computer users want devices, not operating systems).
but I think I disagree with you about LTS being more stable. Here's why I think so, and please correct me if I'm jumping to a wrong conclusion:

Ordinary non-LTS releases of Ubuntu are built on Debian Unstable, are they not? And the LTS releases are built on Debian Testing, true? False. Both LTS and non-LTS releases are built on Debian unstable. It's just LTS releases are supported for a longer period of time than non-LTS releases.

That's what I've been repeating over and over again, and no one seems to listen.

[Skripka]

Ready-pressed CDs in computer publications and store shelves might be cool... but I think I disagree with you about LTS being more stable. Here's why I think so, and please correct me if I'm jumping to a wrong conclusion:

Ordinary non-LTS releases of Ubuntu are built on Debian Unstable, are they not? And the LTS releases are built on Debian Testing, true?

According to the Debian Wiki (http://www.debian.org/doc/FAQ/ch-getting.en.html#s-version), Testing (currently Squeeze) is "more stable" than Unstable (currently Sid). So it stands to reason that a distro built on "Unstable" might be less stable than a distro built on one built on Debian Testing, which Debian says is more stable than Sid.

Seems like it's only natural to reach the conclusion that a house built on unstable foundation will be less stable than one built on a Stable or at least a "tested" foundation.

-Robin

What is "Stable", and how is it gotten to? The problem is, few people consider this-and simply presume that 6 month old software is inherently more "stable" than new software.

[koleoptero]

...repeating over and over again, and no one seems to listen.

Excuse me, what were you saying there? I wasn't listening. :P :)

[azagaros]

Steering newbies to Ubuntu? I might steer them to Lime first, it was the one I had the least amount of head ache with, that was before I realize that Lime was built on a ubuntu platform.

Look newbies need a platform to work out of the box without a million questions and Linux is far from that, especially if I buy the latest hardware and the open source community isn't all its cracked up to be. Learn the 90/10 or 80/20 rules of humans and you might understand why. Photo bucket knows the patterns very well.

I get curious why I need to rewrite most of the code I know out there the get a design of software that might be useful to someone and the strongest cases I give to this end is the programming IDE's in the Opensource world. I may have to take Lazarus and write one that works for everyone and they might not like the solution that I come up with after using all of them for 25+ years.

[NCLI]

let me sum up my impression of what has been going on for a while now in countless different threads:

there are two groups of people, one complaining ubuntu is unstable, the other claiming it is stable. both are driven mostly by personal experience: unstable for me = unstable, works for me = stable. while i personally count myself to the "unstable" group, the limitations of such reasoning are obvious, aren't they?

what we would need is numbers, statistics, some kind of evidence: how many people encounter problems, how many systems are unstable, to which degree unstable, how many function? this however is more easily said than done. you can't do polls on a support forum, obviously, that would create a huge bias. so what do we do? any suggestions?

here's an attempt: you have to separate the decision about participating in such a poll from the outcome, which means: first you sign up for the poll, then you make your experience (install ubuntu), then you do the poll, regardless of whether you had problems, because you signed up before. so much in theory. what do you think?



EDIT: an extra note, less constructive perhaps ;-)
saying "works for me = stable" is imho more wrong than saying "unstable for me = unstable", because "stable" implies that it should always work.

This (http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AhT2q9EW-seKdDBYV2ZXZ3FKcFl4Q0dBWjFHOFUtb2c&hl=en_GB) is my attempt at solving the problem you're talking about. Yes, it is from this forum, a support forum, but it still gives the best image we have right now of how stable a particular Ubuntu release is.

I think Canonical included the Hardware Tester for this purpose as well.

No, I don't think that goes far enough. It still relies on the user to install, configure, and troubleshoot Ubuntu (including potential hardware incompatibility). Preinstallation is the only viable mass solution (there are, of course, a handful of people who can install and configure an operating system themselves, but the vast majority of computer users want devices, not operating systems). False. Both LTS and non-LTS releases are built on Debian unstable. It's just LTS releases are supported for a longer period of time than non-LTS releases.

That's what I've been repeating over and over again, and no one seems to listen.
To the best of my knowledge, 10.04 is based on the Debian Testing branch (https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel-announce/2009-November/000636.html), not Unstable. I don't know whether that was the case for Hardy though.

[XubuRoxMySox]

To the best of my knowledge, 10.04 is based on the Debian Testing branch (https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel-announce/2009-November/000636.html), not Unstable.

Here (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/LTS) as well. Perhaps it wasn't the case with previous LTS versions, but it's definitely a smart move.

It's beginning to look like the Xubuntu devs no longer feel bound to having so many Gnome dependencies in Lucid, too. Some folks who are testing it say it's one of the fastest Xfce distros out there!

I'm soooo looking forward to it. I wish I had the time and resources to be a tester myself!

-Robin

[Simian Man]

I don't want to derail this thread but for the above reasons this is why I recommend OpenSUSE and Mandriva to new users over Ubuntu.

I absolutely agree. Ubuntu's reputation for being the best for beginners seems to be propagated by people who know only Ubuntu well and are used to it or people who are beginners themselves and don't know any better.

[Paqman]

I'm starting to think it might be best for Ubuntu to provide more venues for new users to buy Ubuntu preinstalled and preconfigured.


I agree wholeheartedly, but the commercial track record of desktop Linux is woeful. There may come a day when large numbers of people will walk into stores and buy their Linux machine off the shelf, but we ain't there yet. Linux's mindshare is still way too small.

As it stand we're going to have people installing their own system for the foreseeable future. That's why i'm a big supporter of technology like Wubi that significantly lowers the bar to adoption.

As for LTS release not being inherently more stable, I get what you're saying. Traditionally an LTS hasn't been any more stable than a non-LTS at release time (although Lucid looks like it might change that...)

After all, no new release of an OS is without issues. The point is that after the initial bugs are squashed the user can enjoy the use of their nice stable system for a long time. If you installed Hardy tomorrow you could be reasonably confident that you wouldn't strike any major bugs, because they've had two years to fix 'em. And Hardy is supported until April 2011, just like the other current release, Karmic. So in practical terms, our current LTS is almost definitely more stable than our current non-LTS.

[aysiu]

If you installed Hardy tomorrow you could be reasonably confident that you wouldn't strike any major bugs, because they've had two years to fix 'em. In my experience, Ubuntu devs don't fix bugs for old (even LTS) releases unless they are security-related bugs. So, no, it hasn't had two years to have bugs fixed. The bugs that were in Hardy two years ago are still there now.

[23meg]

In my experience, Ubuntu devs don't fix bugs for old (even LTS) releases unless they are security-related bugs. So, no, it hasn't had two years to have bugs fixed. The bugs that were in Hardy two years ago are still there now.

Stable release updates (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates) cover security issues and high-impact non-security bugs.

Below are lists of non-security bugs that were known and specifically targeted for point releases of Hardy:

Ubuntu 8.04.1 - 130 bugs (https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+milestone/ubuntu-8.04.1)

Ubuntu 8.04.2 - 70 bugs (https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+milestone/ubuntu-8.04.2)

Ubuntu 8.04.3 - 47 bugs (https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+milestone/ubuntu-8.04.3)

Ubuntu 8.04.4 - 9 bugs (https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+milestone/ubuntu-8.04.4)
They're not definitive lists of what exactly was fixed after the release, but should give a general idea.

[The Toxic Mite]

Yes, and

+1.

But what if it's incredibly unstable? I kinda agree with the OP here.

[ubunterooster]

new people want pretty. The gnu [pad pun] one is preffered

[lyceum]

This is a hard question to answer right off. For the 9.10 release, yes! But in the past, an LTS may have been more stable. This may be the case again in the future. I do not think there is one right answer to the question. I also think it depends on the user. Some new users may be okay with bugs, I was. Others, like my grandma, not so much.

[sandyd]

newer versions on average support more hardware and have less bugs.

whats really needed is more beta testing.

agree 100%. in effect, there should be a longer release than 6 months. this will give developers to fix the bugs reported in the upcomming release. currently, even if bugs are not fixed, the release goes on due to the "one release per 6 months" thingy. If we have a more flexible release date, those bugs that were reported during testing would most likely not drag on past the release. in addition, bugs should be evaluated with their severity in mind before releasing the cd with the sofware that has the bug in it. if its a high importance (major) bug, dont include it. instead, put a dummy package in and stick it into the repos when the bug is fixed.

[ubunterooster]

9-10 brought the Ubuntu Software Center and a large number of audio problems..

Ask most what they want, they will most likely go for the newest, but don't MAKE them choose one way or another.

-my 2¢ [differently said from the 2¢ of the last 2 times]