Why Upgrade?

[jcd29]

Building a new computer in the next few days.

Are there any reasons to stay with 10.04 instead of going for 10.10?

[lbrty]

Personally, I would keep 10.04 LTS since it will be supported for three years (desktop version) instead of 1.5 years.

[woodmaster]

give 10.10 some time...I generally don't install new releases for a few months. Gives time for bug fixes. I waited for 10.04.1 to upgrade to Lucid.

[andrewthomas]

It just matters how much stability you require.

I have been running it since may and have had hardly any problems.

[dcstar]

Personally, I would keep 10.04 LTS since it will be supported for three years (desktop version) instead of 1.5 years.

Agreed, 10.04 should also shortly have a backported TRIM kernel and should be a decent platform for those who want stability.

[Landior]

i installed 10.10 and have had no probs with it :)

[garvinrick4]

Only takes 10 gig for install, use both. Open gparted and make a new partition for it.
Boot the 10.10 disk you made from this site and install.
http://cdimage.ubuntu.com/daily-live/current/

[michaelvoss]

I'm looking for valid reasons why I should upgrade (I do a fresh install) to 10.10 from 10.04.

Are there any REAL compelling enhancements? I personally do not care that much about themes or even that the installer is better. After all, I only want to install it once, right?

From past installations, I know I'm going to have to go through all of the usual headaches surrounding monitor resolution, flash playback, etc., so what is there that makes it worthwhile to go through that trouble?

I've done some searches and I can't see why I would upgrade, but perhaps someone here knows something that I've not seen.

And while I'm on the subject, isn't it time to stop spending all efforts toward new releases that make mainly cosmetic changes? Why don't they work more on functionality and usability?

[dino99]

if your install work as you want/need, there is no reason to jump into bug/settings/tweaking jam box :P

[michaelvoss]

Well it never has worked as needed the previous 3 versions. I still have had to do a lot of tweaks.

[darkstaar]

I'm looking for valid reasons why I should upgrade (I do a fresh install) to 10.10 from 10.04.

I haven't seen any compelling reason for upgrading. If 10.04 works extremely well for you, you might want to skip this version.

I upgraded (fresh installation) after determining that 10.10 would fix two somewhat annoying bugs for me (video playback and WiFi). So for me, 10.10 was nothing more than a bugfix and it seems to be working flawlessly (so far).

[bodhi.zazen]

I'm looking for valid reasons why I should upgrade (I do a fresh install) to 10.10 from 10.04.

Are there any REAL compelling enhancements? I personally do not care that much about themes or even that the installer is better. After all, I only want to install it once, right?

From past installations, I know I'm going to have to go through all of the usual headaches surrounding monitor resolution, flash playback, etc., so what is there that makes it worthwhile to go through that trouble?

I've done some searches and I can't see why I would upgrade, but perhaps someone here knows something that I've not seen.

And while I'm on the subject, isn't it time to stop spending all efforts toward new releases that make mainly cosmetic changes? Why don't they work more on functionality and usability?

If your current system (10.04) is running well then there is no need to upgrade.

LTS (10.04) = Long term support.

Reasons to upgrade vary by individual and may include:

1. Security - An upgrade may be more secure.

2. Bug fixes or new features. Newer versions of packages may fix problems you have.

3. One simply wants the latest greatest applications.

4. Any other variety of personal reasons.

If you prefer not to upgrade frequently, use Ubuntu LTS, Debian stable, Centos, etc.

In terms of "new features" it varies by application. Privoxy has not changed at all. Nor has polipo. Other applications have. I can not give you a complete list, but, examples of applications I use that undergo updates and feature changes with upgrades include KVM (Virtualization) and vitr-manager.

At the end of the day it comes down primarily to either bug fixes or new features (both of which vary by application and hardware) and personal choice.

[Dyegov]

I didn't have a single hassle with 10.10. Installation went perfect everything worked right away (video card wit effects and resolution, sound, wireless, mp3, flash, everything). I didn't have an ubuntu there before though, so it was worth for me to install 10.10.

[Ctrl-Alt-F1]

I honestly think I prefer 10.04. 10.10 being a regular release just doesn't seem as polished. For example the installer didn't want to use my second partition (free space or otherwise) unless I manually configured the install. I'm not a big fan of the new font either, though that's an easy fix. 10.10 does seem really fast though. Faster than 10.04, for me.

[bbala2020]

Im currently using 10.04 and working fine. I checked the new features of 10.10 and it looked almost similar to 10.04 except for rythmbox streaming to phone. I use picasa, so I dont care much about shotwell too. All the others mentioned in new features like ubuntu one,gwibber,me menu,etc are already working properly in 10.04.
Is there anything very interesting in 10.10 which i may miss? If not much in ubuntu itself, is there anything really new in repositories? some new versions of particular software with more features than in previous ones? Please share the new versions of softwares which makes it worth updating the os.

[Quackers]

It's not something you need to rush into :-)
There may be significant changes under the bonnet (or hood) but on the face of it no huge differences for me.
Some people seem to be having teething problems with MM. If your current installation is working well why take the chance :-)

[PuddingKnife]

I'm sticking with 10.04 for a while, although I have installed 10.10 on two different machines for other people. They seem to like it so far.

10.04 is rock solid for me but I do prefer some of the aesthetics of 10.10, so I installed the new Ubuntu font and the updated Ambiance theme. If I see some really cool things coming out of Natty Narwhal, I might upgrade then.

[slakkie]

Im currently using 10.04 and working fine. I checked the new features of 10.10 and it looked almost similar to 10.04 except for rythmbox streaming to phone. I use picasa, so I dont care much about shotwell too. All the others mentioned in new features like ubuntu one,gwibber,me menu,etc are already working properly in 10.04.
Is there anything very interesting in 10.10 which i may miss? If not much in ubuntu itself, is there anything really new in repositories? some new versions of particular software with more features than in previous ones? Please share the new versions of softwares which makes it worth updating the os.

You can have a look at all the different versions for packages at: http://packages.ubuntu.com and see for yourself what 10.10 brings. Personally, have a closer look at 10.04 LTS as a beginner before dipping your feet in upgrading Ubuntu. And if you do, please make a backup! (clonezilla will help you do this).

[beew]

10.10 is very nice and smooth and for me at least everything works out of the box. But then so is Lucid. There may be more under the hood than meets the eyes but so far I don't see any significantly new feature or enhancement over Lucid that would make me want to take the troubles and risks for upgrading. My Lucid installation works perfectly as it is.

So far the only thing I see as an significant improvement is the installation process. Lucid's installation was fast and smooth but Maverick is even better, it took me less than 15 minutes and it did all the upgrading during installation (so I started with a RC iso and ended up with the final release) But hey, you only do that once hopefully and you don't get to experience that if you upgrade from Lucid anyway so I wouldn't switch you Maverick for that. :) I will keep Lucid as my main OS but install Maverick on an external hard disk as a portable.

[Mark Phelps]

Part of being "worth it" is the degree of pain you suffer from the upgrade when one or more things don't work anymore...

IF Canonical ever did the Windows-equivalent System Restore thing, allowing folks to easily roll-back a version upgrade, then it would be a different matter to just jump-in and see what happens.

Personally, I've found waiting a few weeks -- and monitoring the postings of the folks who HAVE upgraded -- is the better course of action as it gives you time to assess the most likely problems and whether or not they're likely to apply to you.

[bodhi.zazen]

This seems to be a popular topic for some reason :twisted:

I made this a temp sticky and we may merge a few threads into this "Megathread".

[TheNerdAL]

This seems to be a popular topic for some reason :twisted:

I made this a temp sticky and we may merge a few threads into this "Megathread".

Just like mine. :D

[Frogs Hair]

Little changes add up in a hurry , 9.10 , my first Ubuntu release seems a world away now.

[jcd29]

So 10.10 wouldn't be very stable with my new computer, then?

What are the disadvantages of installing 10.10 over 10.04?

[JDShu]

I'll probably stick to (being) Lucid, but the speedup in Evolution sounds tempting. Anybody able to comment on that?

[Jay Car]

So 10.10 wouldn't be very stable with my new computer, then?

What are the disadvantages of installing 10.10 over 10.04?

The best way to find out is to try both versions by using a Live CD or USB. Or install them side by side and live with both for a while. Both have advantages, Lucid will be supported for a much longer time, but my experiences with both (though I've only been using Maverick for a few days now) is that Maverick has smoothed out all the wrinkles in Lucid (for my own systems, anyway).

The thing is, if you are getting a new computer this is the perfect opportunity to choose the hardware and make sure it all works with Linux. Then you can install whatever distro you want. Ubuntu's great, but there are many many others that are great too. Just experiment a bit and find the ones that are right for you.

:)

[madhi19]

It depend on from what you upgrade from. My Jaunty had run it course and I was ready for a fresh start so I moved on. My rule of thumbs is that I may test new releases in virtual box but I only do a fresh upgrade every 18 months or when needed.

[bodhi.zazen]

Note: I just merged an older thread into this.

[jcd29]

I already built the new PC, and it's compatible.

The thing is, I'm not sure if there's any advantages to using 10.04, apart from long term support (which means what? more updates?).

[bodhi.zazen]

I already built the new PC, and it's compatible.

The thing is, I'm not sure if there's any advantages to using 10.04, apart from long term support (which means what? more updates?).

LTS = Long Term Support

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Releases


Ubuntu releases are supported for 18 months. Ubuntu LTS (Long Term Support) releases are supported for 3 years on the desktop, and 5 years on the server.

[KirbySmith]

One possible difference may be inferred from this (resized) segment of the Ubuntu download section of the Videolan (VLC) player website:



Ubunty Karmic Koala 9.10
Ubuntu Jaunty Jackalope 9.04
Ubuntu Hardy Heron LTS 8.04

VLC 1.0.2 in Ubuntu 9.10 has known security issues, as do older versions in older Ubuntu releases. We strongly recommend that you update to a newer Ubuntu release, install a newer VLC version manually, and/or demand proper security support for VLC from Ubuntu.


VLC's site is the only site where I've seen any mention of these "known" issues. What might they be referring to and why is the onus on Ubuntu? Threads where questions are asked about installing AV programs in Ubuntu generally conclude with 'you don't need AV except to filter email to be passed on to Windows users.'

kirby

[jcd29]

LTS = Long Term Support

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Releases

Thanks! So apart from that and hardware compatibility, there's no other advantage right?

[bodhi.zazen]

Thanks! So apart from that and hardware compatibility, there's no other advantage right?

"other advantage" or "better" is a matter of opinion.

You get to decide for yourself, either choice is fine. Linux offers choice, no need to debate which one is better.

[23meg]

Reasons to upgrade vary by individual and may include:

1. Security - An upgrade may be more secure.

Every Ubuntu release gets security updates for supported software along its support period, thus barring some unlikely exceptions, security is hardly a compelling reason to upgrade to a whole new release, which, if anything, can be argued to have more undiscovered security issues since it ships new code that has had a shorter lifetime.


Thanks! So apart from that and hardware compatibility, there's no other advantage right?

LTS releases get kernel backports, which let you get support for new hardware without compromising the benefits of using a LTS release.

[bodhi.zazen]

[QUOTE=mgunes;9956878]Every Ubuntu release gets security updates for supported software along its support period, thus barring some unlikely exceptions, security is hardly a compelling reason to upgrade to a whole new release, which, if anything, can be argued to have more undiscovered security issues since it ships new code that has had a shorter lifetime./QUOTE]

While you raise good points, I get the impression you did not read the may in my original post.

When it comes to security, you really need to do your home work. For example, in this very thread, above your post, is an example involving the VLC version in the Ubuntu repositories. VLC, upstream, advises upgrading Ubuntu. I am not familiar with VLC or the vulnerability in question nor have I done the foot work in terms of the ubuntu repository, backports, ppa, etc, etc.

but, without debating individual packages or vulnerabilities, ppa, backports, versions of apparmor, snort, etc, etc, etc ...

My point is, security is a complex topic and without doing your research you can not make the claim that LTS is more or less secure then an upgrade. There is too much variability in terms of packages , package versions, and individual customisations to make such a broad claim.

IMO security, bug fixes, and feature upgrades are some of the considerations into deciding to upgrade (or not).

[MooPi]

Because I always separate my data partition from the boot, I find no compelling reason to upgrade. Fresh install with no data loss is easy. Opensource applications are not hard to replace and make moving to the next best version a breeze. I'm keeping an old system on 9.04 because I can't replace some of the applications I have for a virtual XP install.

[unknownPoster]

I'm keeping an old system on 9.04 because I can't replace some of the applications I have for a virtual XP install.

If you're using VirtualBox, it's not terribly difficult to make a vdi file from your current installation.

[MechaMechanism]

Well duh, so you can upgrade to 11.04! :P:lolflag:

I'm kidding. :)

[23meg]

While you raise good points, I get the impression you did not read the may in my original post.

I did. What I wanted to counter in your post was mainly that you put security as the #1 reason, which I thought might mislead people into thinking that non-LTS releases didn't get security support, or didn't get it on the same terms as LTS releases except support period length. You didn't say that it was the top reason, but I thought it might be interpreted that way, or as a specifically and necessarily important reason, especially by people who aren't as knowledgeable about the Ubuntu release model.


When it comes to security, you really need to do your home work. For example, in this very thread, above your post, is an example involving the VLC version in the Ubuntu repositories. VLC, upstream, advises upgrading Ubuntu. I am not familiar with VLC or the vulnerability in question nor have I done the foot work in terms of the ubuntu repository, backports, ppa, etc, etc.

VLC is in Universe, which only gets community support for security fixes on a best effort basis, and I was obviously talking about Canonical-supported software in main in saying "supported software"; so that's not really a good example.


My point is, security is a complex topic and without doing your research you can not make the claim that LTS is more or less secure then an upgrade. There is too much variability in terms of packages , package versions, and individual customisations to make such a broad claim.

It's impossible to give generally valid advice if you are to look into the infinite set of possible individual examples; general advice by definition does not say anything about individual variables. If you read my post more carefully, you'll notice that it doesn't make the claim that using a LTS release is necessarily more or less secure than using the latest non-LTS stable release.

[KirbySmith]

After posting my question, I did some footwork, but ended up ... confused. My Linux limitations are too great to effectively evaluate all the claims about the level of risk made in various postings, of which most of the ones I found precede 9.10. The best news assertion I saw was that the defect would only crash VLC. (Thanks Ubuntu for being Ubuntu.)

I think one would have to understand the Ubuntu vulnerability(ies) history, and then determine what was patched, when it was patched, and the patches' relationships to VLC development and patch history. This would require a high level of skill and experience, more likely to be concentrated at Videolan, hence the assumption of value in their warning. VLC was itself patched at various stages, so one would hope those patches that applied to, e.g. my version 1.0.2, would have been incorporated at VLC's website.

Anyway, a less cryptic warning at Videolan would be useful in evaluating risk.

kirby

[98cwitr]

bugs dont get fixed if people don't report them...help the devs and keep moving forward.

[Proto_Blaze]

Is it stable yet? im at 10.04 right now. also is there an option to upgrade without doing a fresh install?

[admiralspark]

There will be an upgrade option, but as always it is not recommended. There can be several problems along the way (though they may be ironing it out from 10.04 to 10.10). Maybe try waiting a month to see what the complaints about the newest release will be?

[JackNocturne]

Every Release has their own problems and bugs, so it all depends :)

Just check the compatibility of your laptop with the new Ubuntu 10.10.

And Yes it's possible to upgrade,see http://www.ubuntu.com/desktop/get-ubuntu/upgrade

[Proto_Blaze]

Every Release has their own problems and bugs, so it all depends :)

Just check the compatibility of your laptop with the new Ubuntu 10.10.

And Yes it's possible to upgrade,see http://www.ubuntu.com/desktop/get-ubuntu/upgrade

i use a desktop, not a laptop... and ill check the link out

[sanderd17]

It is quite stable. Only bug I know is one with different keyboard layouts. If you use different keyboards, don't update.

Also if you have a netbook, don't update. Unity is terrible.

If you have to choose between upgrade or fresh install, you should think how you used the system. An upgrade works best if your system is as close as possible to the original state. That is if you didn't add extra repo's, didn't install extra drivers (not from the repo's) or did other things not from the repo's.

If you did change a lot, a fresh install is best.

If you didn't, you can try to upgrade. Be sure to keep the live CD you have in your neighbourhood when you do it. If something goes wrong, you can still use the CD.

If there is some data you don't want to lose, don't forget to BACKUP.

greets,
Sander

[AndyM3]

It's stable, but your mileage may vary with upgrading. (my last (http://andym3.wordpress.com/2010/09/26/just-upgraded-to-maverick-meerkat-beta/) upgrade went pretty well, though, so it's worth trying)
However, make sure you read the upgrade notes (https://help.ubuntu.com/community/MaverickUpgrades) first.

[Proto_Blaze]

i didnt change much other than the codecs to unlock restriced, play music and video. etc

[Proto_Blaze]

when i upgrade, will i still be able to keep the codecs for music and video? or do i have to retype them and download the repositories?

[AndyM3]

when i upgrade, will i still be able to keep the codecs for music and video? or do i have to retype them and download the repositories?

The codecs should still be there. Did you get them from the official repositories (the ubuntu-restricted-extras package) or Medibuntu?

[davidmohammed]

It should keep your codecs etc - infact it should upgrade the packages to the latest available.


BEFORE YOU UPGRADE - back your system up with something like clonezilla. If things go wrong, you'll have a simple way of getting back to a working system.

[Proto_Blaze]

It should keep your codecs etc - infact it should upgrade the packages to the latest available.


BEFORE YOU UPGRADE - back your system up with something like clonezilla. If things go wrong, you'll have a simple way of getting back to a working system.

i only use ubuntu for web browsing so im ok if i lose something... unless it can corrupt my windows partition.

i got the repositories from medibuntu and typed in the install restricted extras code. thats the main reason i dont want a fresh install.. i dont want to have to retype the codes

[AndyM3]

i only use ubuntu for web browsing so im ok if i lose something... unless it can corrupt my windows partition.

i got the repositories from medibuntu and typed in the install restricted extras code. thats the main reason i dont want a fresh install.. i dont want to have to retype the codes

Upgrading doesn't mess with partitions. And the codecs will still be there, along with every app you installed on Ubuntu.
I'd say go for it.

[fatality_uk]

As has been said, backup, backup, backup! But having said that, the upgrade process is fairly straigh forward.

[Proto_Blaze]

i went to the update manager and theres no option to go to 10.10

[JackNocturne]

Alt+F2


update-manager -d This is distro upgrade

[emoguitarist06]

i went to the update manager and theres no option to go to 10.10

Did you refresh? If so and it still doesn't give the option then in Sofware sources you'll have to change the "check for new releases" to normal release

Or just do the terminal command above ;)

[Proto_Blaze]

ok it says it is the release candidate... is that what i want?

[bodhi.zazen]

Is it stable yet? im at 10.04 right now. also is there an option to upgrade without doing a fresh install?

I merged your thread into the megathread on this issue.

Up to you.

[Proto_Blaze]

i was wondering how i ended up in this topic lol. i was freaking out

is the release candidate what i want to upgrade to?

[bodhi.zazen]

i was wondering how i ended up in this topic lol. i was freaking out

is the release candidate what i want to upgrade to?

No, I would upgrade to the final release.

You may upgrade to the RC if you wish, you will then have a few hundred additional updates from RC to the final release.

[Rackstar]

I'll probably stick to (being) Lucid, but the speedup in Evolution sounds tempting. Anybody able to comment on that?

Yea, I would also like to know this...

[nomalab]

The best way to find out is to try both versions by using a Live CD or USB. Or install them side by side and live with both for a while.

Or boot the downloaded ISO from Grub, as I am doing, when testing different distros. No need to mess with partitions, runs faster (and more quiet) than from the CD, no need to "waste" a CD until you're certain you'll be installing. Having a separate /home partition also helps with the testing, as you can access your data files from what ever distro you happen to be running at that moment.

But I agree: test first, then decide.

When Lucid came out, I did a fresh install abandoning my working Karmic setup. Had constant freezes plus other problems and no time to tinker with the machine, so went back to Karmic. Had work to do, deadlines to meet, so needed a working setup.

This time, having learned my lesson, I downloaded Meerkat, booted it directly from the ISO, spent hours searching for solutions for the freezes (and rebooting, with different kernel options) and managed to sort things out.

I have to add that this time I really wanted the upgrade, mainly for three reasons:

1. I like running latest versions of apps (bugs are fixed, new features are there)
2. Two apps that I'm using are not releasing versions for Karmic anymore (only Lucid and up)
3. I really like the look and feel of Meerkat plus the new features (some of which were already in Lucid) - compared to Karmic

[BbUiDgZ]

You get to decide for yourself, either choice is fine. Linux offers choice, no need to debate which one is better.

and thats why we love it :guitar:

[libssd]

I'm looking for valid reasons why I should upgrade (I do a fresh install) to 10.10 from 10.04.

Are there any REAL compelling enhancements? I personally do not care that much about themes or even that the installer is better. After all, I only want to install it once, right?

From past installations, I know I'm going to have to go through all of the usual headaches surrounding monitor resolution, flash playback, etc., so what is there that makes it worthwhile to go through that trouble?

I've done some searches and I can't see why I would upgrade, but perhaps someone here knows something that I've not seen.

And while I'm on the subject, isn't it time to stop spending all efforts toward new releases that make mainly cosmetic changes? Why don't they work more on functionality and usability?
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. If 10.04 LTS is stable for you, I see no need to switch to 10.10 at this time. Six months from now, there may be significant reasons to switch to 10.10.

[TVAbuntu]

I have two boxes running Ubuntu. I did an in-place upgrade on one, but after doing that didn't really notice any significant difference. My other box has a custom kernal to solve a driver issue, and since I didn't notice any real difference on the upgrade, I'm going to stick to 10.04.

Now if 11.04 uses Gnome 3 (probably not as it's only due in 3/11) that would be a significant upgrade.

[zer010]

Does anyone know if any improvements have been made with respect to stuttery sound and glitchy Flash? This is the BIGGEST thing that bugs me about Ubuntu since 9.10. I never had a problem with it in 9.04, but that seems like eons ago...

[hawthornso23]

I usually upgrade when I'm bored and in the mood to get stuck into dealing with upgrade problems.

[whistlerspa]

I upgraded two 64 bit machines (a desktop and a laptop) in my spare moments . The upgrade went flawlessly, all theme settings, cairo dock, desktop backgrounds etc retained on both and all is working fine so far.

Noticeably a bit perkier than 10.04 on both boxes but other than that I notice very little difference - (have the file window size and exit buttons moved from left to fight again perhaps?)

[diskotek]

becaus eof ubuntu (and would like to thanks to the team) i always want to upgrade every 6 months. but i think i would love to stick 10.04 till there would be significant upgrade.

[TBABill]

I actually reverted 2 machines back to 10.04. I saw no speed gains and the wireless, sound and video issues are just too widespread at this point for me to put my machines on 10.10. I'll wait a month or two for the bugs to get worked out of it and then decide. Visually I didn't gain anything with it and speed was unchanged so there was nothing for me to get excited about (but I DID put the new font in 10.04!!).

[Joherrer]

Can I install MM on my new Dell Vostro 3700 with Windows 7?
Or shall be better try with 10.04 first?

[libssd]

Can I install MM on my new Dell Vostro 3700 with Windows 7?
Or shall be better try with 10.04 first?
You could always give 10.10 a try -- if it works, it works; if it doesn't, you can always do a fresh install of 10.04 in the same partition.

[bonzini]

I had stuttery sound in 10.04 with the stock kernel. I found a ppa with a newer kernel (.34) and tried it; it solved my glitching, which seemed to be related to an Atheros 5k noise floor error message.

10.10's .35 kernel also works fine with no stuttering.

So for me and my 5 year old Toshiba laptop, 10.10 is waaaaay better.


Does anyone know if any improvements have been made with respect to stuttery sound and glitchy Flash? This is the BIGGEST thing that bugs me about Ubuntu since 9.10. I never had a problem with it in 9.04, but that seems like eons ago...

[ndefontenay]

I have had the same problem with the empty partition. I had to create a new partition and mount / there also create a 8gb swap partition.


I honestly think I prefer 10.04. 10.10 being a regular release just doesn't seem as polished. For example the installer didn't want to use my second partition (free space or otherwise) unless I manually configured the install. I'm not a big fan of the new font either, though that's an easy fix. 10.10 does seem really fast though. Faster than 10.04, for me.

[Sean Moran]

Karmic is the perfect solution.

Lucid was annoying.

I have Maverick ready to go, but after the hell of Lucid, I'm not in any hurry to test it out.

---o0o---

Karmic Koala is about as close to perfect as any operating system could be.
It will take a lot for me to ever find the need to upgrade.

[Merk42]

Karmic Koala is about as close to perfect as any operating system could be.
It will take a lot for me to ever find the need to upgrade.How about a lack of official support come April?

[klemes]

I tested the Meerkat Beta and RC ISO CD's and everything seemed to work out of the box as it should and moreover I was impressed by the reworked GUI of the later.But besides that I opted to stick with my trusted Lucid Lynx 10.04 LTS for quiet a while since from day one I had no major issues with it and it performs admirably in my laptop and in one of my desktops.I couldn't resist though the new network-manager's(Meerkat has 0.8.1 as opposed to Lucid's 0.8.0) bluetooth dialup and PAN network integration in the interface and I 've installed the Meerkat's package along with dependencies and it works (well almost-being somewhat premature as a new feature often is)quite flawlessly.:guitar:
All and all a happy Lucid Lynx user and I am planning to be for quite a while.:guitar::guitar:

[tekkidd]

Personally, I have only upgraded one computer in my house to Maverick, it was a netbook and the only reason i did it was to be able to have unity. All my other computers are running Lucid. If i were building a new computer i would stay at Lucid and backport all the Maverick features you want down to lucid