Why Do You Prefer LTS Over Non-LTS

[Khakilang]

I don't know whether this has been ask before. But I am curious as to why you prefer LTS over non-LTS. Beside The Long Term Support what are the other things the make you stay with LTS even when the non-LTS also has the latest bleeding edge technology.

Is it because of stability, bugs free, the kernel maybe etc...What really set them apart? Doesn't matter what version of Ubuntu you are using. Care to share your opinion between LTS and non-LTS.
:guitar:

[Ctrl-Alt-F1]

I don't necessarily prefer LTS. I do prefer 10.04 to 10.10 but that is not usually the case. Usually I prefer the newest release.

I tried 10.10 and just didn't like some of the ways they did things, although it was quite fast. I've also been spending a bit of time in the Absolute Beginners area of the forums and a lot of people appear to be having a lot of problems with 10.10. I suspect that is because they are new to Ubuntu though. :guitar:

[NightwishFan]

I like using the latest release myself when possible. However every machine I do not use day to day (such as my family have ubuntu laptops and my remote servers) I let them use the LTS so I wont have to fix/upgrade them for 2-3 years. :)

[Paqman]

Horses for courses. I use the LTS on my media centre, because I want it to be a maintenance-free appliance. I don't want to have to tinker about with it every six months, I just want to have it work when I switch it on. I imagine most people using Ubuntu in a work-horse application use the LTS for similar reasons.

I use the interim releases on my desktop because I like to help out by doing testing.

[Dragonbite]

A lot depends on the usage I think. For my family, I want something stable and supported so I don't have to keep fooling around with it so I go LTS.

When I first started getting into Linux I had the problem of us only having one computer to use. So just about every time my wife went on the computer (if I hadn't broken something ;) ), it looked different! Now that I have my laptop I am able to leave the desktop alone and more consistent.

On my laptop, which pretty much I am the only person who uses it, I usually go with each release (when I can get it to boot). Partially so I can use the "latest and greatest" and partially to see if any release has any benefit worthy of upgrading the desktop.

[drawkcab]

I usually look for something to sell me on the next release. It's not hard to sell me, but 10.10 didn't really offer me a reason to upgrade so I'm sticking with 10.04.

[mamamia88]

why fix what's working? if there isn't enough change to warrant an upgrade i'll stick with the currrent release. and 6 months isn't really enough time to make drastic changes

[XubuRoxMySox]

I share two computers with lots of other kids, and I I don't want to change alot of stuff that often. Also my 'puters are a few years old now and may not handle the newer stuff with the same speed as an LTS.

Even on Lucid I can't allow the screensaver or power settings to put anything to sleep when the 'puter isn't touched for an hour or two because it locks up and requires a manual (power button) restart. So I just disable the screensaver and power saving options and I'm good to go. But it's likely when the current LTS reaches end-of-life, I'll have to switch to something made for older machines.

-Robin

[chessnerd]

Why do I prefer the current LTS over non-LTS versions?

1. Because it works.
My laptop is set up perfectly and has almost no issues under 10.04. Those it does have have been fixed and also exist in 10.10, so I'd need to re-implement those fixes.

2. Because it's supported for 3 years instead of just 18 months.
With 3 years of support, my older desktop can run it without having to upgrade until 2013 (by which point I'll probably retire it after 12 years of service).

3. Because it isn't old.
Ubuntu 10.04 still feels very new. All my applications are still supported and the repos have pretty recent versions available. Heck, even 8.04 isn't exactly stone-age technology after two and half years.

[donkyhotay]

I prefer non-LTS for my own systems but I put LTS on other people's computers. I like having the latest versions of my programs but the people who I put ubuntu on their system usually just want a cheap, simple system for checking Email and browsing the web and don't need the latest and greatest.

[ctyc]

LTS for servers and the latest and greatest for the desktop.

[johntaylor1887]

I don't necessarily prefer LTS. I do prefer 10.04 to 10.10 but that is not usually the case. Usually I prefer the newest release.


Same here, as I just did not see enough differences this time, to warrant installing 10.10

[jemadux]

personally i prefer the lts cuz it works and of course i like the gnome2 as possible I will have it for two other years

[LowSky]

Non-LTS are hardly bleeding edge. I wouldn't even call a rolling release like Arch bleeding edge.

LTS should mean very little to a normal user. Unless you need a system that only receives security updates you should be upgrading more often just for the newer versions of normal software.

[koenn]

I don't know whether this has been ask before. But I am curious as to why you prefer LTS over non-LTS. Beside The Long Term Support what are the other things the make you stay with LTS even when the non-LTS also has the latest bleeding edge technology.

I've been using LTS since 6.06.
The main reason is I want my computer to work, and once it does, I actually use it - it's not a toy for endless customize / break / fix / upgrade / break / fix / customize / break / fix / upgrade /....cycles.

As for "bleading edge technology" : 2 things :
1/ software does not suddenly stop working or suddenly performs less satisfactory just because there's a new version out somewhere.

2/ what bleeding edge technology ? A point release of firefox ? a new wall paper ? window decoration in the left top corner in stead of on the right ?

AFAIK, there have been 2 technological innovations in ubuntu : upstart and unity. You might want to mention ext4 and grub2 as well. In all those cases, I'm more than happy to leave it to the "bleeding edge" upgrade junkies to test drive them so the bugs get ironed out by the time I'll start using it, i.e. in the next LTS .

[NightwishFan]

As for "bleading edge technology" : 2 things :
1/ software does not suddenly stop working or suddenly performs less satisfactory just because there's a new version out somewhere.
This. I love updating software when it has a few point releases behind it. On usually only when I need a new feature from it. I do not mind being even around 2 years out of date if it works.

[kvv_1986]

LTS should mean very little to a normal user. Unless you need a system that only receives security updates you should be upgrading more often just for the newer versions of normal software.

I am more or less a normal user who uses Linux Mint LTS for my desktop (some work and some play). It has no problems whatsoever, but I am still running the latest versions of many apps like browsers ad audio players using ppas.

[lucazade]

I've been using LTS since 6.06.
The main reason is I want my computer to work, and once it does, I actually use it - it's not a toy for endless customize / break / fix / upgrade / break / fix / customize / break / fix / upgrade /....cycles.

As for "bleading edge technology" : 2 things :
1/ software does not suddenly stop working or suddenly performs less satisfactory just because there's a new version out somewhere.

2/ what bleeding edge technology ? A point release of firefox ? a new wall paper ? window decoration in the left top corner in stead of on the right ?

AFAIK, there have been 2 technological innovations in ubuntu : upstart and unity. You might want to mention ext4 and grub2 as well. In all those cases, I'm more than happy to leave it to the "bleeding edge" upgrade junkies to test drive them so the bugs get ironed out by the time I'll start using it, i.e. in the next LTS .

I agree with you about LTS and an OS that should always work, it is not a toy,
but providing feedback about non-lts releases is "important" as well.
It is enough to test them in a virtualmachine. It is a dirty job but someone should do it!

[beew]

I don't know whether this has been ask before. But I am curious as to why you prefer LTS over non-LTS. Beside The Long Term Support what are the other things the make you stay with LTS even when the non-LTS also has the latest bleeding edge technology.
:guitar:

No reason. I don't prefer LTS. My plan is to update my OS once a year (so skip one usually) with lots of ppas to keep softwares up to date, LTS or not. I see no advantage with LTS whatsoever. 10.04 is not less buggy, more stable or more solid than 10.10 or 11.04. In fact it is the other way around.

What I really have a problem with is the idea that something is predictably broken is more "stable" than taking a chance of fixing known bugs because it *may* introduce new bugs so you lock yourself to 2+ years old softwares many of which are broken ,crippled or just plain don't work (no feature updates or bug fixes) Who cares about Canonical "support" if they only support vastly outdated stuffs that work suboptimally or may not even work?

[NightwishFan]

What I really have a problem with is the idea that something is predictably broken is more "stable" than taking a chance of fixing known bugs because it *may* introduce new bugs so you lock yourself to 2+ years old softwares many of which are broken ,crippled or just plain don't work (no feature updates or bug fixes) Who cares about Canonical "support" if they only support vastly outdated stuffs that work suboptimally or may not even work?

Yes it works both ways of course. Newer software may fix bugs but also are certainly less tested and debugged. That is why I said before about upgrading to point releases. Let the code get some review before I jump to it. ;)

Either way to me using slightly older tested stuff seems to be the best bet. If it works it works. Then get the newer stuff as I please. Some services (like some ppa on ubuntu and debian backports) can make this easy.

[Bapun007]

i use LTS because i cant download new iso in every six month using my dial up connection . I also dont like re reinstall every time

[beew]

Why do I prefer the current LTS over non-LTS versions?

1. Because it works.
My laptop is set up perfectly and has almost no issues under 10.04. Those it does have have been fixed and also exist in 10.10, so I'd need to re-implement those fixes.



But what if something doesn't work? Would you still prefer to wait out 3 years while stuck with something broken?

If everything already works perfectly of course there is no reason to switch, whether LTS or not

So the issue is whether LTS in general are more likely to work better in a given setup, rather than whether a specific LTS release works well. I see no evidence that LTS in general work better. ATM 10.10 works almost perfectly for me even though it is not LTS, but 10.04 used to have a few annoying bugs. If I don't use 10.10 I would have updated to 11.04, even that works better than 10.04 ( a lot faster, more peripheries work out of the box, newer software etc)




3. Because it isn't old.
Ubuntu 10.04 still feels very new. All my applications are still supported and the repos have pretty recent versions available. Heck, even 8.04 isn't exactly stone-age technology after two and half years.

Depends. It is really old for some softwares under active development and the multimedia stuffs especially are stone aged. I use some scientific softewares and add on packages cannot even be installed in 10.04 because it is so out of date. If you don't need those then sure.

[desnaike]

I go LTS on my Desktop and new releases on my laptop.

guys would we so quickly upgrade if we were on windows and paying for everything.

[beew]

Yes it works both ways of course. Newer software may fix bugs but also are certainly less tested and debugged. That is why I said before about upgrading to point releases. Let the code get some review before I jump to it. ;)

I think most softwares in Ubuntu's official repo are slightly outdated even at point of release (because of repo freeze), so there is no cutting edge software even if you update the OS every 6 months,--which I don't.

With end users softwares I don't mind taking chances with ppas (usually I have multiple ppas for the same software so I have different versions to drop down to if I have to use ppa-purge)


Either way to me using slightly older tested stuff seems to be the best bet. If it works it works. Then get the newer stuff as I please. Some services (like some ppa on ubuntu and debian backports) can make this easy

Sure. But often time I need a new version because the old one just doesn't work or some features I need are missing.

As for the possibility of old bug fixing introducing new bugs, there is always a chance but if you have the option of keeping the update channel open then chances are these will be fixed as well. Now I would think overall there will be less bugs after a few iterations of updates because things do in general get better despite regressions and set back occasionally. But if there is no update then whatever broken would remain so with no chance of improvement.

[ratcheer]

I am another who always tries to be on the latest released version for my main system, plus I usually have a testing installation of the development release. I like to stay on the cutting edge.

Tim

[beew]

guys would we so quickly upgrade if we were on windows and paying for everything.

False analogy. Pay softwares have different release and developmental cycles and usually they won't release unless they are reasonably feature completed and bugs free (or people would scream for their money back) But FOSS' philosophy is to release early and often partly because FOSS tend not to have the resources to do in house testing and market research, they depend instead on community feed back for bug fixes and new features. So you could have stuck with something not fit for release if you take an early snapshot and go on update freeze for 3 years.

[koenn]

But what if something doesn't work? Would you still prefer to wait out 3 years while stuck with something broken?

If something didn't work and seriously or repeatedly interfered with my computer needs, I'd simply use an other OS.


If everything already works perfectly of course there is no reason to switch, whether LTS or not
not exactly.
on a non-LTS, you'd have to keep an eye on your upgrade path and EOL issues, so you might "have to" upgrade to the next non-LTS. And risk the regression bugs, or trouble with new and immature software.

[Bandit]

I use the LTS for fam and friends, I sometimes even use them for myself. I normally prefer to stay with LTS releases as I am more looking for stability. Though from time to time I do end up installing a newer version once a year. But if it acts buggy I fall back to the LTS. I am not really big on the latest and greatest as I dont like having to constantly reinstall stuff. I have a lot of software on my system and its heavily customized.

[Linuxratty]

LTS for me..In no hurry to get the latest and greatest.

[XubuRoxMySox]

LTS releases are built from Debian Testing. The others are built from Debian Unstable (see here (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/LTS)). The Debian Testing that was used to build the current Ubuntu LTS has since been released as "Squeeze," which is Debian Stable. And in Linux, it just doesn't get any more stable than Debian Stable!

Lots of us LTS-types run fully up-to-date software. Just because all the cool kids are using the very very newest version doesn't mean it's better.

Delighted with Xubuntu LTS,
Robin

[Bachstelze]

I always run the latest version. If I need something rock stable, I don't use Linux. If for some reason I needed Linux AND stability, I would probably go with Slackware.

EDIT: Though if I had the time I would probably do a LFS. But Slack is very close to it anyway.

[Dragonbite]

But what if something doesn't work? Would you still prefer to wait out 3 years while stuck with something broken?

If everything already works perfectly of course there is no reason to switch, whether LTS or not

So the issue is whether LTS in general are more likely to work better in a given setup, rather than whether a specific LTS release works well. I see no evidence that LTS in general work better. ATM 10.10 works almost perfectly for me even though it is not LTS, but 10.04 used to have a few annoying bugs. If I don't use 10.10 I would have updated to 11.04, even that works better than 10.04 ( a lot faster, more peripheries work out of the box, newer software etc)





Depends. It is really old for some softwares under active development and the multimedia stuffs especially are stone aged. I use some scientific softewares and add on packages cannot even be installed in 10.04 because it is so out of date. If you don't need those then sure.

When 10.04 came out it worked alright on the desktop and so I upgraded from 9.10 but that was updated from 8.04 only because something that didn't work and it did with an upgrade.

Now with PPAs, that's changed. With an LTS, if you want a more up-to-date version of something (like, oh,.. Firefox?) all you need is a PPA and otherwise the rest of the system is still LTS stable.

I just wish 10.04 worked on my laptop, but it is bitten by the Intel video bug and 10.10 at least booted up.

[TBABill]

I like this LTS because it was based on Debian Squeeze while it was being developed (in Debian Testing) and regular releases are based on Debian Sid. Without the bugs being worked as much by the Debian team since the packages never make it to testing before the snapshot is taken, there tend to be more bugs and issues with regular releases than with the LTS.

Also, with Ubuntu Tweak I have all the latest apps I want while having a rock solid base. It's the best of both worlds and I can even have the latest kernels if I desire.

[Khakilang]

Its seem there are some mix preference here, As I also try to stick to LTS because of stability. But somehow move to the latest version of Ubuntu. First I sold my hard disk with 10.04 LTS and move to 10.10. And Unit got the curious out of me and move to 11.04 to see how Unity look like. But I hope I can stay with the next LTS.

[Dragonbite]

Its seem there are some mix preference here, As I also try to stick to LTS because of stability. But somehow move to the latest version of Ubuntu. First I sold my hard disk with 10.04 LTS and move to 10.10. And Unit got the curious out of me and move to 11.04 to see how Unity look like. But I hope I can stay with the next LTS.

I used to be dangerous until I got my hands on my own laptop I can fool around with (break) and leave the desktop alone (sometimes having to slap my hands to keep from touching it).

For a while there, when I was using Gentoo, I would be leaving for work in the morning and have to tell my wife "Something from last night broke the system. I'll fix it tonight!". Needless to say, that didn't make her happy. So she's happy I have my own system too!

[BrokenKingpin]

I would prefer to stay on the LTS just so I don't have to reload my machines every 6 months, but I never end up staying on it because I want new user applications (Firefox, etc.). This is why I think I would prefer a semi-rolling release schedule.

[uRock]

I use the LTS, because I do not care to upgrade every six months and one of the programs I use the most was junk on 10.10, so I downgraded.

[Roasted]

It entirely depends on what I'm doing. I prefer to use the latest release on my own systems so I can get acquainted with them as quickly as possible. However, for more critical setups such as a home file server or a server at work, I tend to stick to LTS's.

That said, I DID run 10.10 as a core server with LTSP last year and it ran absolutely beautifully. This year I clocked it back to 10.04 just for the sake of sticking to an LTS since my little "test drive" was over.

[malspa]

The 6-month release cycle is too much for me. If everything's working, I have few reasons to move on to the next version. I'm more interested in seeing how the LTS versions hold up over the long term. So far, they've held up well; I've been sticking with LTS versions since Dapper.

That being said, I did install Natty on another computer. For one thing, I wanted to see what all the fuss over Unity was all about. For another, I've been talking with a friend who recently started using Linux, and he went with Natty, so I figured I should have an installation of it here if I was going to talk with him about it and know what I was talking about. Otherwise, I would have waited for 12.04. The LTS versions make more sense in my case; I've got several different distros installed, so sticking with Ubuntu's LTS versions makes things easier.

Also, it seems to me that people who follow the 6-month release cycle end up having more problems than I do by following the LTS versions.

[doas777]

my home server takes a 4-day weekend to really rebuild right (I have a lot of services and resources on it) so i only do it once ever couple of years. on that cycle, if the LTS is fit for my purposes, it makes sense to get it up and leave it there.

I do rebuild my clients/vms every few releases though.

[Dragonbite]

The downside of the 6 month release cycle means every 6 months I start to develop a twitch as soon as the news and excitement about the next release crescendos and turns into full-fit convulsions when it is released until I can find a system to install it on!

:lolflag:

[johnnybgoode83]

I can see a case for LTS and Non LTS but personally I am naturally curious and I can't help but try the latest software releases when they come out.

[doas777]

I can see a case for LTS and Non LTS but personally I am naturally curious and I can't help but try the latest software releases when they come out.
I was that way for 4 years or so. 2 kids changes that however.

[rg4w]

I use whatever works. When the most recent release is as reliable and efficient as earlier ones, I upgrade. When it's not, I enjoy what I already have installed.

Right now I'm using 10.10. ;)

[Zlatan]

I was that way for 4 years or so. 2 kids changes that however.

+1 here but with one kid:) NightwishFan sold me Debian Squeeze and I bought it for sake of having more time for my little daughter;) But I still like Ubuntu's restricted-extras more than Debian way...

[Dragonbite]

I was that way for 4 years or so. 2 kids changes that however.

That's what moved me towards Ubuntu from Gentoo... didn't want to spend all of my time configuring and working on the system, just wanted it to work!

The good thing, though, was Linux gave me something to work with when up at 1,2,3,4,etc. AM in the morning.

Now I don't have to worry about it becasue they're 6-11, but I like Linux because it's handled their "hacking" which just totally messed up Windows on me.

[Khakilang]

Every 6 month release cycle is too short because the amount of software I have to install all over again is taking too much time. 3 years is about right. But I find it a bit difficult to install the latest software like Firefox 5 for example. I want to use LTS but be able to install the latest software with ease.

[beew]

Every 6 month release cycle is too short because the amount of software I have to install all over again is taking too much time. 3 years is about right. But I find it a bit difficult to install the latest software like Firefox 5 for example. I want to use LTS but be able to install the latest software with ease.


You don't have to reinstall your OS every 6 months unless you want to. Regular releases are supported for 18 months.

[capink]

My experience with different Ubuntu releases over the last five years has led me to believe that LTS is not necessarily more stable or bug-free. The only advantage is that they are supported for 3 years, which to me is a very long time to stick to a single release. It is beneficial for servers and business but not much for a laptop or a home desktop.

[malspa]

My experience with different Ubuntu releases over the last five years has led me to believe that LTS is not necessarily more stable or bug-free. The only advantage is that they are supported for 3 years, which to me is a very long time to stick to a single release. It is beneficial for servers and business but not much for a laptop or a home desktop.

I think you're right; the LTS versions aren't necessarily more stable or bug-free. But it does seem that people who follow the six-month release cycle tend to run into more problems.

Two or three years is about right for me, as long as I can keep my web browser up-to-date; I'm fine using older versions of most of the other applications.

[pinballwizard]

I always used the LTS, and somehow I have now ended up with UE based on 10.10.

Oh well. Never had a problem with it, so all good. I'm contemplating going 64bit though, and will probably go back to LTS when i do.

I agree with that other post. Generally, the people I put onto linux get an LTS distro, they generally want a stable, cheap system to do basic desktop stuff.

[mastablasta]

LTS is a bit more stable especially a year after it's out.

but it didn't work well enough on one of maschines i have so i had to do an upgrade to 10.10. which is really nice. i will soon do an upgrade to 11.04. hopefully all goes well.

my problem is that driver don't get updated on LTS. in my opinion if there is a new improved version and stable version of drivers they should be updated in LTS as well.

[sanderella]

I don't know whether this has been ask before. But I am curious as to why you prefer LTS over non-LTS. Beside The Long Term Support what are the other things the make you stay with LTS even when the non-LTS also has the latest bleeding edge technology.

Is it because of stability, bugs free, the kernel maybe etc...What really set them apart? Doesn't matter what version of Ubuntu you are using. Care to share your opinion between LTS and non-LTS.
:guitar:

Yes. LTS is seamless and works so smoothly. I don't like messing about and changing settings. An OS is a tool not an end in itelf.

[Dragonbite]

the LTS does benefit from the point releases (I think we're currently at 10.04.4? or is it 10.04.3?) and that if you don't refresh every 6 months, you run less of a risk of something that worked before to suddenly stop working. Meanwhile you keep hoping that they will fix what isn't broken.

So do you want to by thinking "hope they fix what doesn't work"(LTS) or "hope they don't break what currently works"(non-LTS)??

[beew]

the LTS does benefit from the point releases (I think we're currently at 10.04.4? or is it 10.04.3?) and that if you don't refresh every 6 months, you run less of a risk of something that worked before to suddenly stop working. Meanwhile you keep hoping that they will fix what isn't broken.

So do you want to by thinking "hope they fix what doesn't work"(LTS) or "hope they don't break what currently works"(non-LTS)??

First you don't need to refresh every 6 months. Just because Ubuntu releases a new version it doesn't follow that you have to update. The normal support period is 1.5 year and I make a new install only once a year. I think it is indeed insane to schedule your OS update based on Ubuntu's release cycle, fortunately you don't have to.

Secondly, Ubuntu would be a horrible OS if you expect major new breakage with every new version. If that is the case it shouldn't stay in business period,--regressions should be the exception rather than the norm. But that is not my experience, the new versions do work overall better than the old (tested on a variety of hardwares) as it should: 10.10 is better than 10.04, 11.04 is better than 10.10. Well 11.04 was kind of buggy when it came out but most of the bugs have been fixed. I think most griefs can be avoided if people do a bit of testing before they install a new version and wait for a month or so after the release (I wait for 1.5 to 2 months just to be on the safe side) You can indeed expect troubles if you upgrade/update to beta or on the first day of a new release.

[Zlatan]

Every 6 month release cycle is too short because the amount of software I have to install all over again is taking too much time. 3 years is about right. But I find it a bit difficult to install the latest software like Firefox 5 for example. I want to use LTS but be able to install the latest software with ease.

I'd use PPA's for latest apps versions in LTS. But somehow I'm sure you already do;)

[coolglobal]

+1 use the Firefox PPA

I like the LTS release, because I continue to learn the system over several years. My system becomes progressively customized over the period. I tend to do several reinstalls also. It's great becoming confident with a single release over time.

Also the leap to the next LTS is far more dramatic and exciting that the leap between each 6mth release.