PDA

View Full Version : 5-Year LTS? Who's onboard?



Lucradia
October 21st, 2011, 04:43 PM
I think I'll be on-board for this change: http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2011/10/ubuntu-1204-lts-to-get-extra-long-desktop-support-cycle.ars

ubupirate
October 21st, 2011, 04:44 PM
I'm game.

arpanaut
October 21st, 2011, 04:45 PM
WOW Impressive move to enhance enterprise deployment and support.

http://www.canonical.com/content/ubuntu-1204-feature-extended-support-period-desktop-users

MG&TL
October 21st, 2011, 04:48 PM
Would be nice for my desktop...like th newest on my laptop though.

wolfen69
October 21st, 2011, 04:51 PM
I like the newest on all my computers, so no thanks.

lykwydchykyn
October 21st, 2011, 04:54 PM
Sounds good for the enterprise, or maybe for commercial support from OEMs.

Hope they do a better job of making backports available, though.

Lucradia
October 21st, 2011, 05:06 PM
Sounds good for the enterprise, or maybe for commercial support from OEMs.

Hope they do a better job of making backports available, though.

Pretty sure hardware updates have been kept at 2-3 years though.

newbie-user
October 21st, 2011, 05:08 PM
In my work environment, I am all for longer LTS support. The 3-year LTS support kinda forces me into a 2-year upgrade cycle for LTS versions. Not so bad, but really not necessary. Just more work.

On my personal computers, though, I prefer either the latest and greatest or the latest LTS, depending on which computer.

3Miro
October 21st, 2011, 05:12 PM
Not a bad idea, but not necessarily 100% good. We already have 10.04 and 10.10 having trouble with latest hardware (like Sandy Bridge), 5 years from now, not much hardware would work on it, unless they keep updating the kernel. If they keep updating the kernel, then you don't really have LTS, but a slow rolling release.

Other than that, you do have the extra expense for the long term support and we have to ask the question of how far apart the LTS would be. If 12.04 is 5-year LTS, would the next one be 16.04? This may be a bit too long IMO.

I hope this works for corporations, I would still be using rolling or semi-rolling (6-months cycle) releases.

BigSilly
October 21st, 2011, 05:17 PM
I like the newest on all my computers, so no thanks.

My feelings too. I always keep up to date on my personal stuff, but for the missus it's a brilliant thing. She doesn't like to have me upgrading her laptop's OS very often, so this could potentially be a great solution. Although I tend to start encouraging her to let me upgrade when the software gets a bit out of date. She's still using Open Office on her 10.04 install FFS! Though she spotted my recent 11.10 install on my desktop PC and was very impressed with the Ocelot.

collisionystm
October 21st, 2011, 05:18 PM
I think I'll be on-board for this change: http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2011/10/ubuntu-1204-lts-to-get-extra-long-desktop-support-cycle.ars

Thank God.

newbie-user
October 21st, 2011, 05:23 PM
Not a bad idea, but not necessarily 100% good. We already have 10.04 and 10.10 having trouble with latest hardware (like Sandy Bridge), 5 years from now, not much hardware would work on it, unless they keep updating the kernel. If they keep updating the kernel, then you don't really have LTS, but a slow rolling release.

Other than that, you do have the extra expense for the long term support and we have to ask the question of how far apart the LTS would be. If 12.04 is 5-year LTS, would the next one be 16.04? This may be a bit too long IMO.

I hope this works for corporations, I would still be using rolling or semi-rolling (6-months cycle) releases.

There will still be LTS releases every 2 years, just the support will be extended to 5.

keithpeter
October 21st, 2011, 05:23 PM
Hello All

I'd like a computer that can last for 10 years, so count me in on a 5 year LTS.

Seriously, Moores law seems to be slowing down, mass market devices are lower power processors implying that for common use cases a more basic processor / chipset is ok. So why not a 20 year PC as blogged about by Mark Pilgrim (before he closed all his web sites down)?

kaldor
October 21st, 2011, 05:25 PM
This will be just perfect for my main PC. Hopefully this can mean two things...

1- Easy and painless upgrade to the point releases (12.04.1 --> 12.04.2).

2- Improved open source graphics drivers over time. I don't want to upgrade or use PPAs just to get the latest hardware support and performance improvements for my GPU.

This is quite excellent. 3 years is a bit too short.

1roxtar
October 21st, 2011, 05:42 PM
This is gonna be a great selling point for my computer repair business that I operate from my home. I am already promoting and installing Ubuntu on a lot of customer computers and they love it. A five year LTS is gonna be the sweet spot. Thank you, Canonical!!!

:guitar:

bazcor
October 21st, 2011, 05:57 PM
Book me up for 10 year duration,I hate it when you just get everything just so then have to change OS version!

.. Barry

vicshrike
October 21st, 2011, 06:06 PM
Great idea! Will probably be good for business as well for those who just want it to work and dislike changes, after all xp were released 10 years ago and there are still a lot of people who use it.

Paqman
October 21st, 2011, 06:53 PM
It makes sense to synchronise the desktop support period with the server one for enterprise users, I guess.

keithpeter
October 21st, 2011, 07:01 PM
This is gonna be a great selling point for my computer repair business that I operate from my home. I am already promoting and installing Ubuntu on a lot of customer computers and they love it. A five year LTS is gonna be the sweet spot. Thank you, Canonical!!!

:guitar:

I suppose that for most of your customers, they get an operating system with the computer and that lasts the life of the computer. I guess 5 years on top of however old their PC is will see the hardware through to recycle.

For me the main thing is back-porting of current browsers. I can live with OpenOffice 3.2 on Debian Squeeze, and GIMP 2.6 &c but need to keep the browser up to date.

e79
October 21st, 2011, 07:05 PM
I know I'm in, as in enterprises, I don't want to have to reformat/redeploy every 3 years to still get security updates and such, so 5 years LTS is welcome. I'm sure I speak for many system admins....

dniMretsaM
October 21st, 2011, 07:10 PM
I like the newest on all my computers, so no thanks.

Same here. I like to live on the edge. If they do 5 year LTS, I think they need to do a better job with backports (maybe designate a backport team). If they do that, this sounds great for businesses and people who are less tech-savvy (such as elderly people, my mom, etc.).

Linuxratty
October 21st, 2011, 07:11 PM
I'd delight in a 5 year LTS! That really sweetens the pot.
I'm tec savvy enough to reinstall,been doing it for years...laziness is my calling card here..I just get tired of doing it so often.
So would LTS also apply for Lubuntu,Kubuntu and Xubuntu? I wanna know as I'll be using one of those.

forrestcupp
October 21st, 2011, 07:11 PM
I don't have to be an LTS user to recognize that this is a good move and be all for it.

sanderella
October 21st, 2011, 07:29 PM
Yes, I like LTS, too.

malspa
October 21st, 2011, 07:38 PM
I think it's a great idea, but I'll still move on to the next LTS every two years or so.

malspa
October 21st, 2011, 07:44 PM
I think I'll be on-board for this change: http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2011/10/ubuntu-1204-lts-to-get-extra-long-desktop-support-cycle.ars

How about this idea? Found in the comments following the article:


How about extending 10.04's support an extra two years as well? It's running so nice for me that I'm not looking forward to changing in 2013.

lightwarrior
October 21st, 2011, 07:51 PM
If you just maintain latest repositories for 5 years on any release, I'll be happy.

I have a 9.x machine that I cannot install a program, because there are no more repositories available.

ubupirate
October 21st, 2011, 08:05 PM
If you just maintain latest repositories for 5 years on any release, I'll be happy.

I have a 9.x machine that I cannot install a program, because there are no more repositories available.

Indeed, need more backports to 10.04. :(

gsmanners
October 21st, 2011, 08:14 PM
Why wait for backports? I always compile from source if I want the latest app. :D

12.04 .. 17.04 is a great idea. I'm strongly tempted to stick with that once it comes out (for my non-testing partitions, that is).

Lucradia
October 21st, 2011, 08:15 PM
How about this idea? Found in the comments following the article:

http://images5.fanpop.com/image/photos/25600000/Nope-gif-team-fortress-25673931-243-150.gif

ubupirate
October 21st, 2011, 08:16 PM
Why wait for backports? I always compile from source if I want the latest app. :D

12.04 .. 17.04 is a great idea. I'm strongly tempted to stick with that once it comes out (for my non-testing partitions, that is).

Compiling can be a PITA sometimes, and also time consuming. Last time I compiled, was Wine 1.3.30 before the .30 hit the Lucid repos.

Took a good chunk of 45 minutes to compile.

malspa
October 21st, 2011, 08:19 PM
That's pretty funny, Lucradia!

Anyway, maybe extending the support for 10.04 would make a lot of GNOME 2 users happy...

earthpigg
October 21st, 2011, 08:45 PM
I'll be sticking with 12.04 for at least three years, in all likelihood, on my main desktop. I'll be upgrading from 10.10.

I do a great deal of customization, etc, and am always very hesitant to upgrade or change anything that ain't broke aside from maintaining the latest firefox.

gsmanners
October 21st, 2011, 08:51 PM
Compiling can be a PITA sometimes, and also time consuming. Last time I compiled, was Wine 1.3.30 before the .30 hit the Lucid repos.

Took a good chunk of 45 minutes to compile.

Compiling Wine is a PITA, but I look at it this way: You can either wait a week for someone to make a PPA, a month for a backport, or just compile it in less than an hour.

Dr. C
October 21st, 2011, 10:04 PM
This is an excellent idea and I am all for it. Looking forward to 12.04 LTS.

lykwydchykyn
October 21st, 2011, 10:40 PM
That's pretty funny, Lucradia!

Anyway, maybe extending the support for 10.04 would make a lot of GNOME 2 users happy...

Just a conjecture on my part, but I'd guess that's exactly the root of the problem. With 12.04 moving to Unity, Canonical can maintain that version of Unity as long as it wants to.

GNOME is an upstream project, so maintaining GNOME 2 for another two years is probably more than they want to deal with.

Primefalcon
October 22nd, 2011, 12:51 AM
Perfect out Netbook here as well s the installs I setup for other people

beew
October 22nd, 2011, 01:38 AM
And feature freeze for 5 years? Thanks but no thanks.

-jay-
October 22nd, 2011, 02:32 AM
i'm down for the count

KBD47
October 22nd, 2011, 03:28 AM
Perfect out Netbook here as well s the installs I setup for other people

Yeah, 5 years is perfect, probably the life of a netbook. I imagine there might be fewer: "oh snap, latest 6 month upgrade broke my computer". But they need to remove that upgrade prompt window that pops up every 6 months. Hope that is missing in the lts releases.
KBD47

LowSky
October 22nd, 2011, 03:29 AM
And feature freeze for 5 years? Thanks but no thanks.

This.

kaldor
October 22nd, 2011, 03:45 AM
Hope that is missing in the lts releases.

You've always been able to change that option. You can set it to Normal Releases, LTS only, or Off :)

wolfen69
October 22nd, 2011, 05:54 AM
And feature freeze for 5 years? Thanks but no thanks.

Who knows if there would be a feature freeze, but if you're going to extend support for 5 yrs, you need a way to keep certain apps current. (firefox)

But as I said before, it's not MY thing, but I can understand why certain people may want it that way.

KingYaba
October 22nd, 2011, 08:52 AM
She's still using Open Office on her 10.04 install FFS!

I don't see what's stopping people from updating their software on 10.04.

sffvba[e0rt
October 22nd, 2011, 10:03 AM
Good move for getting wider adoption as an enterprise solution...


404

Naiki Muliaina
October 22nd, 2011, 12:26 PM
I clean up the work PCs every 2 years anywhos. Means I get to see anything thats been bodged along the way for the previous two years and see whos been looking at what porns ;)

Will be nice to know theres 5 years of support though. :)

Garthhh
October 22nd, 2011, 02:16 PM
Yes Please

I would also integrate the entire Buntu family in a more comprehensive way

going to the home page should take a new user through an easy series of decisions leading them to which tine on the fork is best for their needs
as it is now the bleeding edge is the default option

& while we're doing a wish list, how about network sharing that is easy & actually works

3rdalbum
October 22nd, 2011, 02:16 PM
No. Just no.

Linux moves too quickly to encourage people to use the same distribution for five years. Five years ago, we were using Edgy and Dapper.

You'd find that a LOT of developer time would be spent on backporting security fixes to software that has basically been rewritten in the meantime and is barely even the same codebase now as back then. It might even be virtually impossible to support Linux desktop software for five years.

And imagine third party developers. Companies like Skype would write their new programs to still work on an ancient distros - meaning that they won't use the newer features of the newer distros. Imagine if Skype today could still only use OSS like back in the 6.06 days; what a disaster that would be.

It's the constant cadence of distros that drives the new software that provides new features. If you encourage people or businesses to keep with old distros, then you're basically slowing down the rate of adoption of new shiny stuff.

Five-year support for 12.04 is not the answer. Three years is plenty for LTS versions, because even by that time they seem rather crusty and archaic.

LinuxFan999
October 22nd, 2011, 02:31 PM
I think this is a good idea for people who refuse to upgrade from an LTS, but it doesn't matter to me since I like to be up to date with the latest software.

LowSky
October 22nd, 2011, 05:10 PM
I don't see what's stopping people from updating their software on 10.04.

There isn't much, but what becomes a problem is when they try to do an upgrade to something like Firefox or libre office down the road and a dependency is not included that normally would be in a newer release, something you normal don't think about, like python or some weird lib file. Then the person need to hunt down that file, and then, maybe that file needs a newer kernel version or a odd dependency too. It does happen. Not often but it can.

masgeeks
October 22nd, 2011, 05:16 PM
I think for the casual user, 5 year LTS on desktop is a good idea. These are the users who are not *bleeding edge* by any account... and upgrading anything at all scares them.

I think it is good for businesses, too - since turning around a lot of machines because support is up can be very taxing on IT resources and staff...

To me it means nothing - I always go with next distro when it gets released - even for my servers... :)

PaulInBHC
October 22nd, 2011, 05:38 PM
Looking at Windows for a moment, the time span from 3.1 to 95 to 98 to ME(2000) to XP(2002?) then the lull to Vista and 7 and the resistance from XP users. In that time frame the hardware advanced so quickly and the cost dropped so much that it made sense to jump from one to the next up to XP.

Will there be a large number of ubuntu users that would want to stay with an LTS for 5 years of support and a couple of years more until dependencies force them to switch?

JackieChiles
October 22nd, 2011, 09:15 PM
Any way 10-04 might get the 5 year support also?

KBD47
October 23rd, 2011, 01:54 AM
No. Just no.

Linux moves too quickly to encourage people to use the same distribution for five years. Five years ago, we were using Edgy and Dapper.

You'd find that a LOT of developer time would be spent on backporting security fixes to software that has basically been rewritten in the meantime and is barely even the same codebase now as back then. It might even be virtually impossible to support Linux desktop software for five years.

And imagine third party developers. Companies like Skype would write their new programs to still work on an ancient distros - meaning that they won't use the newer features of the newer distros. Imagine if Skype today could still only use OSS like back in the 6.06 days; what a disaster that would be.

It's the constant cadence of distros that drives the new software that provides new features. If you encourage people or businesses to keep with old distros, then you're basically slowing down the rate of adoption of new shiny stuff.

Five-year support for 12.04 is not the answer. Three years is plenty for LTS versions, because even by that time they seem rather crusty and archaic.

It's called: dual booting. You keep one LTS bork-proof Ubuntu and one new release/cutting edge to play with the new software :-)

malspa
October 23rd, 2011, 01:59 AM
It's called: dual booting. You keep one LTS bork-proof Ubuntu and one new release/cutting edge to play with the new software :-)

Such a sensible idea; it's amazing that more people don't do just that.

viperdvman
October 23rd, 2011, 02:28 AM
No. Just no.

Linux moves too quickly to encourage people to use the same distribution for five years. Five years ago, we were using Edgy and Dapper.

You'd find that a LOT of developer time would be spent on backporting security fixes to software that has basically been rewritten in the meantime and is barely even the same codebase now as back then. It might even be virtually impossible to support Linux desktop software for five years.

And imagine third party developers. Companies like Skype would write their new programs to still work on an ancient distros - meaning that they won't use the newer features of the newer distros. Imagine if Skype today could still only use OSS like back in the 6.06 days; what a disaster that would be.

It's the constant cadence of distros that drives the new software that provides new features. If you encourage people or businesses to keep with old distros, then you're basically slowing down the rate of adoption of new shiny stuff.

Five-year support for 12.04 is not the answer. Three years is plenty for LTS versions, because even by that time they seem rather crusty and archaic.

A lot of third party developers were sticking with WinXP for so long (only because it's been out for so long before Vista came out), and still make apps that work on Windows XP. If those parties can develop for older platforms like Windows XP or older PPC versions of Mac OS X, then they can develop for a 5-year LTS of Ubuntu (or other older versions of Linux, for that matter).

The way I see it, making the desktop versions a 5-year LTS should help keep people in Ubuntu in case Canonical decides to make another big change to the distro within that timeframe that they either aren't ready to upgrade to or flat out won't upgrade to. It gives users more choices over that 5-year timeframe, which is what I feel Ubuntu is all about.

So way to go, Canonical :)

Garthhh
October 23rd, 2011, 02:36 AM
Such a sensible idea; it's amazing that more people don't do just that.

I use virtualbox for the bleeding edge stuff

stuff I really like is installed as a dual boot on it's own HDD:)

stmiller
October 23rd, 2011, 03:34 AM
This is also great news for derivatives like Linux Mint - their version based on the LTS will then also be supported for five years on the desktop. w00t!

ubupirate
October 23rd, 2011, 03:39 AM
This is also great news for derivatives like Linux Mint - their version based on the LTS will then also be supported for five years on the desktop. w00t!

Maybe, maybe not. Just because Mint is Ubuntu derivative, doesn't mean it will follow Ubuntu in every aspect.

Mint never followed Ubuntu with Unity in 11.04 with Mint 11.

viperdvman
October 23rd, 2011, 03:41 AM
No, but they did stick with GNOME 2.x which is what Ubuntu 11.04 is built on. I did hear they were working on "Mintifying" GNOME 3, but I'll have to read the updates of their work on Linux Mint "Lisa".

I like Linux Mint, it's probably the best Ubuntu-derived distro out there :)

KBD47
October 23rd, 2011, 04:09 AM
No, but they did stick with GNOME 2.x which is what Ubuntu 11.04 is built on. I did hear they were working on "Mintifying" GNOME 3, but I'll have to read the updates of their work on Linux Mint "Lisa".

I like Linux Mint, it's probably the best Ubuntu-derived distro out there :)

+1 for Mint.

IWantFroyo
October 23rd, 2011, 04:20 AM
A 5-year LTS? Maybe for servers, but they already have 5 years of support. A desktop 5 years behind would have such outdated software, you probably wouldn't be able to work without having some sort of errors about incompatible files, etc...

TerryP
October 23rd, 2011, 06:19 AM
Will be good for businesses for sure. Also many users don't want frequent version changes anyway. They just want their systems to work in a predictable way.

3rdalbum
October 23rd, 2011, 07:07 AM
I don't think my post was understood correctly.

In four years time, software might be written with Ubuntu 12.04 as the "lowest common denominator", and any new features of Ubuntu since then will simply not be supported in proprietary software such as Skype or Flash Player.

Windows XP hampered the adoption of new APIs in Vista and 7 because programs were still being written to work on XP. Sure, they ran on later Windows, but not with the new features of those new OSes.

lykwydchykyn
October 24th, 2011, 03:38 AM
I don't think my post was understood correctly.

In four years time, software might be written with Ubuntu 12.04 as the "lowest common denominator", and any new features of Ubuntu since then will simply not be supported in proprietary software such as Skype or Flash Player.

Windows XP hampered the adoption of new APIs in Vista and 7 because programs were still being written to work on XP. Sure, they ran on later Windows, but not with the new features of those new OSes.

It's a double edged sword; having software that only works with older versions of Ubuntu is better than software that doesn't work with any version of Linux. Knowing that a software release will work on a supported version of Ubuntu for five years may go a long way toward encouraging developers to write for it.

It also means those versions might work on other, more conservatively developed distributions (e.g., Debian).

Paddy Landau
October 25th, 2011, 09:46 AM
The latest Ubuntu newsletter (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuWeeklyNewsletter/Issue238) notes that, from 12.04, LTS desktop versions will be supported for five years instead of three.

It says:

The first two years of the LTS period will benefit businesses by including hardware updates (through regular point releases) allowing them to keep up to date with the latest hardware upgrades. Maintenance updates will continue for a further three years.I did not realise that hardware support ended after two years! Why is that?

Khakilang
October 25th, 2011, 11:13 AM
I believe most of the hardware are proprietary and drivers are not available for Linux. Unless someone took the trouble to compile it. But 5 years support is a good news. I think I will settle for LTS and hope my hardware survive another 5 years.

Paddy Landau
October 25th, 2011, 11:16 AM
I also always use LTS, except when the computer is not supported. My current computer is not supported by 10.04, but 11.04 does support it.

Roasted
October 25th, 2011, 12:40 PM
I also always use LTS, except when the computer is not supported. My current computer is not supported by 10.04, but 11.04 does support it.

Out of curiosity, what about your computer is not supported with 10.04? Does 10.04.3 yield the same results?

Paddy Landau
October 25th, 2011, 03:12 PM
Out of curiosity, what about your computer is not supported with 10.04? Does 10.04.3 yield the same results?
The graphics card. It needed the later kernel. I got the information from a thread where I requested some information (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1851353) from this extraordinarily helpful forum.

3Miro
October 25th, 2011, 03:32 PM
If LTS releases were to keep up with the latest software, then they will not be stable at all. LTS releases use older software and hence more stable. One of the things that is frozen in the LTS is the kernel. Newer hardware requires newer kernels with newer drivers. Some drivers can be backported, that is, if the driver is available first for Linux 2.6.38 then someone will eventually take the driver and make it work on 2.6.32. This is not always possible or even if it is possible, it requires a lot of work.

For the first 2 years of the LTS, Canonical will do their best to make sure that they keep up with the new hardware. After that, newer drivers and newer hardware will only work with newer releases. If you buy a machine during the first two years of an LTS, then it should be OK to use for the remaining of the 5 years. If you buy a new machine afterwards, then you should get newer version of Ubuntu.

Note that the LTS releases will still be available every 2 years. This means that if you buy a new computer at the end of 2014, then you will no longer be able to use 12.04LTS, however, you will be able to use 14.04LTS.

sffvba[e0rt
October 25th, 2011, 03:42 PM
Threads merged.


404

WasMeHere
October 25th, 2011, 03:45 PM
If LTS releases were to keep up with the latest software, then they will not be stable at all. LTS releases use older software and hence more stable. One of the things that is frozen in the LTS is the kernel. Newer hardware requires newer kernels with newer drivers. Some drivers can be backported, that is, if the driver is available first for Linux 2.6.38 then someone will eventually take the driver and make it work on 2.6.32. This is not always possible or even if it is possible, it requires a lot of work.

For the first 2 years of the LTS, Canonical will do their best to make sure that they keep up with the new hardware. After that, newer drivers and newer hardware will only work with newer releases. If you buy a machine during the first two years of an LTS, then it should be OK to use for the remaining of the 5 years. If you buy a new machine afterwards, then you should get newer version of Ubuntu.

Note that the LTS releases will still be available every 2 years. This means that if you buy a new computer at the end of 2014, then you will no longer be able to use 12.04LTS, however, you will be able to use 14.04LTS.

This sounds good. I am also fond of the LTS versions :-)
Having fun finding out about Ubuntu
Olle

Paddy Landau
October 25th, 2011, 03:53 PM
If LTS releases were to keep up with the latest software, then they will not be stable at all...

Note that the LTS releases will still be available every 2 years. This means that if you buy a new computer at the end of 2014, then you will no longer be able to use 12.04LTS, however, you will be able to use 14.04LTS.
Ah, thanks for the explanation! Well, it won't hurt to install the new LTS every two years anyway.

tartalo
October 25th, 2011, 03:54 PM
Extending 10.4 LTS support too would be an excellent idea (Gnome 2).

frotzed
October 25th, 2011, 03:58 PM
For the casual user and business user the 5 year LTS is undoubtedly an excellent idea and is beyond argument. For the minority of computer users who prefer to be on the leading edge of software and/or hardware, there's still going to be a 6 month release cycle.

Personally, I'm jumping on board the 5 year plan because I hate changing my desktop once I get it set up the way I want.

3Miro
October 25th, 2011, 04:06 PM
Extending 10.4 LTS support too would be an excellent idea (Gnome 2).

I don't think this would happen. If you want longer support for Gnome 2, you can try Debian 6, it is essentially 10.04, but it will be supported longer.

wolfgar
October 25th, 2011, 04:34 PM
Sounds good to me.

malspa
October 25th, 2011, 06:18 PM
If you want longer support for Gnome 2, you can try Debian 6, it is essentially 10.04, but it will be supported longer.

Yeah, I think Debian 6 (Squeeze) has a good two or three years of life left.

BrokenKingpin
October 25th, 2011, 09:13 PM
This is a good thing, but I don't see how it does anything for me (yes, I am selfish). I upgrade from release to release so I can get the latest end-user packages (Thunderbird, pidgin, etc.), but those are not updated for a release unless a security issue is found in an application.

It makes sense for a server or office PCs, but for the average home user I don't think this makes much of a difference.