Why must LTS die?

[DMGrier]

I was on a google+ page the other day and there was a huge feud of people saying that LTS should be done with and die, why would people feel this way. I have always ran LTS, I will occasionally upgrade to the interim release but a lot of problems in terms of packages like emapthy, Virtual Machine, and Steam stop working even if I do fresh installs with the up to date packages I never have good luck. So I pretty much stick with the LTS. I know Canonical has no plans of dropping the LTS which is good because I would have to jump to openSUSE being that is the only distribution I have had good luck with when it comes to the interim releases. I am just curious why I read on the web why so many people are against the LTS?

[ManamiVixen]

Because LTS don't make sense in the world of Linux. There are thousands upon thousands of contributors and programmers around the world writting new, and updating software for linux. Meaning there is always a new and improved package for whetever availible for a Linux based computer. So with a LTS, these updates are being held back. Look at 12.04 and 12.10 of Ubuntu, In six months there were HUGE advancements including new GTK, Unity, ALSA drivers, X.Org libraries, and even Wayland picking up. 12.04 is absolutely ancient now. IN SIX MONTHS. Companies like Microsoft and Apple are the onlp companies who really develop their software. So they can afford holding back stuff till the next release as they are the developers and push out more methodically. So that is why LTS is hated. It forces users to use badly outdated software.

[deadflowr]

Don't worry about it.
People say a lot of silly things.
LTS releases are probably, at this point, one of the few areas that might be sacrosanct.

[Megaptera]

Because LTS don't make sense in the world of Linux.........So that is why LTS is hated. It forces users to use badly outdated software.

Rather harsh - please quote your sources if you don't mind :confused: thanks.
LTS are not 'hated' ... some people prefer LTS and some don't.Some people need LTS and some don't.
A more comprehensive explanation of pros and cons of LTS here: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/LTS

[monkeybrain2012]

Because LTS don't make sense in the world of Linux. There are thousands upon thousands of contributors and programmers around the world writting new, and updating software for linux. Meaning there is always a new and improved package for whetever availible for a Linux based computer. So with a LTS, these updates are being held back. Look at 12.04 and 12.10 of Ubuntu, In six months there were HUGE advancements including new GTK, Unity, ALSA drivers, X.Org libraries, and even Wayland picking up. 12.04 is absolutely ancient now. IN SIX MONTHS. Companies like Microsoft and Apple are the onlp companies who really develop their software. So they can afford holding back stuff till the next release as they are the developers and push out more methodically. So that is why LTS is hated. It forces users to use badly outdated software.

You have some valid points, but upgrading your OS every 6 months is kind of a hassel especially when the quality of the interim releases may vary. So I tend to upgrade once a year and keep up to date with ppas and compiling (so my 12.04 is quite up to date except for compiz and unity, it is running on kernel 3.8.4, even more up to date than raring) This makes the new plan of supporting non LTS for only 9 months not very sensible to people with my tempo of update/upgrade. I usually stay away from a new release for about 2 months before installing (instead keep it on a test partition) to ensure that major bugs are ironed out. The shorten support period of non LTS is problematic unless either 1) new developments are backported to the LTS much more frequently than it is now,--so at this point I would like to see the core packages in 12.04 to be up to the level of 12.10) and/or 2) ensure that interim releases are more stable and are ready to go without having to wait several months to get serious bugs fixes.

For the really conservative types who only use LTS as is (no ppa or other new "additives" that may carry even an infinitesimal chance of instability) and are happy to be frozen in time for 3-5 years (like people who are still on Lucid) I can't understand why they don't simply switch to Debian, which seems a lot more suit to their use cases.

[forrestcupp]

...So that is why LTS is hated. It forces users to use badly outdated software.

And who forces people to use LTS releases?

[ManamiVixen]

Nobody is forcing them, but you are assuming the mass public of the world is far more compentent than they actually are. Most people will look to the media, Canonical, and other software and hardware companies for what to run. Of course they all will be sayin "Use Ubuntu 12.04, it the latest from Canonical!" It's only true as in terms of stable release. But the software will be outdated and the mass user who isn't fully aware of Linux and how it works will likely never get new sofware believing they have already have the current and latest.

[deadflowr]

As long as software is supported and maintained it is not outdated.

Newer doesn't necessarily mean better.

[ibjsb4]

Because LTS don't make sense in the world of Linux. There are thousands upon thousands of contributors and programmers around the world writting new, and updating software for linux. Meaning there is always a new and improved package for whetever availible for a Linux based computer. So with a LTS, these updates are being held back. Look at 12.04 and 12.10 of Ubuntu, In six months there were HUGE advancements including new GTK, Unity, ALSA drivers, X.Org libraries, and even Wayland picking up. 12.04 is absolutely ancient now. IN SIX MONTHS. Companies like Microsoft and Apple are the onlp companies who really develop their software. So they can afford holding back stuff till the next release as they are the developers and push out more methodically. So that is why LTS is hated. It forces users to use badly outdated software.

And your running Kubuntu 12o4, thats funny.

[DMGrier]

I have only had problems with the interim releases, I am not saying there bad but there are a lot of people who I have installed Ubuntu on there computers as a primary desktop and the few who have upgrade would have me come over to to put back the LTS. For me I don't care about the latest packages, what is the point of the latest and greatest if some of my favorite applications stop working? There is non.

[ManamiVixen]

ibjsb4 (http://ubuntuforums.org/member.php?u=1729120), but there are repositories for the latest KDE 4.11, Latest Nvidia and X.Org, and kernel 3.8.4 from the Ubuntu Mainline Kernel site. I essentialy have Kubuntu 13.04, but with Precise Repos. :). Actually, it more up to date than Kubuntu 13.04 in terms of the core components.

[monkeybrain2012]

I have only had problems with the interim releases, I am not saying there bad but there are a lot of people who I have installed Ubuntu on there computers as a primary desktop and the few who have upgrade would have me come over to to put back the LTS. For me I don't care about the latest packages, what is the point of the latest and greatest if some of my favorite applications stop working? There is non.

Then why not just use Debian?

[Peripheral Visionary]

For the really conservative types who only use LTS as is (no ppa or other new "additives" that may carry even an infinitesimal chance of instability) and are happy to be frozen in time for 3-5 years (like people who are still on Lucid) I can't understand why they don't simply switch to Debian, which seems a lot more suit to their use cases.


Because Debian doesn't "just work" the way the 'buntu family does. I always use only LTS releases because for one thing, I don't enjoy re-installing my OS every 6 months (and upgrading is still a high-risk prospect too often). For another thing my computer is old and won't run a lot of the newer software. The older stuff works fine so why not use it instead of the newer stuff that either runs slower or not at all. When I install the next LTS I want one that will still work on this old machine. When Xubuntu gets to be too much for this old dog, I'll switch to Lubuntu or just do a minimal install and throw Xfce (not xubuntu-desktop) or LXDE (not lubuntu-desktop) and really light weight applications on it.

For those who want practically indefinite support, I hear that Slackware supports it's versions for many more years than just 3 to 5. It still gets updates long after any current 'buntu LTS has reached the end of it's support. And there's always Debian's "Old Stable" branch which would be like using an old expired 'buntu - except that it still gets security updates.

An OS that runs away from my hardware and makes it obselete before it's time doesn't interest me. I want to use it until it finally dies before replacing it if I can, despite the fact that new ones are so cheap. LTS helps me do that.

[DMGrier]

Then why not just use Debian?

Well I tried and it requires some driver that you cannot get from the installer, I came to Ubuntu from Windows looking for something that just worked since Vista was a nightmare. I only recently started to actually learn the more complex side of Ubuntu with some books I picked up but when I am not doing my new hobby I want a desktop that just works and allows my favorite applications to work and my OS to work. When I was using Ubuntu 12.10 I was getting error reports left and right and it honestly started to remind me of the error reports in quantity I would have gotten on XP or Vista. So I have tried Debian and found myself doing more work then what I cared for, LMDE works very well for me but there is something that keeps pulling me back to Ubuntu.

[jockyburns]

Nobody is forcing them, but you are assuming the mass public of the world is far more competent than they actually are. Most people will look to the media, Canonical, and other software and hardware companies for what to run. Of course they all will be sayin "Use Ubuntu 12.04, it the latest from Canonical!" It's only true as in terms of stable release. But the software will be outdated and the mass user who isn't fully aware of Linux and how it works will likely never get new software believing they have already have the current and latest.

Any internet search for Ubuntu, will of course return the latest results. Definitely won't just return version 12.04.
I can't understand you saying, "The software will be outdated." What about the millions of Windows users, who went from Win XP to Win 7, and on to Win8 ? These people don't get interim versions. Would you say Win8 users are using an outdated system in a years time? (because for sure, there won't be a newer Win version for quite some time yet) (unless you think Service Pack 1, 2, 3, ad nauseum, counts ?)
I'd say to the Ubuntu users out there, "Use whatever version of Ubuntu you like." Some users on here still run 10.04. Not because they want the latest version, but because it runs well on their machine (which for all we know might be using a Pentium 3 processor) Now would you try to run 12.10 or even 13.04 on those machines? I doubt if it would run anyway.
Linux has it's uses and one of those enables old computers to regain some usefulness, instead of ending up in some South African landfill.

[leclerc65]

I need stability not 'new for the sake of change'.

[Linuxratty]

As long as software is supported and maintained it is not outdated.

Newer doesn't necessarily mean better.

I agree. Different strokes and all.

[Primefalcon]

I like LTS because I wont want to have to upgrade constantly.... I need a stable release... I do my work....

[ikt]

I like LTS because I wont want to have to upgrade constantly.... I need a stable release... I do my work....

I like Ubuntu LTS's because they are new enough to be usable and stable enough to be... stable

Debian LTS's I use on my servers because they have minimal updates and basically stay the same thing as the day I installed them.

[sandyd]

While I do agree with LTS releases, there are some things that push users/server operators to update to newer releases and/or give them serious headaches.

For example (seriously, this is just an example, dont fire at it...), you have probably heard of the RT Request Tracker, which Canonical uses for ticket management. I tried setting up that thing on 12.04 with LDAP Integration. It never happened, because 12.04 was missing a package required for LDAP integration (rt4-extension-authenexternalauth), which mysteriously appeared in 12.10. If I were an administrator in a company who was looking at long term support, and wanted to setup RT, I would be looking to use 12.04, which I wouldn't be able to use since it is missing the integration for AD/LDAP that is used.

The result?
Either
a) Company goes, whacks RT a few times, and compiles it manually
b) Goes to some other distro where the package actually exists, while having LTS
c) .etc .etc

It is mainly these random situations that I have against LTS releases

[CharlesA]

While I do agree with LTS releases, there are some things that push users/server operators to update to newer releases and/or give them serious headaches.

For example (seriously, this is just an example, dont fire at it...), you have probably heard of the RT Request Tracker, which Canonical uses for ticket management. I tried setting up that thing on 12.04 with LDAP Integration. It never happened, because 12.04 was missing a package required for LDAP integration (rt4-extension-authenexternalauth), which mysteriously appeared in 12.10. If I were an administrator in a company who was looking at long term support, and wanted to setup RT, I would be looking to use 12.04, which I wouldn't be able to use since it is missing the integration for AD/LDAP that is used.

The result?
Either
a) Company goes, whacks RT a few times, and compiles it manually
b) Goes to some other distro where the package actually exists, while having LTS
c) .etc .etc

It is mainly these random situations that I have against LTS releases

*fires cannon*

Good examples. I haven't run into anything like that yet, but I do know what a pain it can be to set a box up to do what you want when you aren't given the appropriate tools/information.

I use 12.04 on my home server, but Debian Squeeze on my VPS.

[mikodo]

I like the stability of LTS and is all I use now. For some apps I use PPA's/backports/compliling to get the newer versions, but truth be known, it is really very seldom I need the newest. I can only think of once since 8.04 when I started with linux and ubuntu, that there was not compatibility with an app and the LTS I was using that mattered. That was due upstream in duplicity that broke Deja-Dup for 10.04. I started and continue to use "Back in Time" for a GUI backup.

I think regular non-LTS releases are more important for new hardware, which I don't have.

;p

[mamamia88]

I think the whole concept of a a release is outdated its 2013 why can't updates keep flowing without breakage?

[DMGrier]

I think the whole concept of a a release is outdated its 2013 why can't updates keep flowing without breakage?

Are you saying having constant updates to the OS and packages without breakage? That is what Canonical is trying to do if they go rolling release and even though rolling release sounds great but if I have application issues with the interim releases a rolling release sounds horrifying for me.

[mamamia88]

Exactly what I'm saying

[DMGrier]

What I think would be a nice is if there was a software update area in the software center where you could get the latest stable software kind of like OBS for openSUSE.

[mastablasta]

Because LTS don't make sense in the world of Linux. There are thousands upon thousands of contributors and programmers around the world writting new, and updating software for linux. Meaning there is always a new and improved package for whetever availible for a Linux based computer. So with a LTS, these updates are being held back.

i will just hang on this post as it sums up "the other side".

but here is my take on that. new and updated software is great. I have windowsXP which is from 2001 i believe. so ancient. yet i have all the latest software on it (well not some games that were only developed for win7) but most other stuff. and it all get's updated. from the day i've set it it has been working well. similar situation at work. i do not have to be bothered by OS. i can do my work in up to date software.

now then - it is tru that developers keer writing new software and updating it. but it is also true that they create new bugs. in windows if a major bug occures in certian software it is not such a big deal. you simply revert to older version until it is resolved. in ubuntu you would get an update of kernel which could beamajor bug in your system it could corrupt it, it could destroy it. it could be easy to recover, or it could be hard. you do not know that. eventually there will be a fix but until then. also it could be that it would take the fix a long time to come. i would like to see LTS where software is updated with new stable versions. while the main system itself stays the same.

here is how it happened to me - 9.10 it all worked though falsh was a bit slow. support ran out 10.04 went on.
10.04 sound works propperly after patch, other things worked well
10.10 sound worked majority of the time, everything else works as it should
12.04 everything works
12.04 a month and few updates later - sound doens't work, power management doesn't work anymore
, screen saver occasioanlly crashes
12.04 over 6 months later - sound works, power management sort of works, screen saver still crashes
12.10 - why should i upgrade?

my point is - updates/uprgades - can improve things like you said, but they can also mess up things. especially when they included driver updates that were not propperly tested. and let's be hones - plenty things do not get tested onopensoruce and often users are the testers. so stable LTS versions are for those that need to actually work on the system and don't have time to troubleshoot every new bug.

[mike acker]

I vote to Keep LTS

I want what the OS does; I'm not into fussing with it. I know lots of Linux folks are [into experimenting] and I am very grateful to them for their efforts. But I like the LTS protocol.

If I were an Office Manager (I'm retired ) I would not consider anything other than LTS . it is important to think about this.

What LTS means to me: I'm getting updates and fixes that we know are good and needed .

[kurt18947]

I vote to Keep LTS

I want what the OS does; I'm not into fussing with it. I know lots of Linux folks are [into experimenting] and I am very grateful to them for their efforts. But I like the LTS protocol.

If I were an Office Manager (I'm retired ) I would not consider anything other than LTS . it is important to think about this.

What LTS means to me: I'm getting updates and fixes that we know are good and needed .

If linux on the desktop if ever to be taken seriously in the business world, stability/reliability is paramount. I'll bet the majority of businesses would stay on WinXP practically forever if they could. They sure aren't going to risk 'upsetting the apple cart' every few months.

[monkeybrain2012]

If linux on the desktop if ever to be taken seriously in the business world, stability/reliability is paramount. I'll bet the majority of businesses would stay on WinXP practically forever if they could. They sure aren't going to risk 'upsetting the apple cart' every few months.

Well most of us are not "businesses" and that model is not suitable for other users. I'll bet the majority of windows users don't "stick to XP forever" if they can afford a new machine or an upgrade.

[forrestcupp]

Nobody is forcing them, but you are assuming the mass public of the world is far more compentent than they actually are. Most people will look to the media, Canonical, and other software and hardware companies for what to run. Of course they all will be sayin "Use Ubuntu 12.04, it the latest from Canonical!" It's only true as in terms of stable release. But the software will be outdated and the mass user who isn't fully aware of Linux and how it works will likely never get new sofware believing they have already have the current and latest.If you think of the latest release of Ubuntu as outdated software, then the only thing that would really satisfy you would be a rolling release distro, in which case, Ubuntu is not the answer for you right now.


Are you saying having constant updates to the OS and packages without breakage? That is what Canonical is trying to do if they go rolling release and even though rolling release sounds great but if I have application issues with the interim releases a rolling release sounds horrifying for me.I thought Canonical ended up saying that the rumor that they're going to rolling release is not true. Am I just out of the loop and they changed their minds again?

[CharlesA]

I thought Canonical ended up saying that the rumor that they're going to rolling release is not true. Am I just out of the loop and they changed their minds again?

I thought they were thinking about it for 14.04.

http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2013/01/ubuntu-not-switching-to-rolling-release-model

[pfeiffep]

Rolling Releases, LTS, Beta and RC? Isn't it nice there are OPTIONS for all. I seriously don' think that the end users have much say whether Can* or M$, or Deb* implement rolling releases or LTS or SP?
As a relatively technical person I like the fact that I can keep Win 7 installed on one drive and have multiple;) Linux installations on another.

Linux has quite a way to evolve until it's really business class desktop software.

Ma & Pa small business users certainly don't have the time to mess with every 6 months upgrade cycle.

[forrestcupp]

I thought they were thinking about it for 14.04.

http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2013/01/ubuntu-not-switching-to-rolling-release-model

Cool. That article is pretty confusing, though. It almost sounds like they haven't decided to switch at all, but they want the framework in place by 14.04 just in case they do decide to switch. In any case, I think they're doing it the right way. You can have a rolling release with LTS snapshots every couple of years so everyone can be satisfied. Either continue with the rolling release, or go with the LTS if you need stability. It also makes sense that they don't want to be confined to 6 months because some things just take longer. This would give them a lot more freedom, and keep the people who want cutting edge happy.

[grahammechanical]

It could be said that as 12.04 is almost a year old it is outdated software but what some of us might be forgetting is that there was a 12.04.1 about six months ago and anyone downloading and installing 12.04 today would get 12.04.2. and this pattern of point releases will follow until 14.04 is released. Those already running 12.04 and are happy with it can stay with it. Those with newer hardware and wanting an LTS will get 12.04.2 with upgraded kernel and stuff.

There is already a kind of rolling release for Ubuntu. It is called the Development branch. Mark Shuttleworth is of the opinion that those who want the "bleeding edge" (his words) can use the development branch. The question at present undecided is whether there will be a 13.10. It could be that the 13.04 development branch code will continue into the 14.04 LTS release. So, it would be the development branch that becomes a sort of rolling release.

One thing we can take as certain, is that Canonical are seeking ways to reduce the work load in maintaining and supporting code branches. Soon they have to support 10.04 server, 12.04 desktop and server, 12.10 desktop and server, 13.04 desktop and server.

[lykwydchykyn]

Well most of us are not "businesses" and that model is not suitable for other users.

Most of us also don't pay Canonical for support, so I'm not sure why our needs would trump those of paying customers.


I'll bet the majority of windows users don't "stick to XP forever" if they can afford a new machine or an upgrade.

Most windows users don't have the option of sticking with XP forever, or if they do they haven't any idea how to exercise that option. They get a new computer and run what it comes with. I sure here from an awful lot of them who wish they could stick with it forever. There's no telling if they represent a majority or not, though.

[craig10x]

Yes, actually what they voted on (after the recent conference) and what is being implemented is:

6 month release continue same as before but with support reduced from 18 months to 9 months, starting with Ubuntu 13.04...reason being is that developers will be freed up to spend more time on improving things like upgrading (to make it more reliable) and fixing bugs that they never seem to have time to get to...

LTS Releases (same as before, every 2 years with full LTS support as it is now)...

Development to become the actual "Rolling Release" supposedly as of 13.04....though they will not officially define it as such, that is essentially what it will be...You will no longer need to upgrade the current development version you are using to go into the next version of development (in example: 13.04 to 13.10)...instead you will simply get "pointed" to the next version and start receiving updates for it as soon as they start sending them for that new version...They already voted to implement this...but they did mention they still have to work out the "details" on how best to implement it....

One developer mention something about possibly doing it with a "symlink"

How you would add that on (whether say by terminal command or if it would be added as an option to select in "update manager") wasn't mentioned...that is what they are figuring out right now..

I hope they get that in place before 13.04 goes final as i would like to roll right into 13.10 with it...except for a few brief glitches here and there, 13.04 development and it's updates have been darn reliable, i must say...i use to run mint's LMDE pointed to debian testing and had FAR FAR more problems with that then ubuntu development, so in my opinion, it's gotten to the point of being more reliable then debian testing...

[kyalami321]

I like the concept of LTS as compared to the Microsoft model of releasing their operating systems. All Windows criticisms aside, imagine if instead of XP --> Vista --> 7 --> 8 we had XP1 --> XP2 --> XP3 --> XP3 The Second Edition --> XP4 --> Vista --> Vista2, etc. You could say service packs mirror this analogy, and it's true, but the thing about service packs is that they don't force you to upgrade your entire system. They may break support for things and have other negative impacts of their own, but the principle is one of UPDATING, not UPGRADING, as downloading and installing each new interim release would entail.

[TomB19]

Big LTS fan here. :)

[whatthefunk]

Latest and greatest also comes with risks. Several times, Ive installed things from backports and other ppas only to have my entire system crash. For me, it doesnt matter so much, but if I was running Ubuntu at work, this would be a major problem. LTS has a place in the Linux world.

[slickymaster]

Well, there will always be detractors and defenders on both sides.

IMO, machines more suitable to long term support releases will generally be business machines (such as web-servers in datacentre's or servers in a workplace). In such scenarios it would be generally disruptive to be upgrading the operating system every 6 months as opposed to every 3 years, when it is essential to keep the downtime to a minimum.
Generally a long term support distribution will have constant security fixes and the like to keep the system stable, but no major application changes.

[pqwoerituytrueiwoq]

i prefer a LTS release (eg 10.04) as long as it is not full of issues like 12.04, 13.04 would make a better LTS IMO
i upgraded from 10.04 when it was just becoming too out of date (video codecs, mainly)
when 13.04 is released is when i will overwrite my 10.04 install, then upgrade to the next LTS hopefully i can stick with that one a few years

[mamamia88]

Here is my opinion. Distro stands for distribution. A distro is a collection of software that is bundled together and distributed for use. In my opinion it is always prefferable to update the current software collection as new versions are released rather than upgrade nearly everything every 6 months or so. Of course there is always uncertainity with change. But, there should be a way to mitigate risk like having a development branch with an active set of testers with a variety of hardware and packages that a package has to go though before it is released to everybody. Set in stone releases are probably better for businesses but, for home users I see no reason why we can't have the latest and greatest without reinstalling or upgrading the entire system every 6 months. When you think about it what is more likely to go wrong? A massive upgrade every 6 months or continuous upgrades on a daily/weekly basis?

[mJayk]

Nobody is forcing them, but you are assuming the mass public of the world is far more compentent than they actually are. Most people will look to the media, Canonical, and other software and hardware companies for what to run. Of course they all will be sayin "Use Ubuntu 12.04, it the latest from Canonical!" It's only true as in terms of stable release. But the software will be outdated and the mass user who isn't fully aware of Linux and how it works will likely never get new sofware believing they have already have the current and latest.


What a silly thing to say, these "mass public" people want stability over everything so yes they should and are going to choose the bloody stable release. It is only a good thing, nobody forces people to use LTS but it is there if you need pure stability.

Imagine a buisness sending home the emplyees because that days updates broke a feature.

[codingman]

I have an old dell here that I hardly ever use, except when I need it for backup computer usage when my system over here is tied up. I don't want to have to pop up the terminal and update it every time, because that uses precious MB's of its pathetic 768MB RAM. Plus, I don't care about namby-pamby, new hardware junk, that just takes up precious GB's of its poor 30GB HDD. It also weighs the P4 down quite a bit. I tried 12.10 on it, and it was an unappreciatively amount slower that the 12.04 LTS version. Now, when I run it on my considerably newer system, I don't see any difference except when I'm halting. Which the 12.10 release is faster. As for Debian, it's not what would be considered so user-friendly, as well as not having the same way of just working as Ubuntu does. Although some distros that are very closely related are much better, they still need quite a bit of configuration for specific hardware, and as with that old dell, I don't want to spend time trying to get it to work with my system, I want to stay away from that hunk-o-junk as much as possible!

I think that those people that were posting on G+ were total Linux noobs, and had no idea what a benefit LTS does for the world.

[stalkingwolf]

basically it comes down to two groups of people. Those that need/want bleeding edge and those that dont.

[mJayk]

I think it more comes down to the people who want to keep linux for "people like them" and the people who just want everyone to use it.

If you want the general public to use an OS you want options and you want an os that WILL work and need no messing with for years not 2 days then sudo apt-get distro-upgrade.

[stalkingwolf]

last week I set up a laptop for the son of a friend, he is 11. I installed edubuntu 12.04. added a couple things from Qimo and things for his Mom to use. The laptop is an acer aspire 1604z.
The available packages will take him thru highschool. Im not sure the computer will last thru the support period.

it was delivered the 28th. his mom set it up showed him how to log in and off he went. the first day 5 plus hours of exploration. and every day since. He has homework for the vacation that he does on moms computer. since he got his computer he has started asking for more time doing home work.

He doesnt need 6month upgrades. he is happy with what he has.

[forrestcupp]

When you think about it what is more likely to go wrong? A massive upgrade every 6 months or continuous upgrades on a daily/weekly basis?

Well, if you've ever run an alpha version of Ubuntu where they're constantly updating things with the latest versions, you may be inclined to think that massive upgrades to stable and tested software every 6 months is a lot less likely to go wrong.

[Tamlynmac]

Does anyone know if this rolling release concept only applies to Ubuntu or to all Canonical distros?

My primary requirement is stability. I have no desire to constantly negotiate with new and improved anything, just for the sake of change. For all change is not growth - see my signature.

One of the benefits (for me) of using Canonical distros has been the stability of LTSs. Since first installing 7.04 I've learned to test each release prior to install - assuring compatibility and have found generally that LTS releases improve in stability with age. As others have pointed out, upgrades/updates have consistently had issues and since my family uses the same distro as I, stability becomes critical. Assuming, I wish to have a life beyond computers. :wink:

[pinballwizard]

Because LTS don't make sense in the world of Linux. There are thousands upon thousands of contributors and programmers around the world writting new, and updating software for linux. Meaning there is always a new and improved package for whetever availible for a Linux based computer. So with a LTS, these updates are being held back. Look at 12.04 and 12.10 of Ubuntu, In six months there were HUGE advancements including new GTK, Unity, ALSA drivers, X.Org libraries, and even Wayland picking up. 12.04 is absolutely ancient now. IN SIX MONTHS. Companies like Microsoft and Apple are the onlp companies who really develop their software. So they can afford holding back stuff till the next release as they are the developers and push out more methodically. So that is why LTS is hated. It forces users to use badly outdated software.

So, enjoy the stability of an LTS and if you really must ruin it, run backports of the next release?

[JSeymour]

Because LTS don't make sense in the world of Linux.
Spoken like somebody that doesn't have to support production desktops and servers, and has no idea how much hassle it is to have to re-install entire operating systems, along with all the re-configuration necessary, on what would otherwise be their time off.

Jim

[JSeymour]

If linux on the desktop if ever to be taken seriously in the business world, stability/reliability is paramount.
Bingo.


I'll bet the majority of businesses would stay on WinXP practically forever if they could.
Well, as long as practicable, anyway. At least for many. One quick stat I just looked up indicates XP still had 39% of the market share as of Feb. 2013. Win7 has 44%.


They sure aren't going to risk 'upsetting the apple cart' every few months.
Of course not. Time is money, and operating system upgrades like that are very labour-intensive. (Especially with Linux, which generally does not handle OS upgrades at all well.)

As an Admin who uses one-or-another form of *nix on all his servers and all of his own desktops: This issue is one that stops me dead in my tracks, vis-a-vis campaigning for more wide-spread desktop usage in corporate environments. As a Server & Network Admin. I could never, in good conscience, recommend to a business that they replace an OS that has a 10+ year lifespan (e.g.: WinXP) with one that has, at best, a 3-year lifespan. Never mind a nine month lifespan?!?!

Jim

[forrestcupp]

Does anyone know if this rolling release concept only applies to Ubuntu or to all Canonical distros?

My primary requirement is stability. I have no desire to constantly negotiate with new and improved anything, just for the sake of change. For all change is not growth - see my signature.

One of the benefits (for me) of using Canonical distros has been the stability of LTSs. Since first installing 7.04 I've learned to test each release prior to install - assuring compatibility and have found generally that LTS releases improve in stability with age. As others have pointed out, upgrades/updates have consistently had issues and since my family uses the same distro as I, stability becomes critical. Assuming, I wish to have a life beyond computers. :wink:

Even if they switch to rolling release, they'll still have LTS releases that you can use for stability. I think you should be able to stick with the LTS in a non-rolling format. I hope so, at least.

The only problem I see is that if someone downloads the rolling release version of Ubuntu toward the end of the LTS cycle, they will have a lot of updates. Hopefully, they'll have regular snapshots for download to prevent that.

[craig10x]

Seems like the only ubuntu "rolling release" (though it will not officially be called that) will be ubuntu development...they are supposed to add some means (one developer mentioned something about maybe doing a symlink) so that you will be able to go from one development version to the next without any upgrading...the update manager will simply "point" to the new version when the updates for it begin...
It is supposed to start with 13.04 development but they are working out the details...hope they get it done in time before 13.04's final release :)

[andan]

Nobody is forcing them, but you are assuming the mass public of the world is far more compentent than they actually are. Most people will look to the media, Canonical, and other software and hardware companies for what to run. Of course they all will be sayin "Use Ubuntu 12.04, it the latest from Canonical!" It's only true as in terms of stable release. But the software will be outdated and the mass user who isn't fully aware of Linux and how it works will likely never get new sofware believing they have already have the current and latest.

I don't see how software in LTS is outdated, since kernel in upgrading regularity too, same as the apps included, not all software is bleeding edge but in USC u can rarely find newest software version no matter if LTS or not. I don't see logic in believing the current and latest software must be installed either, but everyone have his own opinion. As per me, LTS was a reason to switch. I didn't want hassle of adjusting my system every 6 months...

[Tamlynmac]

forrestcupp
I hope so, at least.

I hope so too. Assuming, it even applies to Xubuntu.

The response from craig10x seems to suggest it will only apply to "ubuntu development" versions.

[craig10x]

Yeah, that's the general impression i got both from the transcripts of the developer's decisions and also Mark Shuttleworth's input to them (and us) about how he thinks it would be best to go...

So, i believe that the only "rolling" will be development...though it will not be called that...they just want to make it easier for those that follow development to go from the current version to the next (without a need to upgrade)...but let's face it, since it is development it really is "rolling" all the time...;)

[kurt18947]

Well, as long as practicable, anyway. At least for many. One quick stat I just looked up indicates XP still had 39% of the market share as of Feb. 2013. Win7 has 44%.
........

Jim

I'd be surprised if the XP share isn't higher than that in the business/professional world. I've been to a few banks and several medical offices. They are ALL still on XP, not a Win7 desktop in sight, let alone Win8. We were in one bank manager's office, he had XP and 15-20 I.E. windows open.

[trixman]

as a total novice to linux. i am a user now for about 5 years. and i for one enjoy the LTS vesions.
I for one do not care for the latest release. i have heard others who have upgraded to newer versions and they had quite of few bugs.
i use ubuntu on 1 machine & linux mint on my dell inspiron enjoy both.

[cariboo]

as a total novice to linux. i am a user now for about 5 years. and i for one enjoy the LTS vesions.
I for one do not care for the latest release. i have heard others who have upgraded to newer versions and they had quite of few bugs.
i use ubuntu on 1 machine & linux mint on my dell inspiron enjoy both.

Finding bugs is why many of us upgrade to a development version, as soon as it is available.

[bcschmerker]

Even long-term-supported Releases of Ubuntu® must evolve with major changes to their software sources. I started with a third-party flavor of XUbuntu® 7.10 on an Everex® TC2502; the TC2502 is still active in rebuilt form, under successive LTS Releases: Previously 8.04.x and 10.04.x, i386 Editions; as of April 2013, 12.04.2, AMD64 Edition.

Each LTS Releases of Ubuntu® packs software not possible to run under earlier Releases (even with PPA backports); in installing an upgrade, I save /home from the prior install to a USB memory chip prior to reformatting and repartitioning for the new install.

[monkeybrain2012]

I'd be surprised if the XP share isn't higher than that in the business/professional world. I've been to a few banks and several medical offices. They are ALL still on XP, not a Win7 desktop in sight, let alone Win8. We were in one bank manager's office, he had XP and 15-20 I.E. windows open.


God forbids if I am running my computer like a bank, that soulless, mirthless and grey institution. :) If that is what you want and take pride of there is always CentOS. :)

[mendit]

Being a business user I can almost never get away with not using LTS. I need my Ubuntu OS to be stable. I can get away with using recent releases for personal computers but not for a business computer. I think it is all about what you look for in Ubuntu. If it is the latest software and new features then the newer releases are great, but if you just need your software to be stable all the time then LTS works great!

[Algus]

Forgive me for not reading this entire thread as what I am about to say has probably already been mentioned: There are many users that need stability in their lives. As a casual user who is primarily interested in basic word processing needs and media consumption, I found the six month upgrade cycle wearing. I got tired of having to fix bugs every six months and as a light Linux user, I wasn't particularly interested in tinkering.

Now I believe that the six month releases have their places and I am very thankful to the people who do like to tinker with their distro because it helps to make the long term releases that much more stable. Linux can and should be an OS that is accessible to the masses, not just computer science majors and hobbyists. The success of Android is proof that the Linux kernel has something to offer everyone. Whether Ubuntu is an OS that should maintain LTSes or not I cannot say. I know that I like them and would jump ship to Debian if they came to an end. It seems to me that the Linux community is plenty large enough for distros that focus on stability and are viable for business users and casual users and for distros that appeal to users who like to tinker and have all updates as soon as possible.

[kurt18947]

God forbids if I am running my computer like a bank, that soulless, mirthless and grey institution. :) If that is what you want and take pride of there is always CentOS. :)

Not for me, I'm running 13.04 w/gnome. My point is that every PC I've seen in use in a professional setting has been running XP, not 7 and certainly not 8. Unlike me and other hobbyist/bleeding-edgers, businesses and enterprises value proven reliability above almost anything else.

[forrestcupp]

So am I right that it kind of sounds like your only choices will be LTS or development? That's kind of scary.

[ibjsb4]

So am I right that it kind of sounds like your only choices will be LTS or development

Thought thats the way its always been :P

[craig10x]

Well, it will be LTS or development (which is supposed to roll into each new version without upgrading) or 6 months releases as always but with 9 months of support instead of 18 months as it has been up to now...

[lykwydchykyn]

Not for me, I'm running 13.04 w/gnome. My point is that every PC I've seen in use in a professional setting has been running XP, not 7 and certainly not 8. Unlike me and other hobbyist/bleeding-edgers, businesses and enterprises value proven reliability above almost anything else.

Fun little anecdote to add to this conversation:

A month or so ago I was asked to help advise on a project another IT dept in our organization was working on. They've got a 15-year-old in-house VB6+Access monstrosity that serves as a core application for about 3-4 departments; it utterly fails to run (and locks up the whole networked application) on Windows 7. Now that the tech staff have finally convinced mgmt that they can't run XP forever, they're faced with replacing it. Replacing it either means spending over half a million dollars (this is what a development shop quoted them) or spending an estimated 2+ years developing a new version in-house.

Guess who'll probably still be running XP in 2015?

[Tamlynmac]

monkeybrain2012
God forbids if I am running my computer like a bank, that soulless, mirthless and grey institution.

That institution much like other businesses is expected to make money. It's been my experience, that few businesses want computer instabilities or have any desire to be on the cutting edge. It can be extremely costly and non-productive.

As for personal users, I'm certain that there's a divide between those who prefer stability/consistency and those who enjoy the so-called cutting edge. I'd hate to think that either group would feel any need to choose an alternative. One can always petition their drive, use an separate HDD, etc. to tinker with alpha or beta releases, while still maintaining the stability of an LTS for daily use. As I indicated in my previous post, I do enjoy and wish to continue enjoying a life outside of PC's.

Just my $0.02

[forrestcupp]

Thought thats the way its always been :POk. By development, I was thinking of pre-release, like the next version's alpha and beta. That's a lot more like a rolling release than the current release is. So I was thinking that you're either stuck with an LTS or a constant alpha. That would be scary. With a lot of rolling releases, they have different branches, so you can have the latest software, but with a little more stability.


Well, it will be LTS or development (which is supposed to roll into each new version without upgrading) or 6 months releases as always but with 9 months of support instead of 18 months as it has been up to now...So basically the only difference will be that they are forcing you to upgrade if you're not sticking with LTS?

I'm probably out of the loop, but the way things used to work is that unless you were using Backports, after a release becomes final, the only software updates were security updates. They didn't just update to new versions of all of your software. That was the whole purpose of upgrading to newer releases. For it to resemble a rolling release, they'd have to change that if they haven't already. But like I said, I'm sure I'm out of the loop.

But now people use PPAs so much that it practically is a rolling release.

[craig10x]

To clarify, the 6 month versions have 9 months of support, so yeah, if you are not using LTS version, and you want to continue getting support, it kind of makes you want to either do a fresh install of the next version when it arrives, or else attempt an upgrade to it...

The development version will continue working exactly as it does now...the only difference is, that right now you have to actually UPGRADE to continue it in to the next development version....otherwise, your development version simply finalizes and you continue getting normal release updates...

The Change is this: You will have the option of continuing into the next development version automatically...the updater will simply point to the new development version and start bringing in updates for that...
I say "option" because i would imagine they would want you to be able to choose which way you want to go with a development release when the "final" date arrives...

So, i think it is something you will have to "activate" rather then just something they are going to add in to development by "default"...

[JSeymour]

Fun little anecdote to add to this conversation:

A month or so ago I was asked to help advise on a project another IT dept in our organization was working on. They've got a 15-year-old in-house VB6+Access monstrosity that serves as a core application for about 3-4 departments; ...
*snort* I have no sympathy for anybody who does anything that stupid.

Jim

[glln0v]

I was on a google+ page the other day and there was a huge feud of people saying that LTS should be done with and die, why would people feel this way. I have always ran LTS, I will occasionally upgrade to the interim release but a lot of problems in terms of packages like emapthy, Virtual Machine, and Steam stop working even if I do fresh installs with the up to date packages I never have good luck. So I pretty much stick with the LTS. I know Canonical has no plans of dropping the LTS which is good because I would have to jump to openSUSE being that is the only distribution I have had good luck with when it comes to the interim releases. I am just curious why I read on the web why so many people are against the LTS?

Everyone's got an opinion :0

I love LTS. It's all I run and when I install on other people's machines, I always give them LTS. My opinion is more of why have interim releases? So ultimately it's good that the reality is that there is a middle ground: both LTS and interim-releases exist. User can choose which release will best fulfill there needs. Not sure why humans seem to have such a strong desire to impose their preferences on the rest of mankind.

[lykwydchykyn]

*snort* I have no sympathy for anybody who does anything that stupid.

Jim

I don't think anyone *did it*, per se; it's more something that just happened. Someone had an access database, they shared it with someone else, a third person wanted this feature, etc, etc. 15 years of that and it's out of hand and out of support.

Maybe there was some point at which someone should have said, "hey, this is too big for the platform, we should get someone to build a real application"; but there probably wasn't time, budget, or expertise to ever do so.

I suspect these sorts of "organic" applications are rampant in businesses, which is why moving from older platforms becomes so difficult.

[monkeybrain2012]

Everyone's got an opinion :0

I love LTS. It's all I run and when I install on other people's machines, I always give them LTS. .

Me too. But the key word here is "other people's machines" because I don't want to be bothered for upgrading, I also don't enable many ppa's on "other people's machines" except for medibuntu and some multimedia stuffs which need to be kept up to date and software for which the repo version is broken. But on MY MACHINES I don't follow the same philosophy, I am at the moment using 12.04 but with a lot of software from ppas or compiled and running kernel 3.8.5 so it is effectively rolling, except for something like Unity and Compiz it is more up to date than Raring.

[CharlesA]

I don't think anyone *did it*, per se; it's more something that just happened. Someone had an access database, they shared it with someone else, a third person wanted this feature, etc, etc. 15 years of that and it's out of hand and out of support.

Maybe there was some point at which someone should have said, "hey, this is too big for the platform, we should get someone to build a real application"; but there probably wasn't time, budget, or expertise to ever do so.

I suspect these sorts of "organic" applications are rampant in businesses, which is why moving from older platforms becomes so difficult.

There are a couple applications like that at the place I work. One of the main reasons we still have a win2K box still.

Then again we finally upgraded from NT4 about two years ago soo.... :confused:

[ssulaco]

As long as software is supported and maintained it is not outdated.

Newer doesn't necessarily mean better.
Amen deadflowr........I dont use anything but LTS,Hoping down the road Lubuntu will be able to roll out an LTS or a Rolling Release.

[deadflowr]

Amen deadflowr........I dont use anything but LTS,Hoping down the road Lubuntu will be able to roll out an LTS or a Rolling Release.

The optimist in me hopes all the official flavors will have LTS when 14.04 comes.:)

[Lupi]

In my experience, LTS have been the most stable and the best releases I've ever used.

[kevdog]

Couple of opinions here. I've recently moved one of my computer to Arch which a true rolling release. The other home servers I have run Ubuntu. Again a lot of the threads have reiterated what your needs are -- do you need stability -- like running a server -- or do you need new software? I've actually found that using Arch is a lot more stable that I thought it would be, and in fact after using it for about 3-4 months -- I would never go back to a 6 month release cycle. Upgrading a computer or doing a complete reinstall every 6 months is a major major pain!!! -- hence the reason for LTS solutions. Just going with a rolling release seems to be much much easier than dealing with an upgrade every 6 months. Arch might or might not be the ideal rolling release cycle -- recently they upgraded pacman which caused me a little bit of a hiccup and lets just say their forums weren't exactly the most friendly when a lot of people asked the same question a few times -- Arch forums (which are serious, stiff, RTFM) are in no way Ubuntu forums (which are kind of warm and fuzzy). It's really fun running bleeding edge software however I could see applications where this wouldn't exactly be the most practical.

[craig10x]

kevdog....ubuntu development has become pretty darn stable...oh sure, there is an occasional minor breakage (which usually gets corrected pretty quickly) or can easily be fixed on your own...The quality control on ubuntu development's updates have become quite reliable...and they will be adding something that will make it possible to go from one development version to the next, automatically (without the need to upgrade to it)...it will simply point to the new version, as it were...

so, although ubuntu apparently will have no "official" rolling release...development has basically become one (and will be made even more so with the new transition method)...they have already voted to do this, just a matter of whether they will have the feature implemented before 13.04 goes final...in a way, it will kind of be ubuntu's "arch"...

i use to run Linux Mint's LMDE when it was pointed to debian testing (prior to them introducing "update packs" that were supposed to add more reliability)...i have had a FAR smoother ride in ubuntu 13.04 development then i had with LMDE...

[mikodo]

@kevdog I installed Manjaro distro yesterday. It is based on Arch, but with the novice/casual user in mind with helpful ideas to that end. See the link, for them. It looks promising, and will be fun to watch it develop. Even as bloated as it is compared to a lean Arch install, it blows away my Xubuntu 12.04 on the same hard-drive for speed. http://manjaro.org/ EDIT: I just booted into Manjaro. I know how to update: sudo pacman -Syy && sudo pacman -Su How do you install a package/app. ex. "sudo aptitude install xcalib" with pacman would be what? I'll ask here. Probably friendlier? ;p

[perrya]

I was on a google+ page the other day and there was a huge feud of people saying that LTS should be done with and die, why would people feel this way. I have always ran LTS, I will occasionally upgrade to the interim release but a lot of problems in terms of packages like emapthy, Virtual Machine, and Steam stop working even if I do fresh installs with the up to date packages I never have good luck. So I pretty much stick with the LTS. I know Canonical has no plans of dropping the LTS which is good because I would have to jump to openSUSE being that is the only distribution I have had good luck with when it comes to the interim releases. I am just curious why I read on the web why so many people are against the LTS?

As a general rule of thumb I ALWAYS go with a Linux distro that is AT LEAST a year old and the most PREVIOUS version.

Why?

Simple; it tends to have all the Kinks worked out.

Further, if Ubuntu say LTS (Long Term Support) means 5 years then I hope they keep to that and I think a company/community like Ubuntu will as it is good for it's reputation to have WORKING products.

The latest and greatest ALWAYS suffers from teething issues, especially when it comes to open source and Linux.

Perry

----
Perry Anderson
Unified Objects, Inc.

[hainen]

Couple of opinions here. I've recently moved one of my computer to Arch which a true rolling release. The other home servers I have run Ubuntu. Again a lot of the threads have reiterated what your needs are -- do you need stability -- like running a server -- or do you need new software? I've actually found that using Arch is a lot more stable that I thought it would be, and in fact after using it for about 3-4 months -- I would never go back to a 6 month release cycle. Upgrading a computer or doing a complete reinstall every 6 months is a major major pain!!! -- hence the reason for LTS solutions. Just going with a rolling release seems to be much much easier than dealing with an upgrade every 6 months. Arch might or might not be the ideal rolling release cycle -- recently they upgraded pacman which caused me a little bit of a hiccup and lets just say their forums weren't exactly the most friendly when a lot of people asked the same question a few times -- Arch forums (which are serious, stiff, RTFM) are in no way Ubuntu forums (which are kind of warm and fuzzy). It's really fun running bleeding edge software however I could see applications where this wouldn't exactly be the most practical.

I like the Arch forum. Their policy make it very easy to find stuff. The effect is I have never really needed to ask anything arch related on their forum. If its an updating related problem, probably the answer already is in one of the top threads. The rest is in their usually very updated wiki.
And it isn't that strict. If you search for a strict support forum try freebsd their forum is kinda extreme ;)

[kevdog]

@kevdog I installed Manjaro distro yesterday. It is based on Arch, but with the novice/casual user in mind with helpful ideas to that end. See the link, for them. It looks promising, and will be fun to watch it develop. Even as bloated as it is compared to a lean Arch install, it blows away my Xubuntu 12.04 on the same hard-drive for speed. http://manjaro.org/ EDIT: I just booted into Manjaro. I know how to update: sudo pacman -Syy && sudo pacman -Su How do you install a package/app. ex. "sudo aptitude install xcalib" with pacman would be what? I'll ask here. Probably friendlier? ;p

Well, sometimes the package names are going to be different in arch than ubuntu, so I first do a search for the package to make sure its in the repos:
sudo pacman -Ss xcalib

And let's say its in the repos, install it by:
sudo pacman -S xcalib

Thats pretty simple.

I usually use packer as a front end to pacman and the aur, but that's just my personal preference -- some use yaourt which is more full featured.

Manjaro linux -- yes a mighty nice distro. Hopefully it catches some legs. Reminds me kind of what ubuntu used to be.

[mikodo]

Well, sometimes the package names are going to be different in arch than ubuntu, so I first do a search for the package to make sure its in the repos: sudo pacman -Ss xcalib And let's say its in the repos, install it by: sudo pacman -S xcalib Thats pretty simple. I usually use packer as a front end to pacman and the aur, but that's just my personal preference -- some use yaourt which is more full featured. Manjaro linux -- yes a mighty nice distro. Hopefully it catches some legs. Reminds me kind of what ubuntu used to be. Thanks. It seems xcalib is not in the repos. I couldn't install it either. Thanks for the commands. I'll use it for other packages. I guess I will have to learn to compile for this distro. My best. ;p

[kevdog]

Thanks. It seems xcalib is not in the repos. I couldn't install it either. Thanks for the commands. I'll use it for other packages. I guess I will have to learn to compile for this distro. My best. ;p

No -- its in the AUR:

packer -Ss xcalib
aur/xcalib 0.8-4 (196)
A tiny monitor calibration loader for X.org

Either install yaourt or packer (both which can access the AUR), and install it. The nomenclature for yaourt or packer is the same. A lot of people don't like the AUR, but for the most part in works for me!!!

[forrestcupp]

As a general rule of thumb I ALWAYS go with a Linux distro that is AT LEAST a year old and the most PREVIOUS version.

Why?

Simple; it tends to have all the Kinks worked out.
I'd say that sticking with LTS is going to be a lot more stable than the most previous version. They usually use the "in between" releases to try out new stuff, and the LTS versions for stability, rather than trying out new things. For that reason, I think even a new LTS would be safer than the most previous non-LTS version, even at the end of its current run.

[mikodo]

No -- its in the AUR:

packer -Ss xcalib
aur/xcalib 0.8-4 (196)
A tiny monitor calibration loader for X.org

Either install yaourt or packer (both which can access the AUR), and install it. The nomenclature for yaourt or packer is the same. A lot of people don't like the AUR, but for the most part in works for me!!!


yaourt -S xcalib

That worked.

I asked on manjaro forums, and now I see you have told me too.


Thanks.

;p

[Porcini M.]

For the really conservative types who only use LTS as is (no ppa or other new "additives" that may carry even an infinitesimal chance of instability) and are happy to be frozen in time for 3-5 years (like people who are still on Lucid) I can't understand why they don't simply switch to Debian, which seems a lot more suit to their use cases.

Doesn't security updates for debian stable end once the next stable is released (after about 2 years)? LTS offers 5 years of support

[lykwydchykyn]

Doesn't security updates for debian stable end once the next stable is released (after about 2 years)? LTS offers 5 years of support

They end one year after the new release, so you have ~3+ years. If wheezy goes stable in May, Squeeze will have a total of 3 years and 3 months of support. Keep in mind squeeze was frozen and in "bugfix only" mode for almost a year before release, so it's a bit different situation than Ubuntu LTS.