Why upgrade every 6 months?

[BravoDelta65]

If Linux is your primary daily workhorse, do you upgrade your Linux O/S with every 6 month cycle?

I'm always tempted because of the shiny new bells and whistles, and look at LTS's as "pah, that's old hat", but it's a chore to re-install all the software and setting up my LAMP stack. I know peeps will say, don't upgrade so often then, which is blo*dy obvious.

I'm just curious to find out how often other peeps upgrade, if they use Linux on a daily basis.

[Irihapeti]

Ubuntu is my main OS and I've stuck to LTS for the last five years. I do test other versions, but they're not my main system.

[Bucky Ball]

Ubuntu is my main OS and I've stuck to LTS for the last five years. I do test other versions, but they're not my main system.

+1. LTS for me. I have a couple of spare partitions for playthings if and when they take my fancy. About to install another 12.04 LTS to fiddle about with Virtualbox and a 13.04 because it has the drivers in the kernel for an external audio interface I have.

I essentially just need a rock solid, stable workhorse that I don't need/want to fiddle with for study/work/everyday.

[grahammechanical]

I have 12.04 as a fall back OS for when the development branch breaks (and down will come baby cradle and all). Before that I upgraded every six months since 2007. I recently put in another hard disk that is going to be my primary disk and I now have 13.04 as my standby OS even though I will have to upgrade it twice in the next year. Then 14.04 will be my standby OS. I have other installs of Precise, Quantal, Raring and Saucy.

Regards.

[BrokenKingpin]

On my Media Server I usually stick to the LTS versions (but have upgraded earlier for specific features I really want). On my workstations I usually upgrade through the releases... but usually takes me a few months to get around to it after release.

For me the 6 month release cycle is too short. I think they should move to a semi-rolling release model... they won't though.

[|{urse]

I hang back with LTS, less surprises.

[kurt18947]

I have 12.04 as a fall back OS for when the development branch breaks (and down will come baby cradle and all). Before that I upgraded every six months since 2007. I recently put in another hard disk that is going to be my primary disk and I now have 13.04 as my standby OS even though I will have to upgrade it twice in the next year. Then 14.04 will be my standby OS. I have other installs of Precise, Quantal, Raring and Saucy.

Regards.

I do the same. 13.04 is working very well for me but I have a 12.04 install for 'just in case'. I keep current backups of critical data files on an external device - or two. Reinstalling *buntu is trivial compared to Windows IMO if required.

[Cammy]

I usually only upgrade if the release I'm running on is getting old (like 2-ish years) or there's something annoying about it that I hope the next release will fix.

That said. I'll be sticking with 12.10 for a while. I had no end to problems with 13.04, so I'll be staying put until some time into the 14s.

[mreq]

I started using Ubuntu when 12.04 was still fresh. I'll always (at least try with clonezilla back up made) upgrade, found out that I can clean install Ubuntu and setup everything (and that's a lot - nginx, various dbs, a lot of sw) in around 1.5 hours, which is worth it.

Had bad luck with 12.10, but am fully satisfied with 13.04, which runs much better than 12.04 on my notebook.

[jnguyen]

I always keep the LTS on Desktop and only upgrade the laptop for the bells & whistles.

jn

[mamamia88]

Arch update it once or twice a day

[lykwydchykyn]

Typically, yes. There are always bugs and changes to deal with, but I'd rather do that and get it over with than be sitting around when support ends with no options.

[monkeybrain2012]

If Linux is your primary daily workhorse, do you upgrade your Linux O/S with every 6 month cycle?

I'm always tempted because of the shiny new bells and whistles, and look at LTS's as "pah, that's old hat", but it's a chore to re-install all the software and setting up my LAMP stack. I know peeps will say, don't upgrade so often then, which is blo*dy obvious.

I'm just curious to find out how often other peeps upgrade, if they use Linux on a daily basis.

You can even stick to LTS and get most of the "new and shiny" with ppas, best of all worlds. :) The vast ppa ecology and the flexibility to upgrade sofware is one of the reasons that I prefer Ubuntu over Debian.

[prusswan]

Typically, yes. There are always bugs and changes to deal with, but I'd rather do that and get it over with than be sitting around when support ends with no options.

Quite the contrary, LTS releases tend to have the most comprehensive community support, especially for critical issues like driver support. For the minor issues that are unresolved in LTS, they will hardly be addressed by regular releases which tend to be used as an avenue to "push" new features than to fix problems in the last release, except in the rare circumstance when the latest kernel happens to be only one that works with your ultra-new wifi adapter.

[stalkingwolf]

I usually stay with LTS releases. My biggest issue now is non pae. most of my computers are considered old. P4 old.They all still do all i need well. i have a couple that are nonpae so i try to stick with that type release.

[mikodo]

LTS and Debian Stable as main. I usually play with atleast 5 other partition installs and often VB .vdi's of newer and other distros. If I ever reach retirement, and still have a few marbles left rolling around in my head, I want to test Xubuntu next seriously, with native installs.

Oh, and backports and PPA's for newer stuff I need/like.

;p

[sudodus]

+1. LTS for me. I have a couple of spare partitions for playthings if and when they take my fancy. About to install another 12.04 LTS to fiddle about with Virtualbox and a 13.04 because it has the drivers in the kernel for an external audio interface I have.

I essentially just need a rock solid, stable workhorse that I don't need/want to fiddle with for study/work/everyday.
+1

[landersohn]

I use my laptop with 12.04.2 for work and can't afford for it to break. Not only do I not upgrade the distro, I usually don't even do updates unless something makes me, for example new hardware. LTS or no LTS I stick always with the version that does what I need, if it ain't broke I don't fix it. Especially lately I have not had a single upgrade of the distro or individual updates that didn't break something that used to work. Never had a problem with 8.04 through 10.04, since then reliability went downhill, not to mention getting the unwanted Unity shoved down my throat.

[shoushikochou]

i did with my old dell tower then i stop using it when i stop getting internet also it got slow like a slug. :[

[Erik1984]

Why? For me 6 month is a good trade-off between stability and new features/softeware versions. It has been tested by the +1 daredevils ;) so there is some stability and you get free upgrades of all your software packages (granted they are part of the repos)... Great!

[QIII]

not to mention getting the unwanted Unity shoved down my throat.

You could have asked the waiter for a different flavor. Substitutions are allowed on the menu.

;)

[thehemi]

If Linux is your primary daily workhorse, do you upgrade your Linux O/S with every 6 month cycle?

If your 'work' is important, stick to LTS. If your 'work' can wait when you have problems, upgrade every 6 months.

[Bucky Ball]

If your 'work' is important, stick to LTS. If your 'work' can wait when you have problems, upgrade every 6 months.

+++1. Never a truer word said. Well, there probably was but about this, not. ;)

[Handssolow]

I've stopped, 3 desktops and one old laptop here now all run Ubuntu 12.04 LTS with gnome-session-fallback, I don’t like Unity but then I'm old and set in my ways, but haven't Windows 8 users complained enough for Msoft to be bringing back the start menu?

If gnome session fallback isn't available in the next LTS I'll be looking elsewhere than using Ubuntu.

[monkeybrain2012]

If your 'work' is important, stick to LTS. If your 'work' can wait when you have problems, upgrade every 6 months.

There are less extreme approaches. You can upgrade (actually I recommend clean install) but you don't have to upgrade right the way. People get into problems not because they upgrade, but because they do so right the way without testing and researching first. If your work is really important, it wouldn't hurt to test a new version in an external drive or a test partition to make sure that everything works before you migrate your stuffs. On the other hand it is overly cautious to say only use LTS. After about two years 10.04 was so outdated that it is not funny.

[DJWYMAN]

I have been debating this my self for my personal computing needs. Just this week is the first time I have been using a linux distro as my main OS and at this time it is 13.04 but what I am wondering is when I go to upgrade what is a good way of going about it with out having to start from scratch with say my apps and repos...is there even a way to back up a list of that stuff so I don't have to try to remember were I got all these things from? I mean personal files are eassy you can just copy your home folder and be done with that it is everything else that bothers me. Before all I did was dual boot to windows or osx(or triple boot depending on the system I was using) and only really played with linux distros for fun. Now I have gotten to the point on my current machine that I want it to be my main OS and I like playing with the new shinny but how do I upgrade to the new shinny without having to add my apps again each time? So maybe I should go to LTS instead.

[craig10x]

Upgrading should carry everything over...it's really just a matter of whether the upgrade goes well...

[DJWYMAN]

Upgrading should carry everything over...it's really just a matter of whether the upgrade goes well...

but see a lot of people on here recommend fresh installs so i have never even tried a upgrade threw the updates before.

[monkeybrain2012]

I have been debating this my self for my personal computing needs. Just this week is the first time I have been using a linux distro as my main OS and at this time it is 13.04 but what I am wondering is when I go to upgrade what is a good way of going about it with out having to start from scratch with say my apps and repos...is there even a way to back up a list of that stuff so I don't have to try to remember were I got all these things from? I mean personal files are eassy you can just copy your home folder and be done with that it is everything else that bothers me. Before all I did was dual boot to windows or osx(or triple boot depending on the system I was using) and only really played with linux distros for fun. Now I have gotten to the point on my current machine that I want it to be my main OS and I like playing with the new shinny but how do I upgrade to the new shinny without having to add my apps again each time? So maybe I should go to LTS instead.

http://askubuntu.com/questions/9135/best-way-to-backup-all-settings-list-of-installed-packages-tweaks-etc

Just make sure that you need to edit the sources list to point to the new release (for example, if make a clean install of 13.04 and want to import the sources list of 12.04, change all occurrences of "precise" to "raring" etc.

[malspa]

If Linux is your primary daily workhorse, do you upgrade your Linux O/S with every 6 month cycle?

I'm always tempted because of the shiny new bells and whistles, and look at LTS's as "pah, that's old hat", but it's a chore to re-install all the software and setting up my LAMP stack. I know peeps will say, don't upgrade so often then, which is blo*dy obvious.

I'm just curious to find out how often other peeps upgrade, if they use Linux on a daily basis.

I use various distros, but with Ubuntu I stick with LTS releases.

[monkeybrain2012]

If your 'work' is important, stick to LTS. If your 'work' can wait when you have problems, upgrade every 6 months.

In addition to testing before upgrade (I mean new install, upgrade as in upgrading with the upgrade manager cannot be tested, if you blotched the upgrade you are screwed or you have to restore the old version if you have remembered to make an image) Another possibility is to keep a small partition for the LTS with your important work and disable all unnecessary updates, and use another partition for the latest and greatest and you can upgrade as much as you want. Unlike Windows where each copy of the OS costs you a new license, with Linux the possibilities are endless, there are so many ways you can have your cake and eat it too. There is no reason why you have to either play lottery with your productive system or put up with stale, outdated software.

[malspa]

Another possibility is to keep a small partition for the LTS with your important work and disable all unnecessary updates, and use another partition for the latest and greatest and you can upgrade as much as you want. Unlike Windows where each copy of the OS costs you a new license, with Linux the possibilities are endless, there are so many ways you can have your cake and eat it too. There is no reason why you have to either play lottery with your productive system or put up with stale, outdated software.

And another possibility: Run LTS (or Debian Stable or whatever) and have some other more cutting-edge distro (not a non-LTS Ubuntu release) also installed. That's what I do. Yeah, with Linux the possibilities are endless.