How many will stick with LTS releases without upgrading?

[jsmidt]

Hardy, Ubuntu 8.04 LTS, will be stable Ubuntu release that will be supported for several years. It will be a very stable Ubuntu release and you can wait for the next LTS before you upgrade if you want. It will probably will supported by commercial entities as well.

With all that said, how many will stick with Hardy until the next LTS release in two years and how many will upgrade when Hardy+1 is released.

The real purpose of the thread is to give the community and especially the devs some idea of what to expect based off of some numbers. Thanks.

[p_quarles]

Other. I'll always use a bleeding-edge release on my desktop and latop, but my server will run Debian Stable.

[GopherGirl]

This is an important question that I hope gets feedback. I am new to Ubuntu and have a laptop I use for school. I was thinking of staying with the Long Term supported version since I thought being new I need something stable. However, would it be better for a new person to upgrade?

Does anyone know good pros and cons for upgrading or not if you have a laptop? I would like to hear what you guys have to say before I decide. :KS

[FuturePilot]

As soon as Hardy +1 is out, I'm upgrading. IMO LTS on an average desktop doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I can definitely see the place for LTS on a server, but for your average Ubuntu user they will probably want the latest and the greatest. And with the speed that open source moves, LTS gets old pretty quick. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with LTS, it has it's place, but for desktop use cutting edge would seem to make more sense. There are exceptions though.
Just my $.02

[OoooMatron]

Other. I'll always use a bleeding-edge release on my desktop and latop, but my server will run Debian Stable.

Hehe, I second that!

Etch for servers and the latest stable cutting edge Ubuntu does me just fine.

[perlluver]

I thought Hardy was going to be a LTS release?

[Scruffynerf]

Considering my history with Ubuntu, I'll wait for a while, then do an clean install of Hardy.

My experience:
Edgy = Fail
Edgy Modified (Ubuntu Ultimate as it was then known) = Win
Feisty = Win
Gutsy = Fail.
Hardy = ??

[scizzo]

I like testing the unstable releases however I have not yet put my mind into using the VmWare or images to be used on the actual stable system just yet. In the future I will use that instead though.

[Luffield]

It's a bit too early to tell, but I think I'll tend to stick with Hardy. Frankly, Gutsy works so well on my machine that I don't even feel a real need to upgrade it to Hardy. I will do it, of course -- I think the new scheduler in the kernel and Firefox 3 alone would probably be worth it -- but I really hope that Hardy will be so good that I'll be reluctant to upgrade to Hardy+1. However, we still don't know anything about the new features that Hardy+1 will include, so it could be tempting...
I have to say that after Dapper, Edgy was a real disappointment. We were warned that it could be the case, but still, I didn't think it would be that bad.

[koleoptero]

Since my laptop is currently 2yrs old and won';t get any younger, plus I won't be upgrading for another 2 years at least, I think I'l stick with hardy cause, if I'm to judge from the difference between feisty-gutsy, hardy will be heavy enough and the next one probably too heavy for me to experience in the maximum. So it's LTS for me :)

[ahaslam]

I'll certainly only ever recommend the LTS versions, I've been quite disappointed with the last few releases. Saying that, Breezy Badger was my favorite release to date. I hope Hardy changes this ;)

[Bungo Pony]

I'll be staying with Hardy. I personally find it a bit of a pain to get everything set up the way I like it, and then the new version comes out and I have to start all over again. Gutsy was a pain for me as well, but it seems to be getting better. That error I got everytime I booted is now gone.

I'd rather have time to enjoy my setup rather than spend time setting it up.

Right now, my biggest debate is whether to install Hardy 32 or 64 bit.

[Phosphoric]

Gutsy didn't work for me, maybe I went for it too soon. Currently back on Feisty.

I shall wait for Hardy but maybe give it a couple of months to mature before upgrading, then stick with that for the foreseeable future.

[NJC]

I voted for All my machines will not upgrade but stay with LTS releases.

But it's a Catch-22. I ABSOLUTELY value stability as #1 priority and my first Linux initiation was Ubuntu 6.10 LTS ... but I upgraded to Gutsy because there were many improvements.

Assuming that I have minor issues with Hardy, I'll stick with it ... maybe. :roll: :mrgreen:

[GopherGirl]

What is best to do if you have a laptop, upgrade or stick with the stable version?

[bufsabre666]

i dont own a server so i always use the most uptodate model

[Depressed Man]

Latest ones (sometimes I even help test) for both my laptop and desktop. Well maybe laptop first then desktop. It also helps me clean out most of the junk I installed and don't use anymore.

[AusIV4]

I have two systems.

The first is a MythTV frontend / backend / file server. I had a stable dapper system for a long time, so I kept it with Dapper. Eventually I got fed up with something (don't really remember what now), so I upgraded it to Feisty. I'm retiring it this weekend in favor of a system with faster hardware and more storage capacity, and unless I have problems, I'll put Gutsy on it. It will stay Gutsy until there's a compelling reason to upgrade. A compelling reason could be a MythTV update that is only available for the latest release, or Canonical dropping Gutsy support. I may upgrade to Hardy, but my general rule is not to upgrade without a compelling reason.

My laptop is a little different. On my laptop, I keep three partitions (aside from swap). I have my home file system, so I can make significant changes to the root system without effecting my data. Then I have two root partitions, an experimental and a stable. When a new release comes out, I put the new release on the experimental partition. If I run into problems, I go back to my stable partition until the kinks get worked out. I typically like to have my laptop up to date within a month of the release. I have a System76, so any hardware problems that might be created by changes in Ubuntu are generally addressed for me within a few days.

I also do daily rdiff-backups of the non-multimedia files of both systems. That way if config files ever get messed up, I can easily fix stuff.

[smartboyathome]

I will probably upgrade to 8.10, but not for a few weeks after the release due to Edgy's incident. Only time will tell if I am still with Ubuntu though. ;)

[argie]

Dapper was good, I used it until Feisty came out and it was solid even though the version I had was an aptitude dist-upgrade from Breezy. It was much lighter than later versions. I should've just stuck with it.

I will upgrade when I get the chance, I was highly satisfied with Feisty, but not so much with Gutsy. However, I switched to 64-bit when on Gutsy so that may be the problems.

[Incense]

I still have a dapper install running strong, and if 8.04 is as good as Dapper is, then yeah I'd stick with it for the long haul. I do like the feature lists when a new release comes out, but seeing all the problems people have just doesn't make me want to touch an install that is working great.

[Incense]

Dapper was good, I used it until Feisty came out and it was solid even though the version I had was an aptitude dist-upgrade from Breezy. It was much lighter than later versions. I should've just stuck with it..

That is one thing that concerns me about the next LTS release. Dapper runs very well on a 256mb machine. Gutsy is slow as anything, and won't even install from the live disc on the same machine. I hope they can tame down 8.04 a bit, although somehow I doubt they will.

[aaaantoine]

I will continue upgrading to the latest non-beta version until my laptop's hardware is fully functional in Linux.

I doubt 8.04 will fully support all my hardware, but then again, 7.10 provides better hardware support [on the Acer Aspire 5050] than 7.04.

[izanbardprince]

I'm getting tired of all the 6 month releases, and dist upgrading almost always breaks something, so I believe I'll upgrade to Hardy and stay with it til the next LTS.

[jpittack]

After trying Hardy, and as a Dell 1501 user, using Hardy is an excellent upgrade. Backlight control with latest BlOS, support for wireless card when restricted modules is stable (works in Gutsy), no_hz for 64 bit, FF3 works very nice thus far. Battery life is up another ten minutes, without me changing much.

Personally, I am going to have a super stable Hardy, with a kernel I might end up comipling myself to improve battery life further. But on the same computer I will run the latest, alpha, beta, rc or stable release. Once a newer one tops it, probably in terms of battery life, as I will keep up with other releases, then I might switch.

[jrusso2]

I will probably upgrade to Hardy but then in six months will upgrade again. LTS releases don't provide upgrades just security fixes and software gets way outdated.

[jsmidt]

[QUOTE=GopherGirl;4145374 I would like to hear what you guys have to say before I decide. :KS[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I should have put a poll entry for those undecided. Sorry.

[bruce89]

I find it funny how people commonly prefer LTSes, but then go on to moan about how old the software in them is. That's kind of the point in LTS releases.

I don't really know why Ubuntu is trying to go for the sever market, surely that's Debiian's ground?

[p_quarles]

I don't really know why Ubuntu is trying to go for the sever market, surely that's Debiian's ground?
Very true. Server software doesn't get much better than Debian or Red Hat/CentOS. At the same time, I don't think Debian offers any commercial support (please correct me if I'm wrong), so Ubuntu SE definitely has a niche if it can provide that.

[jrusso2]

I find it funny how people commonly prefer LTSes, but then go on to moan about how old the software in them is. That's kind of the point in LTS releases.

I don't really know why Ubuntu is trying to go for the sever market, surely that's Debiian's ground?

Well what happens when things like Firefox 1.5 goes end of life. They should give a version upgrade in that case but they didn't.

[jsmidt]

I don't really know why Ubuntu is trying to go for the sever market, surely that's Debiian's ground?

I think Canonical can take the Ubuntu Server further into the Commercial sector than Debian can.

The commercial sector needs support and services and the ability to work out business deals. This area Canonical can progress in but I think Debian will never be fully part of.

*** I'm not downing one Debian or Ubuntu, I'm just pointing out there is a very financially based commercial sector for the server market and Debian can't be as involved here are Canonical can***

[Incense]

Well what happens when things like Firefox 1.5 goes end of life. They should give a version upgrade in that case but they didn't.

From what I understand about the LTS model, the company will still provide security updates for the entire duration of the LTS. So even if Mozilla EOL's firefox 1.5, Ubuntu would still need to provide security updates until the LTS expires. Sending an update as big as firefox 2 or even 3 down could brake a current setup, so they would not do that.

[DrMega]

For me it depends. I have two machines, my media centre, which has to be stable, and my machine, which I can rebuild as and when I see fit. My upgrade procedure goes like this:

1. Run the LiveCD version on my machine, and if I like it...
2. Install it on my machine, and use it for a while. If I still like it...
3. Install it on my media center.
4. Regret installing it on my media center as I always have trouble with it, mess about for hours making stuff work, curse a lot, swear I'm never going to upgrade it again, then of course forget about all the problems I had with the upgrade by the time the next version comes along, whereupon, we go back to step 1.:)

[Lster]

I'll upgrade all my computers (two laptops, one desktop) to the latest, constantly...

"I will not rest; I will not sleep; I will download the latest as soon as possible..." ;)

[macogw]

All of my Ubuntu machines will be upgraded to Hardy+1 ASAP. In the case of my mom's computer, that means the first time I touch it after release. In the case of my laptop, that means somewhere around the 2nd-to-last alpha.

The Debian box and the Windows box wouldn't be upgraded to Hardy+1 :P

[GopherGirl]

Yeah, I should have put a poll entry for those undecided. Sorry.


I think Canonical can take the Ubuntu Server further into the Commercial sector than Debian can.


How does this answer my question about what is best for laptops? I am so confused.

Can anyone help? Please?

[Darkhack]

It depends. I will definitely not stick with the LTS for the full two years because the software would get quickly outdated. I don't know whether I will upgrade to 8.10 because that all depends on what new features it has and what goodies I'm interested in having.

Here is what I do when deciding to upgrade or not. I have two partitions. One acts is "stable" and the other "unstable". I just switch back and forth when a new release comes out. For example, I have Feisty on hda1, and then when Gutsy came out, I put it on hda2 so that I could test it and make sure all my hardware works. At this moment that's the setup I still have. My unstable (hda2) partition has become stable overtime now that I've confirmed Gutsy to be good enough and when Hardy comes out, I'll install it on hda1 (overwriting Feisty) and it becomes unstable until I can determine if it is good enough. So basically I just have two partitions and I install the newest release over the older of the two.

I never upgrade unless I have a reason to, but the free software community is so amazing and fast moving that there is almost always something I want in just these short six months. I'll be upgrading to Hardy because of AIGLX support in the new proprietary fglrx driver and because of Firefox 3. I know that I can install both of these applications separately, but I would much rather have them installed through the official repo where I know I can get support and security patches.

[GopherGirl]

Okay, maybe there isn't a best option for laptops.

What should a new user do? What option is best for someone new to Ubuntu?

[Zero Prime]

This all depends. I know I'm going to upgrade from Gutsy. I hoping that a lot of issues with Gutsy will be addressed, such as how freaking slow it is. If hardy is good enough I will stick with it, unless the new releases have features that I really, really like.

[roachk71]

As I've advised users in other posts, I believe it is best to stick with LTS releases, upgrading to the next LTS a few months after release.

I'm using Dapper, at least until June or July, so that the majority of showstoppers are fixed in Hardy. It's been my experience that the interim, technology-preview releases have too many problems.

[Sporkman]

(nevermind - started a new thread...)

[p_quarles]

(nevermind - started a new thread...)
It's not "better", it's just better for some things. Etch's main edge over an Ubuntu Server Edition is the amount of testing that goes into every package. For a server that requires long, uninterrupted uptime, little maintenance, and timely security patches, it's a great choice. After a while, it will also have newer packages than the last Ubuntu LTS.

Debian's development cycle works like this: you have three distros (Stable, Testing and Unstable), each of which is a rolling release.
New source packages are introduced into Unstable, where they are tested, debugged, and integrated into Debian's schema. Once they're "beta", they're introduced into Testing -- many people use the Testing distro as their primary installation, meaning that this greatly increases the amount of feedback available, and the number of different uses and situations to which the package can be subjected. Only after the package is rigorously fine tuned will it be introduced into the Stable repos.

An Ubuntu release, on the other hand, is a snapshot of packages in the Testing and Unstable repos, which is then fine-tuned into a stable distro over the next six month cycle.

Debian's approach is hardly bulletproof, though: Etch did receive the broken X server package that everyone was having trouble with the other day. Not a big deal for most servers, though.

[Sporkman]

Thanks for the explanation.

Question: Are general bug fixes included in Ubuntu security updates, or are the fixes just for bugs relating to security?

[jsmidt]

Question: Are general bug fixes included in Ubuntu security updates, or are the fixes just for bugs relating to security?

Here is the official policy: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates

I would guess that they will continue to fix any major, non-security bugs.

[roachk71]

Update 2008-01-26:

Well, it would seem I've been forced back to Gutsy. No matter what I tried, DVD burning was simply unreliable, and fsck kept reporting and correcting errors during the regular filesystem checks. Apparently, Dapper's SATA support isn't all that good.

So, it's back to 32-bit Gutsy for the time being, using JFS instead of ext3 or XFS. So far, this has worked quite well.

A bonus from the switch: The audio in Gens is now synchronous with the video! :guitar:

I'm still thinking about staying with 8.04 from a few months after release, until the next LTS is released...