How do you respond to new releases?

[GOfree]

I am curious to see how people typically respond to new releases.

The poll kind of combines a few variables in one question. Do you typically adopt the newest release--how quickly, and with what motivations or feelings about it? If you tend to stick with a previous release, why?

It would also be good to know how many release cycles you have been through.

(Sorry, I meant to include a poll here, but screwed up.)

Here is a rough poll:

How do you you respond to new releases?

1) Bleeding Edge: Adopt new releases in beta versions, before they are officially out.

2) Cutting Edge: Eagerly await new releases and adopt them as soon as they are out--confident about the upgrade process and not afraid of dealing with possible hiccups.

3) Cautious: Will adopt new releases, but with caution--reading reviews, trying live cd, and carefully backing-up system, in case you don't like the new release or something goes wrong.

4) Grudingly: Will adopt new releases, as something that must be done, but with a sense of resistance to the upgrade process and attendent difficulties.

5) Curious: Although interested in trying the new release, will stay with a previous release out of lack of confidence about the upgrade process or apprehension about possible disruption.

6) Content: Tending to stay with tried-and-true previous releases, upgrading only when necessary or of clear benefit.

[steveneddy]

Why two threads?

[Sef]

moved to community cafe.

[GOfree]

I apologize for double posting--had trouble with the poll and getting timed out.

[kko1]

Perfect 10. That is, 4 + 6.

I stayed with Dapper (LTS, i.e. Long Term Support) and only upgraded to Hardy (another LTS release). And got trouble.

The upgrade itself went by pretty painlessly (kudos to the developers for that), but it left a few bugs / misfeatures that I now have to suffer from.

I'd like things to "just work" (TM), but on the other hand I like to try new versions every once in a while, in the hope that a new version of program X does something better than the previous ones. I have yet to experience dramatic improvements though. ;)

In other words, I'm not too keen on setting up multiple releases for testing the newest Beta versions of things, but I'd still like to be able to contribute by giving meaningful bug reporting information on reasonably new versions, so deciding on whether to upgrade is always a compromise between these two.

[Corfy]

I guess I'm a 1.5.

The last two or three releases, I downloaded a few days before they were officially released, so it was late in the release candidate stage (with 8.04, I think it was the Sunday before the Thursday release). I basically do this to avoid the rush once it is officially released.

[scragar]

yeah, 1.5 or so here, I tend to download the beta about a month before it comes out and dualboot for a while, experiment with the changes, make sure it'll work with my hardware etc, then make the full switch on release, until release I keep my old install on though, so I can't be sure if I should say 1 or 2...

[Jordanwb]

I always want the latest stable version of software. If the stable still has a particular bug and a beta fixes it, I'll use that.

[cardinals_fan]

I wait until the .1 maintenance release, then grudgingly upgrade.

[Can+~]

Depends. I'm usually careful, I wait for a long period until I know bugs have been cleared, problems have been solved and documented.

Other times, when I was on Windows xp, I went for "Screw all" and installed Ubuntu Feisty when it came out.

[dizee]

2.5 -ish, quick adopter but like to backup first just in case.

[smartboyathome]

.5 I usually upgrade during the later alpha releases and use it from there on.

[damis648]

I guess I fall between 1 and 2. I usually download the official release, but I do not wait for the official announcement. I check up on the http://cdimage.ubuntu.com/ about twice a day for a week before the release date, because doing this I can get the final release before the swarm. :popcorn:

[adamogardner]

I act aloof, as if I didn't care. I silently observe, and prepare to nonchalantly make my change over if required by my good fashion sense. I don't tell anyone. let them bring up theirs first before I bust out mine like I had it all along.

[sicofante]

3~4. Since my Gutsy and Hardy experiences, my release cycle will be shifted two months, meaning I'll wait at least 60 days after release to even try a LiveCD of the new version.

[vayu]

I started with Hoary. I used to wait until about two weeks before a new release to upgrade and then would update every other day until about a week after release. Then I started to just wait until about a week after a new release. Once I installed Dapper I've stopped upgrading. I'm still running Dapper. I want to upgrade now but 1) I don't have a lot of time to even install it, 2) I'm scared that I'll have problems and that it'll be time consuming and frustrating to work them out and also just to get everything set up the way I like. 3) I'm afraid of some of the comments I've seen about KDE 4 and I love my KDE 3.5 setup.

I hand it to Dapper. It took me a while to get everything set up, like Samba, WiFi, multimedia, Flash 9, MySQL/PHP/Apache, Beryl, editor settings and countless other neccessities but since then I've totally stopped tinkering, I've stopped coming to the forums and I've just used it. I use it every day as my main OS. I don't remember but I think it's been a couple years now of trouble free, maintenence free usage.

[hellion0]

I'd probably be classified as cautious. I have three machines that run Ubuntu in total. Although all three have drastically different hardware, I can still learn something by upgrading one a few days after launch. I then watch and wait while learning from my experience with the upgraded machine. (Is there a change in speed? Did something get removed or break?)

Usually, about a month after rollout, the other machines see upgrades.

[kko1]

Once I installed Dapper I've stopped upgrading. I'm still running Dapper. I hand it to Dapper. It took me a while to ... set up ... but since then I've totally stopped tinkering, I've stopped coming to the forums and I've just used it. I think it's been a couple years now of trouble free, maintenence free usage.

My experience with Dapper was the same.


I want to upgrade now but 1) I don't have a lot of time to even install it, 2) I'm scared that I'll have problems and that it'll be time consuming and frustrating to work them out and also just to get everything set up the way I like. 3) I'm afraid of some of the comments I've seen about KDE 4 and I love my KDE 3.5 setup.

Just one point. You can keep KDE 3.5. with your personalized setup, and it has been upgraded to the latest version in Hardy. I did have some trouble with the new Amarok though, plus some non-KDE troubles. (It isn't yet Amarok 2.0, which is being rewritten "parallel" to the KDE 4.0 effort.)

Anyhow, I now consider that Dapper still has a full year of LTS support left, and I might equally well have enjoyed it until next year, and only then upgraded. Dapper was for me a very solid release to compare anything with.

(/me suspects either Intrepid or Jocular may end up better quality releases than Hardy at release time. Of course, Hardy too will be updated with some fixes in the 6 or 12 months henceforward.)

EDIT: Apologies for the slight OT, but I suppose this still shows why I'm in the 4+6 camp. ;)

[rated727]

The answer to this depends on the OS.

MS Windows:
I once ran early Beta versions of Windows 95 and 98 but only because I had a spare computer that met the hardware requirements (all my data was on the other computer with the older and stable OS) I loaded Windows XP after release of the first Service Pack. I will upgrade to Vista ONLY if someone has a large caliber gun against my skull. (9mm. or larger)

Ubuntu or other Linux distros:
As with the above mentioned win95 and 98 I can test-drive anything from Beta to stable release (now on a virtual machine instead of a spare computer). Currently I am not playing with Beta releases. I am instead am test-driving other stable release Linux distros but I miss the fun of running beta releases --

Press Any Reset Button to Continue ...

[keiichidono]

Well, this depends. For software I used to always use the beta and alpha in Windows. But now in Linux I don't have time to bother compiling things so I wait until Ubuntu updates the repo's and update as soon as they're out. For the entire OS itself, I like to be cautious so I know what problems to expect and how to fix them.I like to be very thorough so that's how I do it. As soon as I hear it's all clear or find out how to fix the problems I will jump on a new release like a horny dog on your leg.

[GCoffee]

I usually get a copy of the latest development version (BETA, RC etc..) Jam it onto a say, 20gb partition to test out, test it out and when the final release comes out I get all the stuff i need of the current distro, pics etc, burn them to cd/dvd/memory stick and get a clean install, and delete testing partition.

GC.

[GCoffee]

I usually get a copy of the latest development version (BETA, RC etc..) Jam it onto a say, 20gb partition to test out, test it out and when the final release comes out I get all the stuff i need of the current distro, pics etc, burn them to cd/dvd/memory stick and get a clean install, and delete testing partition.

GC.