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.
One Psychiatrist's Definition of Insanity: Knowing what one should do and doing differently.
I think the whole concept of a a release is outdated its 2013 why can't updates keep flowing without breakage?
Exactly what I'm saying
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.
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.
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 .