Why must LTS die?

[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

[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?