Why upgrade every 6 months?

[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!