Ubuntu support duration

[Skara Brae]

I am reading that Ubuntu 13.04 (and Xubuntu, too) will be supported for _ONLY_ nine months.

Why just 9 months? What after those 9 months? Installing (yet again) the new version? I thought one would be rid of installing a new version every time again (like with Windows), but it seems that Ubuntu (at least) is becoming just like MS Windows. Why not sticking with one version for several years; like LTS editions?

Only nine months. Isn't this, kind of, insane?

[snowpine]

The 9-month support versions are intended for people who like to upgrade every 6 months.

LTS versions are supported 5 years for people who don't like to upgrade every 6 months.

The choice is yours.

Windows is supported many years (XP has been supported since 2001, before Ubuntu even existed!!!) so I don't understand your "Ubuntu is becoming just like MS Windows" analogy at all.

[varunendra]

Why just 9 months?................Only nine months. Isn't this, kind of, insane?

Perhaps this may explain why : http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.p...1#post12701351

EDIT:
I realized later that that post is perhaps unnecessarily long, so skip to the Third heading "Why is Standard Release Support Period is Short ?"

[thiebaude]

I guess the simple answer for the op would be that Ubuntu is released every 6 months.

[sanderj]

Windows is supported many years (XP has been supported since 2001, before Ubuntu even existed!!!) so I don't understand your "Ubuntu is becoming just like MS Windows" analogy at all.

[Erik1984]

9 months sounds fair to me. I guess most people running the non-LTS want to upgrade after at most a few months after the next release. 13.10 will be release near the end of October. You can upgrade till somewhere in January 2014 without losing support.

[Skara Brae]

Windows is supported many years (XP has been supported since 2001, before Ubuntu even existed!!!) so I don't understand your "Ubuntu is becoming just like MS Windows" analogy at all.

You are right. I wasn't being very correct there. I take back what I wrote there.

Perhaps this may explain why : http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.p...1#post12701351

Thank you, varunendra, that was interesting to read.

I have been reading about the difference between the way Ubuntu and other distros are and the way that, f.e., Debian is. I find the Debian system, where one updates one single version, more user friendly; I have read about problems upgrading from one Ubuntu version to the next, which I luckily never had.

I have always stayed with a LTS edition. If 12.04 hadn't had Unity, I would have gotten 12.04.

Thing is: I am just a very "conservative" guy. I don't like changes. Too often I have seen how changes "broke" my computers - yes, I am talking about Windows now. Even though Ubuntu is Linux, I wouldn't want to "change" to a new edition every n-months. To me, a computer is a means to reach things, not the thing to reach itself (i.e. being busy with upgrading my OS every N-months; I have more pleasant things to do with/at my computers than than, hence the LTS editions).

[Peripheral Visionary]

I have always stayed with a LTS edition. If 12.04 hadn't had Unity, I would have gotten 12.04.

I too stick with LTS releases. But Unity is too much for my old hardware, and my first Linux was Xfce, so I'm on Xubuntu 12.04. It's as rock-stable, responsive, and fast as 10.04 was. Sticking to LTS releases is a great long-term solution for "casual users," and Xubuntu is a great solution for those with older computers.

[sanderj]

I too stick with LTS releases. But Unity is too much for my old hardware, and my first Linux was Xfce, so I'm on Xubuntu 12.04. It's as rock-stable, responsive, and fast as 10.04 was. Sticking to LTS releases is a great long-term solution for "casual users," and Xubuntu is a great solution for those with older computers.

How do you handle new hardware that's only supported in newer Linux / Ubuntu versions?

[snowpine]

I have been reading about the difference between the way Ubuntu and other distros are and the way that, f.e., Debian is. I find the Debian system, where one updates one single version, more user friendly; I have read about problems upgrading from one Ubuntu version to the next, which I luckily never had.

I have always stayed with a LTS edition. If 12.04 hadn't had Unity, I would have gotten 12.04.

Thing is: I am just a very "conservative" guy. I don't like changes. Too often I have seen how changes "broke" my computers - yes, I am talking about Windows now. Even though Ubuntu is Linux, I wouldn't want to "change" to a new edition every n-months. To me, a computer is a means to reach things, not the thing to reach itself (i.e. being busy with upgrading my OS every N-months; I have more pleasant things to do with/at my computers than than, hence the LTS editions).

You sound like a perfect candidate for the LTS releases.

You would probably also enjoy these distros, which have stable software and long support cycles: Debian, Slackware, CentOS, Scientific Linux.