Ubuntu Stable?
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| azerthoth Sep 01, 2007 10:44 AM EDT |
One has to wonder if they will translate LTS meaning that it should be stable for long periods of time as well. The recent releases have left me cold on Ubuntu. I have dutifully tried them as I prefer to be honest about my dislike, and none have left me with a warm fuzzy when it comes to system stability. |
| Bob_Robertson Sep 01, 2007 1:13 PM EDT |
I wonder how they can call a distribution based on Debian Sid "stable" at all. How about "supported" instead? |
| Sander_Marechal Sep 02, 2007 7:23 AM EDT |
IIRC Ubuntu doesn't base off Sid but off testing, in this case Lenny. |
| tuxchick Sep 02, 2007 10:21 AM EDT |
Warren Woodford switched from basing Mepis on Ubuntu to Debian because
" Ubuntu is rebuilt almost from scratch every six months using source packages from Debian EXPERIMENTAL. "This is a wonderful thing from the point of view of improving the Debian EXPERIMENTAL code. Over time the improvements will make their way through Debian Unstable, Debian Testing and finally to Debian Stable."'
http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS6170488551.html As long as LTS only means security fixes and not package updates, they can keep it. I have a Dapper LTS installation that I keep around for giggles because nothing gets fixed or updated, so update after update the same bugs get to keep their homes, instead of getting the boot. Ubuntu also incorporates a lot of homegrown new things, like the new Upstart init system and the blingy stuff and several other important subsystems, plus they're always messing around with menu and system administration tools, so I don't see how they can aim for both cutting-edge and stable. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!