Linked by Eugenia Loli on Mon 30th Jul 2007 21:52 UTC, submitted by da_Chicken
Thread beginning with comment 259553
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/25/13 0:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 23:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Howard Fosdick on 05/24/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 14:44 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-07-13
Well, in fairness if we're going to use that anology, the enterprise distros like RH and Novell do release service pack-type upgrades that contain more than bug fixes. But AFAIK they are optional, though supported.
I agree with your sentiment though, it was a mistake basing a popular community distro on an intentionally stable non-evolving release. Perhaps Warren though that there would be "supported" backports or something to that effect for LTS, but that was wrong.
As to whether there should be supported backports to LTS might be a different point of debate, but chacun son gout. You get what you pay for, and I don't recall Ubuntu at any point claiming that there would be an effort to keep LTS stable *as well as* modern.