Review: Ubuntu "Lucid Lynx" 10.04 LTS
Linked by Eugenia Loli on Thu 6th May 2010 21:05 UTC
Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu The recently released 10.04 version of Ubuntu is the third Long Term Support (LTS) version Canonical has released. I installed this new version on four of my laptops (2 netbooks, 1 normal laptop, 1 portable desktop replacement), and here's my impression of it.
E-mail Print r 8   · Read More · 130 Comment(s) http://osne.ws/hy5
Thread beginning with comment 423101
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: lethal upgrade
by strcpy on Fri 7th May 2010 08:56 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: lethal upgrade"
strcpy
Member since:
2009-05-20


Either way of keeping a distribution upgraded ... a rolling distribution such as Arch, or a 6-monthly re-install (upgrade) of the OS partition (with user files intact), is far faster and easier than Windows Update plus however many independent application updaters must be running.


That is just plain fanboy comment.

I've never understood why people recommend these rolling release distributions. They need *constant* tinkering, which may be fine if you are the sort of person who likes that. Recommending those to a Joe is ridiculous.

In the real world, people and companies prefer Red Hat and SuSe exactly because of the stability, long-term support, and avoidance of hassle and tinkering.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[7]: lethal upgrade
by Morgan on Fri 7th May 2010 10:54 in reply to "RE[6]: lethal upgrade"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

That is just plain fanboy comment.

I've never understood why people recommend these rolling release distributions. They need *constant* tinkering, which may be fine if you are the sort of person who likes that. Recommending those to a Joe is ridiculous.


And most Linux users are like that. It's going to be that way for a long time.

In the real world, people and companies prefer Red Hat and SuSe exactly because of the stability, long-term support, and avoidance of hassle and tinkering.


In the real world, people and companies use LTS versions (like the one we're discussing) exactly because of the stability, long-term support, and avoidance of hassle and tinkering. You do know what "LTS" stands for right?

And before you start screaming "fanboy" at me too: I started using Linux with Slackware, and it is still by far my favorite distro. I was resistant to Debian back in the late 90's/early 00's, and I didn't care for Ubuntu in its first few years either. It's only recently that I've come to appreciate it as an everyday OS. So, take it from someone who is used to the rock-solid dependability of Slackware that this current version (so far) has exceeded my expectations.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[7]: lethal upgrade
by bosco_bearbank on Fri 7th May 2010 11:51 in reply to "RE[6]: lethal upgrade"
bosco_bearbank Member since:
2005-10-12

I've never understood why people recommend these rolling release distributions. They need *constant* tinkering, which may be fine if you are the sort of person who likes that. Recommending those to a Joe is ridiculous.


I understand it - misguided enthusiasm. I'm willing to put up with the constant tinkering required to use the latest from Fedora and Ubuntu. For Joe Average, it's CentOS or Ubuntu LTS

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[7]: lethal upgrade
by tylerdurden on Fri 7th May 2010 19:57 in reply to "RE[6]: lethal upgrade"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

In my experience, most companies which run Red Hat, do so because of the software they run and which is only validated with a specific RHS version.

So it is more like app support that the supposedly higher stability which tends to be the main value proposition from Red Hat,

Reply Parent Score: 2