Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 18:21 UTC, submitted by Anonymous
Thread beginning with comment 550140
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 11:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/18/13 11:21 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/16/13 9:29 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2009-07-16
I'd respond, but I need to tend my bruised side from falling out of my chair, and my throat from laughing too hard.
Okay, Ubuntu *might* be able to pull off a well managed stream of updates between two years of major releases. Even so, this may not be the best for all users. On Windows 7 and lower, it's easy to stick to what works and only update the minimum you need. Most package managers under Linux can handle this too, but it can become extraordinarily sticky when you're talking shared libraries. Most Rolling Release distros take an all or nothing approach to updating. You update *everything* or you don't.
I don't see Ubuntu pulling this off well...