32 ms·
I only see problems with LTS. I do agree that there are some stability issues with Ubuntu that just don't get fixed, but this is mostly an issue with the other
by emj 4y ago
I only see problems with LTS. I do agree that there are some stability issues with Ubuntu that just don't get fixed, but this is mostly an issue with the other releases. This is the problem with staggered releases your fix might very well take 6 months.
Arch has severe problems in my mind especially in stability, but as you say it is easier to fix stuff and that is a huge plus. It's just a trap I try to avoid for my desktop!
Thanks for the explanation makes a lot more sense now!
- mort96 4y agoI do truly believe that Ubuntu will be a lot more stable if you stay away from the "interim" releases. When I bring these things up with people, I do get the impression that Canonical looks at the non-LTS releases as more of a sort of public beta test to ensure the eventual LTS is solid. For the sort of stuff I do on my computer, using libraries which are up to 2 years out of date is incredibly painful; even the 6 months between interim releases is a problem sometimes. So if you use the LTS, and the outdated packages isn't an issue for you, it makes sense that you'd be pretty happy with it. And maybe that's a use-case I'm underestimating.
- emj 4y agoI just do not trust new stuff being stable enough for a daily driver, but I still use it because I have to. As a developer I do not feel that this is an issue for me. I understand why it can be an issue.