Ubuntu first time

[D. Hugh Redelmeier]

| From: Alejandro Imass <aimass-EzYyMjUkBrFWk0Htik3J/w at public.gmane.org>

| I don't install _any_ software on it's point o version. In Ubuntu it
| seems they have adopted Microsoft's approach to client beta testing
| but at least they don't charge people for it. The .10 versions seem to
| be quite stable, and people should wait for those.

I have trouble with Ubuntu and Fedora releases.  I guess I'm a
trouble-magnet.  I haven't even tried Debian, so I cannot compare it.

Ubuntu's "cadence" isn't two phase, as far as I know.  So .04 and .10
versions should have an equal chance of perfection.  Except for LTS
versions.

The current LTS is 10.04; next is 12.04.  10.04 wasn't perfect out of
the gate.  In fact, it isn't even perfect now.  But it is pretty solid
(and a bit stale).  Stale and solid are correlated for most distros, I
imagine.

Ubuntu LTS versions sometimes come out with even-more-dots versions
which are fixed but not advanced, more or less.  Like 10.04.1.

My strategy for non-critical installations is to wait a couple of
months for the dust to settle before using either a Fedora release or
a Ubuntu release.

Solid		Current		Exciting
=====		=======		========
RHEL/CentOS	Fedora		Rawhide
Ubuntu LTS	Ubuntu		beta / RC
Debian Stable	Debian Unstable	Debian Testing (Sid?)

I like the idea of Solid, but I often find it too stale for my taste.

I wish updated Live CD images were easy to come by.  I think Fedora
lets you "respin" Live CDs, but I haven't looked at how much machinery
you need.

I wonder if Live USB stick version can be updated by the normal update
mechanisms of the distro.
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists