Stability... Or Bleedin' Edge..?

[ken-chan]

So I'm curious about which approach folks take when doing an install. Let's forget about distro names for this and just focus on the version number. Which approach do you take- installing the absolute latest version of your favorite distro (this may or may not be a "beta") or installing the most recent version that was stable, fixed, patched, (whatever you want to call it)..? This could be the previous version, or even earlier. I have multiple computers all running Lubuntu, Xubuntu, and Mint that range from AMD Quad-core to Intel Atom, and even earlier, so I tend to do a bit of both. Xubuntu 16.04 right down to Xubuntu 10.04 ppc version on a iBook G4. So it just makes me curious... desuka?

 

[rstanley]

Each Distro would have different version numbers and/or names. Plus, there could be different kernels available for each "Version" of any given "Distro".

Take my standard Distro, Debian. There is always Past versions, the "Current" version, at the moment "Jessie", a "Testing" version, to be called "Stretch" when released when it is ready, and the "Unstable" version, ALWAYS called "Sid".

I would run the current stable version on production computers, but usually run "Testing" on my Laptop, where I do most of my development work. I never use the "Unstable" version. Too many issues to deal with!

 

[atanere]

Yeah, the version numbers really have little meaning, although Ubuntu and its offspring use the year/month to create theirs, which is kind of helpful to know when it was released.

I'm running Linux Lite 3.0... Debian Jessie 8.5... and Linux Mint 18... and all are the current stable releases. I think I'm going to try Slackware 14.2 very soon, also the very latest release for them.

I'm not bleeding edge (or rolling releases). Too much breakage for me. I like current and stable to help ensure that security patches are up to date. I would only use older distros if necessary to match up with older hardware, but I'd really rather not unless it is the only choice.

Cheers!

 

[atanere]

Oh, one more thing: I'm pretty sick of "code names" for distros. "Xenial Xerus".... really? Give me a break! I have long since ceased to be amused by these.

Cheers!

 

[ken-chan]

When I was focusing on the numbers, what I was trying to focus on was how new a distro behaved vs. an earlier, perhaps more stable version. For example I find Lubuntu 16.04 (newest) to be "buggy" (it takes forever for the live DVD to start) vs. Lubuntu 15.10 (previous) which just seems smoother overall. I find that newer releases or the "rolling releases" aren't really so great... most of the time. At least the ones I've tried. Anyway the focus on the version numbers was only for that reason. We could even focus on release dates, it was only to mark the period in time the thing was released.

 

[rstanley]

Can't speak for the Ubuntu based Distros, but as for Debian, Jessie is as stable or more so than previous versions. It has my full recommendation for any system.

 

[atanere]

When I was focusing on the numbers, what I was trying to focus on was how new a distro behaved vs. an earlier, perhaps more stable version. For example I find Lubuntu 16.04 (newest) to be "buggy" (it takes forever for the live DVD to start) vs. Lubuntu 15.10 (previous) which just seems smoother overall. I find that newer releases or the "rolling releases" aren't really so great... most of the time. At least the ones I've tried. Anyway the focus on the version numbers was only for that reason. We could even focus on release dates, it was only to mark the period in time the thing was released.

In general, I disagree with your notion that older is more stable, and newer is more buggy. You may find occasional examples of this, but by and large the latest stable release of any distro contains the most recent security patches, bug fixes, and enhancements. But nothing is bug free either. Your experience with the slow-starting DVD may be unique to you, or maybe unique to your brand computer, or it may affect many users across varied hardware. If you have serious problems, I would Google for solutions or workarounds (if others have the same issue)... or maybe you should file a bug report.

But one more thing on the DVD: you say you are "starting the live DVD". I suspect that the newer Lubuntu is simply loading more stuff into RAM as it starts up than your older version. The kernel is likely bigger, and those bug fixes and enhancements would make other applications bigger as well. This seems normal to me, but if it is extreme then I would look for some other reasons. You might try booting a live USB instead.

Cheers!