Thread: Bad Ubuntu
View Single Post
Old 07-13-2007   #13 (permalink)
Stephan Rose


 
 

Re: Bad Ubuntu

On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 11:53:49 -0400, Mike wrote:

> In article <lZmdncHHjvqqAQrbnZ2dnUVZ8vidnZ2d@giganews.com>,
> Stephan Rose <nospam@spammer.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Here is the release policy:
>>
>> LTS Releases are supported for 3 years (5 years server). All other releases
>> have 1 year support. When the current LTS expires, a new release is made
>> available with LTS support.
>>
>> What's so terribly difficult to understand about this?

>
> Nothing actually. What it means is Ubuntu is not something to run a
> business on. 3 years?!?! 1 year?!?! Wow, and people complain
> about the "MS upgrade treadmill"! MS is still supporting Windows 2000
> after 8 years and XP after 6 years.
>
> No business wants OS upgrades forced on them every 3 years in order to
> stay supported. If MS did that you would be screaming "monopoly"!


Well for one, as alias has stated, doing upgrades is far more painless
than it is under windows. It comes down to clicking the "Upgrade" button
and grabbing a cup of coffee while the system goes to do its thing and
then continuing to use your system like nothing ever happened after a
quick reboot. It's not like the windows world where in-place upgrades are
a nightmare and you generally need to wipe the entire machine clean to do
a reasonable windows upgrade.

That said, there are also paid enterprise support packages available from
Canonical for more support aimed particularly at businesses that I am sure
will address such concerns as yours. Which I fully agree with you, for a
company that has a few hundred or more machines sitting there, it isn't
feasible upgrading them every couple years.

--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

君のこと思い出す日なんてないのは
君のこと忘れたときがないから
My System SpecsSystem Spec