On 29.06.2016 04:16, Alex Kleider wrote:
On 2016-06-28 11:46, David Rock wrote:
Here’s my take on a lot of this (it’s similar to what’s been said
already, so this is more of a general philosophy of distros).
Very interesting reading for which I thank you.
I'd be interested in knowing if you'd make a distinction between 'the
latest
Ubuntu' and their LTS releases?
My approach has been to use LTS releases only and not bother with the ones
in between.
Comments?
a
David kind of discussed the difference between them in an earlier post
when he grouped distros into three categories, quoting him:
1. slower-moving, very stable, binary installs
2. fast-moving, stable-ish, binary installs
3. fast-moving, stable-ish, source installs
In a relative sense, linux stability is good regardless. I only point
out “very stable” because they are typically bulletproof on purpose, at
the expense of some flexibility.
#1 examples:
Debian stable (codename jessie)
Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)
CentOS (a free RHEL repackaging)
Just add Ubuntu LTS releases here, while other Ubuntu releases fall in
category #2. An LTS release never sees major version upgrades over its
lifetime for its Linux kernel nor for other software package-managed by
canonical so near the end of it things may be pretty outdated. That's
not necessarily a big deal though. If your system works for you, why
change it. I've sometimes upgraded to new releases just out of interest,
but never because I felt I really had to.
_______________________________________________
Tutor maillist - Tutor@python.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/tutor
