His concern seems valid. Seems like a quality control issue. How was
this possible?
On 12/12/2016 10:39 AM, C de-Avillez wrote:
On Mon, 12 Dec 2016 03:45:31 -0500
JMZ <florent...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 12/11/2016 07:12 PM, teo teo wrote:
<snip>
2) sticking to an LTS for 2 f***ing years means sticking to
tremendously obsolete software, usually full of bugs that have
already been fixed upstream (by the way that is usually already
true when the ubuntu release is brand new, let alone two years
later),
<snip>
I know, someone's going to think, "don't feed the troll". Hear me
out. Teo teo's concerns about LTS are not trollish. Users who elect
to run LTS rather than incremental releases must, at some point,
maintain the system with more current debs which approximate the
incremental upgrades. I always follow the incremental upgrades, as
I'd rather fix a version which is farther along in development than
LTS. I never fully understood why a individual user would use LTS.
LTS is better suited to a circumstance where uniformity is prized,
such as small businesses, corporations, libraries etc. Teo teo is
certainly right that an LTS plan of action has significant deficits.
That might be true (that Teo's concerns may be important). Nevertheless,
s/he behaves in a trollish way, and *intentionally* has been evading
moderation.
S/he is moderated again.
I personally do not care if these concerns are valid or not -- I
stopped reading her/his comments the moment they went to Trollland.
There are many ways of raising an issue. The way s/he does it is not
acceptable on the Ubuntu ecosystem.
Cheers,
..C..
--
Ubuntu-quality mailing list
Ubuntu-quality@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-quality
