Please don't get me wrong: I was merely asking the question, as I think that 6 months is a very ambitious timescale to get a completely new distribution built.
The LTS vs. regular releases thing is, imho, rather a red herring - the implication seems to be that it is okay to market an "unfinished release" as long as it isn't LTS, which I could not agree with. The LTS is, unless I'm very much mistaken, supposed to give people reassurances that they will not HAVE to upgrade to maintain support, not a moniker that says "LTS are the proper stable releases and everything else is unstable" - if this is in fact the case then why don't we use the terms "stable" and "unstable" rather than "long term support" which intuitively has to do with support a year down the line rather than the quality of the delivered product. If I was considering a novice user and I was about to install a new desktop I'd look at 9.04 and 9.10 and say "right, what's the difference?" and the sites etc. would tell me "9.04 is older but will be supported longer" so I'd think "well, don't use support anyway and may upgrade before then so I'll go for 9.10" - wouldn't most people??? So I do not agree with the idea that non-LTS versions are inherently buggy. For that is not what the acronym says, and if that is what it is meant to mean I suggest we get a new acronym. Sean -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/
