On 02/12/11 08:21, Matthew Daubney wrote: > On 2 December 2011 01:20, Ivan Wright <quid...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I think they needed to move on and change style, we couldn't sit with a >> 1995 styled OS forever. >> What should be done is to do away with the six month development cycle, >> which is far too short for the amount of work needed on Unity. An 8-12 >> month cycle would have been far better and allowed time for more bug >> fixes. > > <snip> > > Ubuntu does have a 24 month release cycle version, the LTS release. > These releases are targeted at stability more than anything else. The > next release 12.04 will be an LTS. > -Matt Daubney
I have never seen stability of the OS as a stated motive for the LTS cycle, I would be interested to see a reference to this. What I have seen is a lengthened support and updates cycle and this seems to me to be focussed on security rather than bugs. My own experience has suggested that there is rather limited interest in bug fixing in a (desktop) LTS once it is nearing a 2 year age, even though it will have a further year of life. This does not include paid for support, which I have not used. -- alan cocks -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/