On 04/04/2016 07:02 AM, Tom H wrote:
On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 6:44 AM, Yasha Karant <ykar...@csusb.edu> wrote:

The Ubuntu LTS ("stable" "server" "hardened" "enterprise" distro)
bootable DVD actually works in the consumer HP laptop my wife may have
to use.

The kernel Ubuntu LTS uses is:

That's because you installed 14.04.4.

Had you installed 14.04.3, you'd have 3.19.

Had you installed 14.04.2, you'd have 3.16.

Had you installed 14.04.1 or 14.04.0, you'd have 3.13.

And you could've stayed at whatever version that you'd want to use.

Basically three or four months after the release of a non-LTS version,
its kernel's made available within the latest LTS version; more or

In this regard, is anyone using Ubuntu LTS in a production
environment? Is it fact both stable and (reasonably) hardened (e.g.,
not a consume/enthusiast product such as MS Win or RH Fedora)?

On the desktop, there are far more Windows systems deployed than Linux ones...
I understand that my following comment on your last statement may be regarded as "off subject for this SL list". First, in many parts of the world other than the USA, MS Windows is not that well deployed even on the desktop except that many machines come with MS Windows pre-installed. (Aside: I do not like the name "Windows" for MS Windows. I routinely correct my students not to use Windows, but Microsoft Windows or MS Windows. Open systems also have Windows -- X windows. All of the current "windows" GUI systems evolved from the Xeror Star system -- officially. Xerox 8010 Information System -- that were based upon previous "non-commercial" research and implementation. Evolved does not mean necessarily sharing the same source code, but the same "style" of basic GUI system.

The reason for the proliferation of MS Windows on the desktop has nothing to do with stability, hardening, or functionality. It has to do with for-profit business practices -- Microsoft is a monopoly that really should be at least four independent companies: an OS environment company (MS Windows), a software applications company (MS Office, etc.), an ISP and services vendor (e.g., "cloud" services and vendor rented provisioning), and an integrated full systems vendor (supplying a complete hardware, environment, and applications software solution, similar to what Apple does with Mac machines). Because of the monopoly, not quality, Microsoft has gotten the market share it does in the USA. Microsoft attempted to make massive intrusions into high performance locally distributed-coupled MIMD architectured machines (e.g., machines such as those listed in http://www.top500.org/list/2015/11/) , and did not succeed because of the intrinsic limitations of the MS Windows model. Architecturally, in terms of "classical" computing (not quantum computing, etc.), the BSD Mach type kernel model is "better" than the Linux monolithic kernel; however, due to practical deployment development, as well as licensing issues at the early stages of "Free"BSD, Linux has by far won the open systems base. Most of the Top 500 listed machines have some Linux base.

Reply via email to