Adam, just to give my 2 cents. The reasons why I'm still hanging with the LTS (at least on one computer) are a few, but important enough to keep me from upgrading.
The first is, quite simply, as good as Ubuntu have made the upgrading from release to release it's still not good enough. Every time I attempt an upgrade it either fails for some reason or gives me odd, undesirable behavior afterwards which ends up causing me to reinstall anyway. So in my case the only real way for me to upgrade my release would be a complete reinstall every six months which, in and of itself, isn't bad. It's the hours of tweaking and getting things to where I like them afterwards that's the hard part. I think that speaks for myself. In fact, Linux Mint whilst having an in place upgrade option like Ubuntu still advise people to reinstall because of the risks inherent with the upgrade process. The only difference between those two is that Ubuntu pretends the upgrade process is fool proof while Linux Mint errs on the side of caution. I also maintain my girlfriends Ubuntu 10.04 laptop which is on the other side of the United States from me. As good as she's getting she's still quite wary of installing from scratch and because of the issues with upgrading I've had with my machines I've advised her against doing an in place upgrade since she needs the machine for school. Ditto for my parents, except they're much closer. Those are the two biggest reasons I have for not jumping ship every six months. Another smaller one has to do with the inevitable bugs introduced with each new release. For instance, in 10.04 I was one of the hundreds (if not more) that suffered from the Plymouth + Nvidia bug that garnered some widespread attention. I found a suitable workaround that kept me happy and I'm still not in the mood to upgrade only to find that it was not fixed (I don't think it was, actually) and that my workaround doesn't work. Not to mention whatever other tiny bugs need to be found and then worked around. In my situation, 10.10 had very little to offer over 10.04 in benefits but many more risks. On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 1:20 PM, Martin Wimpress < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi Adam, > > > On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 06:03:14 -0700, Adam Dingle wrote: > > Your backporting efforts are impressive - it's clear that some users >> are interested in running newer versions of Shotwell on Lucid and this >> is helping them out, so thanks. >> > > Thanks, I've only been doing the packaging and PPA thing for a couple of > days. So far, so good :-) > > > I am curious, however: why are you and others so interested in >> continuing to run Lucid rather than simply updating to Maverick? Is >> it because Lucid is marked as a long-term-support release, or because >> there was some change in Maverick you didn't like, or something else? >> Obviously everyone's situation is unique, but Ubuntu has made it >> pretty painless to upgrade so I'm honestly a little surprised that so >> many people who want to use the very latest Shotwell releases want to >> hold back on upgrading Ubuntu itself. >> > > When the first Ubuntu LTS release came along I conveniently forgot > everything I knew about Windows and as family members wanted their computers > fixing they were migrated to Ubunutu LTS ;-) My family members only run the > current LTS, therefore they are all on Lucid. I always run the current > release, so I am now on Maverick and soon to be Natty. > > My wife and I have a shared Dropbox account into which I have sym-linked > ~/.shotwell so we can share the same photo album database and both add new > pictures of our daughter to a shared Shotwell installation. This works > great, right up to the point I upgraded to Maverick and got Shotwell 0.8.1 > and my wife was still running 0.7.2. Database breakage :-( > > So my motivation for back porting Shotwell was to save my marriage ;-) I > also did it because I was interested to learn the back porting process and I > thought a Lucid version of Shotwell would be of value to other Lucid users. > When I saw that ticket saying it wasn't simple I thought that was challenge > enough to have a go :-) I love Shotwell and wanted to give a little > something back so I asked the nice people at OMG! Ubuntu! to post an article > about my Shortwell 0.8.1 back port and they duely obliged. > > - > http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2011/03/shotwell-0-8-1-for-ubuntu-10-04-lucid-users/ > > I also set the desktop standards at my work. Our workstation policy is LTS, > so everyone is on Lucid. I imagine other organisations do the same. > > > Shotwell only requires libraw 0.9. We encourage people to use newer >> libraw releases, though, since there have been many improvements and >> bug fixes since 0.9. >> > > I've back ported libraw 0.13.1 from Debian Wheezy and am waiting on the > outcome of the following ticket before I release a non-experimental Shotwell > 0.9.0 build based on a newer libraw library. > > > - http://trac.yorba.org/ticket/2583 > > I have built svn 2775 of Shotwell for Lucid earlier today and libraw 0.13.1 > builds for Lucid, Maverick and Natty. They are all currently sitting in my > Experimental PPA. > > > - https://launchpad.net/~flexiondotorg/+archive/experimental > > Todays build of Shotwell now uses the Vala Team PPA as a build dependency > since they've now published 0.11.7 so no need to maintain my own back port > any longer. I believe it would be trivial for the Yorba PPA to provide Lucid > versions of Shotwell 0.9.0 when you release it. I'd be glad to help with > that if required. > > -- > Regards, Martin. > > _______________________________________________ > Shotwell mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.yorba.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/shotwell > _______________________________________________ Shotwell mailing list [email protected] http://lists.yorba.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/shotwell
