When I asked this question I didn't had a formed point of view. In fact
it seems a subject with mixed views.
But now that I have seeing some relevant points in a poll and performed
some tests on 14.04 and 15.10 I have some relevant things to mention.
Before that I thought that a long release cycle favoured quality on core
components, while a shorter one favoured on applications. But I have
just changed my mind.
Ryein Goddard:
It is the most stable and it is supported by most companies and
organizations.
On the other hand it seems that the regular is what most Ubuntu
developers are using, what seems a greater and more dependable workforce
than companies.
I am also seeing that most applications that do not work properly in LTS
do in the regular one, and proprietary games that hang in LTS do not in
the regular one too.
My guess is that a shorter delay between release upgrades actually
translates in a higher quality operating system. The reason is bugs do
not accumulate unsolved till next release. Also because most bugs are
fixed upstream and usually patched downstream only when they are very
annoying.
So in my opinion 15.10 is of greatest quality on both applications and
core components than 14.04, and the only reason for using LTS is if
upgrading every six months would be a mayor drawback. Even libraries and
drivers seems to work more reliably in 15.10 than in 14.04.
--
Ubuntu-quality mailing list
[email protected]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-quality
