Ubuntu is built from the earliest Debian packages called unstable. They have their own package managers who rebuild them to Ubuntu's specifications. They go through their own testing process before they are pronounced stable for release. Ubuntu has many testers who work on a variety of machines all over the world.
There is not much risk. Ubuntu is thoroughly tested and the Ubuntu name is so well known that they will not take real risks that would affect stability. Mostly you will see a drop in performance (or increase) or something will change or replace something else, such as a package or module. For example they are going to get rid of Nautilus the GNOME file manager and develop their own. Or they might change a bootloader or graphics setting that might upset some people. That kind of thing. They are developing Mir to replace Xorg while GNOME is going with Wayland. Some people do not like Ubuntu going a separate direction and make a fuss.
The main applications such as GIMP and LibreOffice, etc are not going to be a problem. The only problems you might have is with things added via PPA or installed from source.
Roy
On Thursday, April 24, 2014 4:50:44 AM, "highskywhy@yahoo.de" <highskywhy@yahoo.de> wrote:
good morning
thank You for help.
Am 22.04.2014 23:51, schrieb Linux Canuck:
> Stable is a term mostly associated with Debian. They run three levels of
> packaging: stable, testing and unstable. Everything starts out unstable
> and through time it moves towards testing and eventually is marked
> stable. All of that takes time which is why Debian stable is 2 - 3 years
> behind Ubuntu for the same application.
*
OK
Thank You,
Is Ubuntu stable or adventure?
>
> Ubuntu uses Debian unstable as its starting point. Other distributions
> based on Debian will run from Debian testing or Debian stable. It ll
> depends on who the distribution is geared towards. Debian stable is made
> to be rock solid. Ubuntu is not necessarily less stable than Debian. It
> runs its own testing and it has two levels of development, regular and
> LTS. When I refer to stability in Ubuntu I am mostly looking at the
> goals and the risks being taken by the developers.
*
What is the risk?
I am using now Linux for two years
and the big problems I had
were after updates.
(same like win)
>
> When an LTS release is coming up Ubuntu makes fewer changes and takes
> less risk. A regular six month release, excluding the LTSes, is more
> inclined to take greater risks. LTS release goals are less ambitious and
> are less likely to cause problems. If they were planning a big change
> such as when they switched to Unity on an LTS cycle then they would try
> to phase in the change and to make accommodations for users. LTS is
> considered more stable because they want to make the user experience for
> enterprise better with fewer surprises. The same software channels are
> used for servers as for desktop.
>
*
Thank You.
> Ubuntu also uses different package groups such as Main (official),
> Universe (community), Restricted (not open source), and Mulitverse (not
> free license, likely has an EULA to agree to).
*
OK
This just compounds the
> confusion, because users get it all from the same package manager. Most
> if has to do with internal controls and the developers interests. To be
> a Master of the Universe or MOTU (real title) one must be approved by
> Ubuntu and you must meet their terms and goals.
*
How about the classics:
gedit
gimp and so on.
Are they dangerous?
Regards
Sophie
__._,_.___
| Reply via web post | Reply to sender | Reply to group | Start a New Topic | Messages in this topic (69) |
To unsubscribe from this list, please email LINUX_Newbies-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com & you will be removed.
.
__,_._,___
No comments:
Post a Comment