Desktop End of Life reached

[Rog131]

Ubuntu 10.04 (Lucid Lynx) Desktop End of Life reached on May 9, 2013: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ub...ay/002105.html

[phonic-otg]

So it appears that all LTS, excluding 12.04, have been dropped. 8.04 had a good run with five years and only 3 for 10.04. I wonder at the average life span of our beloved LTS releases.

[geoaraujo]

My very first GNU/Linux distro...
Good memories...

[PaulW2U]

So it appears that all LTS, excluding 12.04, have been dropped. 8.04 had a good run with five years and only 3 for 10.04. I wonder at the average life span of our beloved LTS releases.

The desktop version of 8.04 had a life span of three years in common with the other LTS releases until 12.04. It was the server version of 8.04 that was supported for five years. The server version of 10.04 is also supported for five years, until April 2015.

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Releases

[dmeyer]

The desktop version of 8.04 had a life span of three years in common with the other LTS releases until 12.04. It was the server version of 8.04 that was supported for five years. The server version of 10.04 is also supported for five years, until April 2015.

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Releases

For some strange reason I feel that 12.04 will have 5 years support even on the desktop which is new. Usually its three years desktop and 5 years server. I'm not hunting sources but I do think its correct although 12.04 was a terrible release.

[oshunluvr]

For some strange reason I feel that 12.04 will have 5 years support even on the desktop which is new. Usually its three years desktop and 5 years server. I'm not hunting sources but I do think its correct although 12.04 was a terrible release.

You are correct in that starting with 12.04 LTS term for both desktop and server are the same - 5 years. Other discussions in the works include the idea that LTS would be a "normal" Ubuntu release and in between would be a single rolling release. Interesting idea in my book.

But I'm curious. Why do you feel 12.04 was terrible? It's in use (Kubuntu) here on two laptops, a netbook, and a server all without issues.

[PaulW2U]

12.04 was a terrible release.

Really? I ran 12.04 from pre-alpha to just before release and it worked fine. For me it was a great improvement over 11.04 and 11.10 as many of the regular crashes that I had been experiencing for some time were finally fixed.

[Qqmike]

ditto for me re 12.04, works great. I can't imagine what esoteric/subtle things might be 'terrible.'

[SteveRiley]

Getting off 12.04 was the best thing that happened to me. I was never able to resolve whatever plagues the zillions of folks who chimed in on Launchpad bug 993187.

[dmeyer]

But I'm curious. Why do you feel 12.04 was terrible? It's in use (Kubuntu) here on two laptops, a netbook, and a server all without issues.

For a server it is still a fantastic choice. Ubuntu has some of the best server releases out there (if not the best). KDE 4.8.x wasn't particularly great on 12.04 (though on Arch it was fine). Upgrading to 4.9.x massively improved 12.04. My biggest issues with 12.04 weren't necessarily big things, rather just a massive collection of small things that ruined it for me. 12.10 on the other hand magically fixed many of my little issues. Its not that 12.04 was a poor release objectively, more like it was a terrible release compared to 12.10. Go back in my posts and you'll see I sang a ton of praises for 12.04 with KDE 4.9.

[SteveRiley]

I know in that other thread my head exploded about 12.04. But dmeyer's comment here reminded me that my server actually is a 12.04 build. Base command-line only Ubuntu, no desktop environment. Runs without a hitch. I have no plans to change that anytime soon.

[MoonRise]

12.04 had issues of what I could never determine. 12.10 has been great for me. Hate to see 10.04 go. That one was solid for me and it really wasn't until 12.10 that I had the same stability. Yes I could have stayed on 10.04 but I just have to always update.