** Andy Smith <andy@???> [2013-04-26 16:57]:
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 01:59:51PM +0100, Matthew Moore wrote:
> > Even worse, the support time for 13.04 is less than normal. It's 9
> > months for non LTS releases so 13.04 goes EoL Jan 2014. Unless you need
> > bleeding edge, I wouldn't install 13.04 as a server.
>
> Speaking of which, when Canonical announced the shortened lifespan
> for non-LTS releases it got me thinking that offering non-LTS
> releases of Ubuntu at BitFolk (with the implied level of support
> that entails) is going to result in a high turnover of installers.
>
> So I'm thinking of only offering LTS releases for direct order or
> self-install.
>
> Obviously you could still go to any other release by upgrading to it
> from the LTS preceding it.
>
> It's not too bad right now because the only releases still with
> Ubuntu support are
>
> Release End of Life
> -------------------------------------------
> 13.04 (Raring Ringtail) 2014-01
> 12.10 (Quantal Quetzal) 2014-04
> 12.04.x LTS (Precise Pangolin) 2017-04
> 11.10 (Oneiric Ocelot) 2013-05
> 10.04.x LTS (Lucid Lynx) 2015-04
> 8.04.x LTS (Hardy Heron) 2013-05
>
> of which I have already removed install ability for 12.10¹, 11.10
> and 8.04.x LTS.
>
> If I don't come up with a policy and do actually manage to add all
> installers, then by the time 14.10 is released there will be:
>
> Release End of Life
> -------------------------------------------
> 14.10 (? ?) 2015-07
> 14.04.x LTS (? ?) 2019-04
> 13.10 (Saucy Salamander) 2014-07 ← Added and removed
> 13.04 (Raring Ringtail) 2014-01 ← Added and removed
> 12.10 (Quantal Quetzal) 2014-04 ← Would have been removed
> 12.04.x LTS (Precise Pangolin) 2017-04
> 10.04.x LTS (Lucid Lynx) 2015-04
>
> This is actually only four installers, but three would have got
> added and removed if I had kept up with all releases.
>
> As I am not always getting around to adding the installers and no
> one actually complained about the lack of a 12.10 installer², I feel
> like maybe I should just stick to LTS installers.
>
> Any thoughts on that?
>
> Cheers,
> Andy
>
> ¹ Actually I just didn't get around to adding it, and that seems
> pointless now.
>
> ² Though obviously just because no complaints were received doesn't
> mean that it didn't put anyone off.
** end quote [Andy Smith]
Not having acutually got around to checking I'd assumed you only did LTS
anyway, these being servers, but that may just be me. I'm just about to ask for
a temporary migration server to do an upgrade, but I'm sticking with LTS, so
I'm quite happy with LTS releases only.
--
Paul Tansom | Aptanet Ltd. |
http://www.aptanet.com/ | 023 9238 0001
Registered in England | Company No: 4905028 | Registered Office:
Crawford House, Hambledon Road, Denmead, Waterlooville, Hants, PO7 6NU
