Upgrade was a disaster as usual <- still dead horse, just a clarification.

[Ryein Goddard]

His concern seems valid.  Seems like a quality control issue.  How was 
this possible?


On 12/12/2016 10:39 AM, C de-Avillez wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Dec 2016 03:45:31 -0500
> JMZ <florentior at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 12/11/2016 07:12 PM, teo teo wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>> 2) sticking to an LTS for 2 f***ing years means sticking to
>>> tremendously obsolete software, usually full of bugs that have
>>> already been fixed upstream (by the way that is usually already
>>> true when the ubuntu release is brand new, let alone two years
>>> later),
>> <snip>
>>
>> I know, someone's going to think, "don't feed the troll".  Hear me
>> out. Teo teo's concerns about LTS are not trollish.  Users who elect
>> to run LTS rather than incremental releases must, at some point,
>> maintain the system with more current debs which approximate the
>> incremental upgrades.  I always follow the incremental upgrades, as
>> I'd rather fix a version which is farther along in development than
>> LTS.  I never fully understood why a individual user would use LTS.
>> LTS is better suited to a circumstance where uniformity is prized,
>> such as small businesses, corporations, libraries etc.  Teo teo is
>> certainly right that an LTS plan of action has significant deficits.
> That might be true (that Teo's concerns may be important). Nevertheless,
> s/he behaves in a trollish way, and *intentionally* has been evading
> moderation.
>
> S/he is moderated again.
>
> I personally do not care if these concerns are valid or not -- I
> stopped reading her/his comments the moment they went to Trollland.
>
> There are many ways of raising an issue. The way s/he does it is not
> acceptable on the Ubuntu ecosystem.
>
> Cheers,
>
> ..C..
>
>