Nowadays when you arrive to www.ubuntu.com no mention to the LTS
version and it seems the only suggestion is to install 9.10.

I asked, please, no flames. 9.04 worked great and I have been using
Gloria Mint 7 for several months now. Even Thunderbird is flaky in 9.10.
Ubuntu is suppose to be for everyone, not just techies and early adopters
who are willing to deal with all the problems. And most of all, it is
suppose to be stable, which it is not.

Clint Tinsley wrote:
I asked, please, no flames.

Don't worry, you ain't gonna get any.

It's the most stable it's been in 18 months, and it's
working for almost everybody.

Even Thunderbird is flaky in 9.10.

Ubuntu is suppose to be for everyone, not just techies
and early adopters

It's the most stable it's been in 18 months, and it's
working for almost everybody.

You are not being trufull in this statement. Version 9.04,
which was the first that I used, was much better. There
are too many problems to go into details again since so
many people have mentioned them in their postings. I
agree with the statement.


Even Thunderbird is flaky in 9.10.

This is very true and is true for Firefox. In 9.04 both of
these tended to work with problems

Ubuntu is suppose to be for everyone, not just techies
and early adopters

I was led to believe that Ubuntu was not just for techies or
for those who have the potential but lack the time or the
desire to be techies.

My decision to give up on Windows and go Ubuntu instead
of the MAC was due to money and the fact that I have a lot
of investment in Windows software which made it illogical
to buy a higher price (but much better) MAC computer to
just access the internet. I am using a Windows computer
that is not connected to the internet. I went this way after
a couple of bad incidents in which the "protection" apps
did not protect the computer and were disasters for me.

The final problem of using Windows that made me switch
might have been due to a buggy XP upgrade. It happen
around midnight a few months ago while I was looking at
books on Amazon.Com. I am sure that this was not due to
the Amazon site and I had not been to any sites (such as
porno) which would have sent me a trojan. Plus a lot of
other had such problems at the same time, including a
couple neighbors my age who would never be interested
in porn or other bad sites.

It's the most stable it's been in 18 months, and it's
working for almost everybody.

You are not being trufull in this statement. Version 9.04,
which was the first that I used, was much better. There
are too many problems to go into details again since so
many people have mentioned them in their postings. I
agree with the statement.

Rashkae wrote:
thomas wrote:

It's the most stable it's been in 18 months, and it's
working for almost everybody.

You are not being trufull in this statement. Version 9.04,
which was the first that I used, was much better. There
are too many problems to go into details again since so
many people have mentioned them in their postings. I
agree with the statement.



9.04 was a disaster by comparison. KDE updated to KDE4, before it was
ready by far, Amarok destroyed, god help you if you had an Intel graphic
chip and upgraded without taking the warning in release notes to heart..
Early adopters of ext4 having config files truncated to 0 bytes,
followed by a kernel that would lock up when you delete too many files
that wouldn't get patched for months; I could go on.

I love 9.04 personally, but subjectively, to say that 9.04 release was
'better' than 9.10 is a joke.


http://laserjock.wordpress.com/2009/11/ ... u-release/

I rest my case
I see that I need to correct my posting. The corrected version of 9.04