Why Ubuntu Users Should Run an LTS Release 2

Posted by JD 07/19/2013 at 22:00

Ubuntu is a specific Linux release – a distro – that is based on Debian, but with many, many GUI-level differences. Canonical is the company behind the Ubuntu releases and sometimes their near-term goals do not mesh with normal end-user goals. Canonical also changes some non-GUI things in their releases, but an average end-user will not notice those changes.

Anyway, I strongly believe that most end-users should be running the latest LTS release, not the 3 intermediate releases. for more reasons, keep reading.

Reinstalling Every Year?

Do you reinstall every 6-9 months? Non-LTS releases have much shorter support periods – 9-12 months. In reality, developers start running alpha versions a few months before the release date. This means the older version really isn’t supported as well in the last few months. LTS releases from 12.04 on gets 5 yrs of support, patches. That is plenty of time to relax and get used to the OS. Another LTS is released every 2 yrs, so you have time to migrate to it after it gets stable.

The Ubuntu LTS release schedule is every even year in April. I usually wait a few months after that before I install it – late June – so there is time for any bonehead bugs to be noticed and fixed.

Using an OS that isn’t supported anymore on the internet is a huge danger, even for Linux. Heck, even having a non-supported OS on a LAN is a risk if there is any other computer, TV, internet-connected anything on the LAN too. It is just too dangerous.

Different Goals for Every Release

Non-LTS releases have priorities OTHER THAN system stability. They try new things out. Often, those new things are not desirable or filled with bugs. Lots of issues get reported on 12.10, 13.04, 11.10 and 11.04 releases. I was here, saw them.

What About New Features?

Anything really great will be back ported to the most recent LTS. That is how UEFI support was added to 12.04. I’m sure there are other examples, of which I am not aware?

That doesn’t mean that long-in-the-tooth LTS releases will get updates for 3rd party programs. I was running 10.04 previously. When Gwibber stopped working with Twitter late in 2011, the newer code was not back ported to 10.04. Twitter wasn’t that important to me, so it didn’t matter, but I can see where for many people, it would be a reason to upgrade. Personally, if it were that important to me, I’d just load 11.04 or 11.10 (or some small Linux release like TinyCore) into a small virtual machine and remotely connect via X/Windows from my desktop to it over ssh. Trivial. ssh -X user@u1110 gwibber & would be all it required. With key-based ssh authentication, I wouldn’t notice the difference.

Beware! Not all packages are part of the LTS. Check your Ubuntu systems:


$ ubuntu-support-status —show-unsupported|more
Seems that on a LTS desktop system about 12 months is all the time GUI applications are supported. Just checked (4/2016) my 14.04 desktop and found over 300 packages which lost support 14 months ago! Some are scary results – like chromium-browser hasn’t been supported all this time.

A Matter of Policy

Think about MS-Windows for a second (not much longer than that, please). Companies usually will not load a new release until after SP1 is out. It is corporate policy to wait, so that early bugs are closed. LTS is about the same thing for Ubuntu.

Running 13.04 Now?

Are you running Ubuntu 13.04 now? Did you know that support for it ends in early 2014, months before 14.04 is released? You will need to migrate to 13.10. There isn’t any choice.

Final Words

Good enough reasons to stay on LTS? I think so. Most users just want their OS to work, no mess, no fuss. LTS releases tend to do that best.

Check your Ubuntu systems:


$ ubuntu-support-status —show-unsupported|more
Get the knowledge.

  1. Zhapur Lite 03/10/2014 at 00:46

    Good comments all around. Fiddled with rolling releases, semi-rolling, to get away from the half-year update cycles – but noticed that many rolling releases tend to get unstable after too many “rolls” on the same computer. Eventually realized that LTS was the way to go since it’s what the Mac and Windows OSes do anyway – plus you get 5 yrs. LTS on Linux, rather than the few years that Mac OS X or later versions of Windows give you. And yes, with backports enabled you’re not really missing much on the LTS releases. Ubuntu or Ubuntu-based LTSes seem the most stable to me. Tried Debian-stable based distros but didn’t notice any more stability than in Ubuntu LTS-based releases, only the need to fiddle with non-proprietary drivers. Oh well, Ubuntu-based LTS releases it is then, until something better comes around – maybe viable rolling distros…(one can always dream, hehe).

  2. Akima 06/13/2014 at 22:29

    A well written article. This is the advice I give to new Ubuntu users.

    I think Canonical would do well to steer new users away from the non-LTS releases.

    I’ve been using 12.04 for almost two years and am still very happy with it. It feels stable and the continuous security patches it receives are comforting to me! I’ll probably switch to 14.04, but I’m in no rush. LTS releases provide a stress free Ubuntu experience!