Stability of Kubuntu 12.0.4.3 v's Kubuntu 13.04?

[chris2kari]

Guy's which is the more stable for day to day use in your experience?

Regards,
Chris

[Snowhog]

Really depends on the hardware one has and the preferences of the individual user. I'm running 13.04 on my two laptops; 32-bit and 64-bit. Both are rock solid for me.

[Buddlespit]

I've always had an issue with 12.04 on my desktop. Hardware issues. It never liked my video card. As long as I don't get too stupid with backports and additional ppa's, 13.04 is solid for me.

[dmeyer]

Guy's which is the more stable for day to day use in your experience?

Regards,
Chris

13.04

[tek_heretik]

I've been running 12.04.x since day one, there's been 3 major rounds of updates, nary a problem here. It's all about preference, I like stable and boring, I got tired of clicking around setting everything the way I like it every six months or so, lol (I'm a retired OS install junky, heh). If you like the latest and greatest, go for the most recent release, Kubuntu is pretty good regardless of the release but there are far less issues with LTS releases, LTS updates and packages are heavily tested before releasing them. The more recent releases include a newer base kernel which most of the time includes performance and security improvements.

[life0riley]

...Kubuntu is pretty good regardless of the release but there are far less issues with LTS releases, ...

Ditto that.

I've been on Kubuntu 12.04 LTS 32 bit since January 2013. I haven't done that much with backports or ppa's, and I've had no major issues.

[chris2kari]

Ditto that.

I've been on Kubuntu 12.04 LTS 32 bit since January 2013. I haven't done that much with backports or ppa's, and I've had no major issues.

Thanks for the feedback guys.
My unscientific testing leads me to believe that 32bit PAE & banning ppa's/back ports is safest.

In general the LTS 12.04 application stack is ageing but the kernel works ok with older hardware. On newer hardware it's better to have the newer kernel of 13.04 & the newer application stack (in theory) but the less tested nature of the packages makes it riskier in my experience.

As others have said I too am tired of distro hopping & distro installing. Just want a stable day to day system with an up to date applications stack. Strangely I may have found that elsewhere ( but I digress).

Chris


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

[tek_heretik]

Thanks for the feedback guys.
My unscientific testing leads me to believe that 32bit PAE & banning ppa's/back ports is safest.

Well that's if you don't have a 64-bit processor, or 64-bit features enabled, it's the 32-bit that is ancient and receiving less attention now (it's getting to the point where it's just being 'maintained'), almost everybody has 64-bit processor now. As for age of hardware, my hardware is circa 2009, lol (call in the archaeologists, heh), but is still quite powerful as far as computing goes, I have no problems running newer kernels on it, no offence, but I live and breath this stuff.

In regards to the Tapatalk link, I'm good, but thanks anyway.

[chris2kari]

Well that's if you don't have a 64-bit processor, or 64-bit features enabled, it's the 32-bit that is ancient and receiving less attention now (it's getting to the point where it's just being 'maintained'), almost everybody has 64-bit processor now. As for age of hardware, my hardware is circa 2009, lol (call in the archaeologists, heh), but is still quite powerful as far as computing goes, I have no problems running newer kernels on it, no offence, but I live and breath this stuff.

In regards to the Tapatalk link, I'm good, but thanks anyway.

It's not about the hardware or the kernel.

Anecdotally it seems trying to run multi arch (64 bit) package management adds unnecessary complexity.

I have modern hardware.
Using 32 bit PAE reduces package management complexity & performs just fine for the vast majority of desktop tasks.

Until all apps are 64 bit I'm sticking with 32 bit. I like 'KISS'.

I apologise if you were spammed by Tapatalk. That's not my doing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

[tek_heretik]

It's not about the hardware or the kernel.

Anecdotally it seems trying to run multi arch (64 bit) package management adds unnecessary complexity.

I have modern hardware.
Using 32 bit PAE reduces package management complexity & performs just fine for the vast majority of desktop tasks.

Until all apps are 64 bit I'm sticking with 32 bit. I like 'KISS'.

I apologise if you were spammed by Tapatalk. That's not my doing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

Ah, I 'see' your thinking, those same thoughts crossed my mind, but most of those if not all 32-bit packages creeping in to a 64-bit distro are legacy anyway, all the important stuff is 64-bit and runs just fine, even the nVidia driver for my 2.0 PCIe 16x vid card, jus' wunnerful.

[chris2kari]

Ah, I 'see' your thinking, those same thoughts crossed my mind, but most of those if not all 32-bit packages creeping in to a 64-bit distro are legacy anyway, all the important stuff is 64-bit and runs just fine, even the nVidia driver for my 2.0 PCIe 16x vid card, jus' wunnerful.

Well, just to give an example : Chrome (browser) 32 bit, Skype (im) 32 bit, Steam (game client) you guessed it, 32 bit only etc etc. installing & using these on a 64 bit distro requires some hacking, either by the distro dev's or the end user ( or both).

I have several machines here, the gaming box (core i5, 8gb ram, NVidia GTX-660 video) runs on OpenSUSE 12.3 32 bit PAE with the desktop optimised kernel. It plays all the latest games with the eye candy turned up to 'full bling' without raising a sweat.

People keep singing the praises of 64 bit but for most desktop users it's completely unnecessary IMHO.

Now if you have a database server with 128gb of ram then we can sit down & talk seriously about going 64bit....

Hope your Subday is going well


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

[tek_heretik]

Well, just to give an example : Chrome (browser) 32 bit, Skype (im) 32 bit, Steam (game client) you guessed it, 32 bit

See, that's the beauty of Linux, there is so much to choose from, you find what suits YOU. I don't use any of the apps you mentioned, there ya go. Skype I can understand being 32-bit (now that the Microslop Ferengi have swallowed it up, lol), but Steam and Chrome, that's weird. My Sunday is just fine, thanks for asking, hope yours is great too.

[richb]

Regarding the browser I think you mean Chromium. Chrome, aka Google Chrome, is available in 64 bit.

[chris2kari]

Regarding the browser I think you mean Chromium. Chrome, aka Google Chrome, is available in 64 bit.

A quick check shows 64 bit Chromium & Firefox builds are available in Linux recently. There are ugly problems with flash though.

I loath Flash but the 32 bit version is mandatory for Steam (which itself is 32 but) so until that limitation is removed I'll stick to 32 bit OS installs to dodge problems.

I've run 32/64 bit OS installs in parallel & I saw zero performance difference, just headaches on the 64 bit side.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

[richb]

No problems here with 64 bit systems which I have been running for over a year. There are some applications that may cause issues, but I have never run into any. And no flash problems.