Which version is recommended?

[KudosMatrix7]

Currently I have 12.04 the Precise Pangolin because I saw somewhere that it was the latest stable release

I've had Linux for a little while now and have a very basic understanding of it but I need no fancy things, just something solid, stable, and updateable, so I ask for recommendation as to which version I should have at this time

Thank you

[SteveRiley]

Precise is an LTS release. LTS means long-term support, but that should not be interpreted as necessarily being more stable. Anecdotally, Quantal had fewer problems -- at least, I don't recall reading as much griping, if that's any kind of indicator

Tell us more about the hardware you have.

[oshunluvr]

If "stable" is what you really need, you're better off with Debian Wheezy or couple other distros on a slower upgrade path. If "long term" is what you mean, Kubuntu 12.04 will give a better, more up-to-date experience. The current release 13.04 is rather excellent for most of us and will be supported until the next LTS -14.04.

[whisper]psst: Don't ask Steve about 12.04. He's rather touchy about it since he was a victim of a rather nasty bug in that version. [/whisper]

[SteveRiley]

[whisper]psst: Don't ask Steve about 12.04. He's rather touchy about it since he was a victim of a rather nasty bug in that version. [/whisper]

What, me touchy?


Never!

- - -

Actually, you've got a good point about Debian. The challenge will be installing it on machines with nVidia or AMD graphics, or with wireless cards that require certain non-free firmware. Debian doesn't have anything like Jockey.

[dmeyer]

If "stable" is what you really need, you're better off with Debian Wheezy or couple other distros on a slower upgrade path. If "long term" is what you mean, Kubuntu 12.04 will give a better, more up-to-date experience. The current release 13.04 is rather excellent for most of us and will be supported until the next LTS -14.04.

[whisper]psst: Don't ask Steve about 12.04. He's rather touchy about it since he was a victim of a rather nasty bug in that version. [/whisper]

That's terrible advice. Maybe your underlying system might be more stable but new hardware support is terrible and newer KDE versions are always more stable. Therefore for the best KDE experience always go for the latest Kubuntu.

[oshunluvr]

That's terrible advice. Maybe your underlying system might be more stable but new hardware support is terrible and newer KDE versions are always more stable. Therefore for the best KDE experience always go for the latest Kubuntu.

Uh, if you're running a stable system - you're likely not adding new hardware - thus constant upgrades actually reduce stability except when you must replace a failed component with a different model because the previous one is not available. It's the core of what I do for a living, so stability I'm familiar with. My network runs on Fedora 6, Gnome 2, and Windows XP on 2005-6 circa hardware. Not an unstable unit in the bunch.

And your comment is terrible: constantly upgrading your desktop is the antithesis of stable. Just because a newer version of a DE is faster, more featured, smoother, etc. does not equal stability. Dealing with known bugs is more stable than having to constantly suss out new ones. A stable approach involves slow methodical study of needs balanced with risk prior to an upgrade.

sta·ble ¹(stbl)
1.a. Resistant to change of position or condition; not easily moved or disturbed: a house built on stable ground; a stable platform.
b. Not subject to sudden or extreme change or fluctuation: a stable economy; a stable currency.
c. Maintaining equilibrium; self-restoring: a stable aircraft.

2. Enduring or permanent: a stable peace.
3.a. Consistently dependable; steadfast of purpose.


I left out the parts about chemistry, structures and mental stability as they don't apply. Or do they?

[dmeyer]

Uh, if you're running a stable system - you're likely not adding new hardware - thus constant upgrades actually reduce stability except when you must replace a failed component with a different model because the previous one is not available. It's the core of what I do for a living, so stability I'm familiar with. My network runs on Fedora 6, Gnome 2, and Windows XP on 2005-6 circa hardware. Not an unstable unit in the bunch.

And your comment is terrible: constantly upgrading your desktop is the antithesis of stable. Just because a newer version of a DE is faster, more featured, smoother, etc. does not equal stability. Dealing with known bugs is more stable than having to constantly suss out new ones. A stable approach involves slow methodical study of needs balanced with risk prior to an upgrade.

sta·ble ¹(stbl)
1.a. Resistant to change of position or condition; not easily moved or disturbed: a house built on stable ground; a stable platform.
b. Not subject to sudden or extreme change or fluctuation: a stable economy; a stable currency.
c. Maintaining equilibrium; self-restoring: a stable aircraft.

2. Enduring or permanent: a stable peace.
3.a. Consistently dependable; steadfast of purpose.


I left out the parts about chemistry, structures and mental stability as they don't apply. Or do they?

I'm guessing we view stable differently then. I view stable as crashing less, less bugs and overall less hassle. With KDE that always tends to involve upgrading to the latest stable version. Also constant hardware is something I'm not used to. I like being able to just pull the ssd out of my old laptop and dropping it into my new one or being able to plug my usb into any pc and boot up into a fully functioning system regardless of how new the device is. For general desktop use I really don't see Debian providing a particularly "stable" experience over a well polished Kubuntu release when my new sound card keeps hissing or I run into a pesky KDE bug that's been fixed in 4.9. For a server (generally fairly static hardware) Debian is exceptional but for a desktop (changing hardware) I feel you can do much better for what I call stability.

[oshunluvr]

So we're not that far off - For me, my personal computer hardware ranges from very stable (laptops) to mostly stable (desktop and server). The only hardware changes occur when something dies or a random biennial minor upgrade to my desktop. So the only instability I see is from software upgrades. My server ran 10.04 for 30 months, but I wanted kernel upgrade to the btrfs tools, so it now runs 12.04 and will until 2017 unless there is a compelling reason to do otherwise. This is how I define stable.

Possibly, to me your meaning is more like "reliable" than stable. I could not argue against KDE 4.10 being waaay more reliable than 4.2.