So a new major version of Debian has been released, and now I see a lot of complaints about various issues stemming from an upgrade. I do not remember this many after an LTS Ubuntu version. I don’t want to rush to conclusions like “Ubuntu has money for better quality assurance”. I can easily come up with explanations for why these statistics can be skewed, like “Ubuntu-loving plebeians do not come to complain to elite Lemmy users about their puny problems”. I’m curious what you think?
Would this be a correct summary: you use Debian a lot but only after potential issues have been ironed out, so you don’t see problems; you see problems with Ubuntu when colleagues or customers jump on immature releases?
I meant in Lemmy I dont see complaints or bugs reported so much about Debian.
The first two pages of Linux@lemmy.ml show me 6 entries about such upgrades 🤷 Do you subscribe to this community?
No, and also is possible this is due to Debian 13 release plus increment in Lemmy usage in the past years.
I did not notice this before.
I am more around Debian community.
Yes, the change of the Lemmy user base was on my list of possible causes
Related to the thing: I like mature and safe transitions, specially if is supposed to run in production.
From my POV, and knowing I already take care if something for new Debian releases, Ubuntu, even in LTS, is the worse what I could wish because they release unreleased and/or unstable software, which did not even pass Debian releases statuses.
Is this true even for the point LTS releases?
Yes.
Ubuntu 24.04 is equivalent to Debian 13, except Ubuntu 24.04 was released last year.
Every Ubuntu version is based on a copy of Debian Sid, which is the unstable branch.
Eventually, they incorporate Debian patches too but keep some packages in different versions (libpng, the kernel, openssl and similar are the most I remember but they change between releases).
Thank you, I see what you mean. I think there’s a flaw in this logic, but I would rather not dive deeper into this topic.