Switching to Linux but I can't decide which version of Ubuntu to use

Switching to Linux but I can't decide which version of Ubuntu to use.
What's the difference between LTS & non-LTS.

>ubuntu.com/download/desktop

Other urls found in this thread:

releases.ubuntu.com/17.10/
msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/commandline/wsl/about#
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

use deepin its literally normie tier easy to install

How long it's supported for basically. LTS is fewer changes because you only upgrade version every 2 years but get most application and all security updates in that time.

In practice either is fine.

don't use ubuntu.
Get something like Mint, Manjaro or Arch

>mint
frankenstein of a frankenstein
>manjaro
lol
>arch
meme os
use debian

what's wrong with Manjaro?

inb4 "le chinese botnet" memes

But on a more serious note, I still recommend Ubuntu over Deepin because compatibility and history, yo.

Xubuntu

literally everything

It's a security nightmare designed by schlomo devs, piggybacking on what can't even truly be called Arch and being solely marketed to "muh gayms" neets, using a plagiarized logo.

If you really care about Arch's benefits, just install a fucking ArchAnywhere iso and build from vanilla.

And on top of this, you'd be better off compiling Gentoo anyway if you have the persistence to babysit Arch's infinite fuckups.

LTS is like using XP, then 7 for as long as possible.

non-LTS is like upgrading to vista, 7, 8, 10 on release day.

install ubuntu minimal to avoid all the bloat and spyware

releases.ubuntu.com/17.10/
use that instead. Get the amd64 desktop iso if your CPU is 64-bit, or the i386 if it's 32-bit.

17.10 is so much better because they got rid of Unity and made a lot of improvements.
If you don't give a shit about gaming using Wayland instead of Xorg.

LTS = stable and long term supported with updates etc.

non-LTS = edgy version of the above with more bugs that nobody needs

LTS if you don't want to bother with it for awhile.
running that on my chinkpad.

easy macOS

-Stick with LTS (Long Term Support) unless you have a good reason to use other.
-Ubuntu main release is great for starters
-Jump in. Get started. Don't overthink your choices.

If it works - Don't fix it.

There's literally no reason to use anything other than Ubuntu unless you want a lot of (You)s in screenfetch threads for your glorious Arch ricing. Ubuntu's got everything - large community, largest software repositories and tons of support.

>It's a security nightmare designed by schlomo devs,
How?
>Arch's benefits
Arch has benefits?

LTS is only for lesbians trans sexuals

Install mint.
Ubuntu is already outmatched by mint in being just working desktop OS

>Ubuntu's got everything
Except unity now. RIP you was a real nigga

Just do Ubuntu LTS. Every time. You have no idea what you're doing. Make your life easier and reduce the amount of shit you have to think about.

Even spyware and retarted interface. Literally full windows 10 experience

Sauce?
>inb4 your ass

>the botnet is bad
When will this shitty meme die.
>THE NSA SIMPLY CAN'T KNOW IM CREATING THE NEXT BIG THING
fucking idiots

If you don't run a server then there is no reason to get LTS. I don't understand why they recommend it to beginners. The only thing that you will notice is that you won't get new updates until a year after everyone else.

If I installed Ubuntu today I would use mint or KDE neon. Both are Ubuntu for every practical purpose, but Ubuntu got rid of unity which was great

Long Term Support (LTS) releases are supported longer but between releases you wont receive new features. Good for servers, workstations, grandma computers, etc. Basically stuff you don't want to mess with constantly. Not great for a desktop/laptop where you might want to make use of newer features.

people around here recommend server tier versions all the time
they think that because it's "updated less" that automatically makes it better

Honestly it really doesn't matter because you can always upgrade to the non-LTS release channel later on anyway but you should probably just pick the non-LTS release.

if you want support all you have to do is do-release-upgrade from the cli

"supported for longer" only make sense for servers. Do you guys really expect OP to not update his shit until 2020? If he runs apt-get dist-upgrade at least once every two years then there is literally no benefit to get LTS. LTS is for people who like to wait years for bug fixes and rather work around any bugs. It's for systems that can't be updated. You guys are fucking idiots recommending shit like that to a beginner. LTS don't have less bugs or anything like that... It's just a version where they find workarounds for bugs instead of updating the software. If he is able to run apt-get update then there is no reason to get LTS.

Even Ubuntu recommends it on their website, but it makes no sense. Any beginner benefit greatly in avoiding LTS because they can just update the software to get rid of bugs instead of learning to live with them for years until next LTS version. Literally no benefit for a desktop user to treat their system like a server that cannot have a second of downtime to update.

nah, it's because they run memepads from 2006 and their hardware can barely run recent versions

same reason garbage like arch, xubuntu, and ubantu minimal are being peddled here.

if you want a distro that actually somewhat supports your new hardware you go for fedora, due to faster kernel updates

You CAN upgrade to a non-LTS release, but have you tried it? It goes from upgrade to upgrade. Every upgrade since the LTS is installed iteratively. It's like going from Windows 95 to Windows 10, but installing Windows 98, Windows 2000, Windows Vista, Windows XP and Windows 7 before installing Windows 10. Takes less time to just download and install the newest version from scratch. At least that was the case the one and only time I did it.

Right it just runs with this misconception that the fewer updates, the better. Sure that's true for servers which quite literally need to be running all the time, but for regular users who are probably going to reboot/turn off at least once a week? It's pointless.

Good point.

And Linux don't even need to reboot when updating software. Except when people run production critical servers then any changes carries a certain amount of risk so it should be done as little as possible. If a normal user updates libreoffice and it causes glitches (not that I think it would happen, just an example) until they restart libreoffice then it is not a big deal. Just save the file and restart libreoffice.

It's not a server with customer data and potential data loss and corruption because files are changed during updates. I always like to point that out. People always recommend LTS, but it's habits that exist because Linux is most often used as servers and people don't reflect on WHY LTS is recommended as stable.

For regular people it's just necessary restrictions with no real benefit.

Use LTS. Unity is still the best DE and why the fuck would you want to be a beta tester when you're just switching to Linux?

Xubuntu or Zorin Lite

...

>Xubuntu
>latest release 2 yrs ago

May as well recommend Enlightenment.

Stay in Windows and learn Linux via
Linux Subsystem for Windows

msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/commandline/wsl/about#

Gentoo

It's not beta testing. LTS versions are not tested more than other versions, it just is supported longer with working repositories and that sort of thing. It's just for people who want to avoid updating for many years. It's not a more stable release other than the fact that you can get security updates for it. It has been tested just as much as any other release. It's just a normal release apart from the support you fucking brainlet

Except its useless and cannot do shit. Noone will learn anything useful.

Zeitgeist and MOTD ads come in the base installation, friend.

cancer

>What's the difference between LTS & non-LTS.
The difference is one has LTS and the other does not.

wait for ubuntu lts 18.04, when they remove unity

You can switch to thing with a single command so why does it matter?

LTS
ALWAYS LTS

Apart from the default DE and default programs, what fundamental difference is there between installations of Ubuntu, Mint, and Elementary? Same for those and Fedora (add on package manager to the "apart from" list). Is the choice between one or the other really just about what defaults you prefer?

if you wanna gaymin you are looking for the non-LTS
otherwise go LTS

Go for LTS, non-LTS is a piece of shit that literally can not connect to the internet due to a bug. You have to edit some config file to fix it.

Yes I'm sure all the tens of thousands thousands of ubuntu users at the moment can't access the internet and are just dealing with that.

all the cool kids are using mint

Gentoo

>babysit Arch
I've had very few issues with Arch, and all have been because of my own stupidity. The OS itself is extremely straightforward and almost never behaves wrong.

The only real difference between LTS and no LTS is that LTS has to wait many years for bug fixes. LTS is not tested more, it's a normal version like any other, but has repositories that last longer. It's made for those who never update their computers because they can't.

If there is a bug in LTS where people cannot connect to the Internet (just as big chance of that as non-LTS versions) then LTS has to wait 2 years for a bug fix while non-LTS always get the newest bug fixes.

With LTS you need to edit some config file and learn to live with the bug because it is a version designed not to be updated more than twice per decade.

The only Linux choice is Ubuntu. Everything else isn't viable. Entire communities use Ubuntu: NASA/ISS, scientific communities, internet infrastructure, Vitalik Buterin, corporations,etc. Too many to list. Also, Ubuntu 17.10, releasing this month, is amazing. Much better than the current 17/04 release. It's like an entirely new Ubuntu.

...so go with non-LTS.

>Arch
It's a joke.
- Former Arch user now using Ubuntu

It's pretty easy to fix if you know how to use google. But a normie who has never used linux before probably wont know how to do that.

If Ubuntu hasn't removed Unity (their garbage UI), yet, I would refrain from choosing it at all.

Mint would be my recommendation.

real cancer. ubuntu garbage performance.

use antergos OP. you're welcome

i'm old and boring and just want to fuck around on the internet so i always use lts and i always wait for the .1 point release before upgrading, for example, i did a clean install of 16.04.1 whenever it was released and have been using it since, i'll use it until 18.04.1 and then i'll do another clean install

I was going to invert this, but then I realized I'd have to admit using Ubuntu at some point. There are some lines you just don't cross.

Ubuntu

why don't you google that? lt stands for "long term support". but you could have read the description on the download site.

> schlomo devs
Sup Forums detector alerts like hell you're one of those conspiracy nutheads.

nothing