Pointex 7 jan à 10h57
Difference between Ubuntu 12.04 LTS and 13.10
I want make sure if I got it right:
12.04 LTS = more stable because better hardware support
13.10 = newer package versions --> better perfomance

is this correct? I have 12.04LTS version of Xubuntu and not sure if I shall upgrade to 13.10. I don't know exactly the pros and contras of them. Any clue anyone?
Affichage des commentaires 1 à 15 sur 47
< >
Junior s2 Camila 7 jan à 11h00 
Not exactly.

12.04 AFIAK doesn't have better hardware support, at least regarding the latest hardware. It is more stable then regular releases, so I suggest you stick with it, 14.04 is coming soon and it's a far better alternative than 13.10 which is giving people some headache.

13.10 has newer software but it doesn't necessarily mean better performance.
Dernière modification de Junior s2 Camila; 7 jan à 11h04
GameBeast 7 jan à 11h04 
Well, the next LTS release is 14.04 which is out in April, so if you can hold out for just a couple of months you'll be fine (with LTS). But it depends - are you happy with 12.04? Is it giving you trouble? Do you really need performance improvements right now? 13.10 does have better performance, but apparently also has a lot of issues. If 12.04 is running perfectly, stick with it until 14.04. If it's not, maybe the newer packages will be best for you.
-FwG- ^ Bucky 7 jan à 11h58 
GameBeast a écrit :
Well, the next LTS release is 14.04 which is out in April, so if you can hold out for just a couple of months you'll be fine (with LTS). But it depends - are you happy with 12.04? Is it giving you trouble? Do you really need performance improvements right now? 13.10 does have better performance, but apparently also has a lot of issues. If 12.04 is running perfectly, stick with it until 14.04. If it's not, maybe the newer packages will be best for you.

I took this attitude back when 13.10 came out... and 13.04.... and 12.10...

What can I say? I'm lazy. :P
CompanionTube 7 jan à 12h21 
12.04 is more stable
13.10 has better performance and supports newer drivers

if you're happy with the performance you're getting stick with 12.04. if not... you could always install a mainline kernel and add xorg-edgers ppa to your system to tide you over for the next few months. you'll get similar graphics performance to 13.10 and the rest of your system will be relatively stable.....
Dernière modification de CompanionTube; 7 jan à 12h22
Rahabib 7 jan à 13h03 
AMD drivers for use in steam are buggy in 13.10. 13.10 is buggy in general for me. stick with 12.04 until 14.04.
R3450N 7 jan à 13h10 
If you get Ubuntu 13.10 make sure you disable apport; that is what gives me a headache at least. Ubuntu 12.04 is good for Nvidia OPTIMUS cards supposedly because it installs Nvidia-prime correctly. You're better off with Ubuntu 13.10 and waiting for 14.04 LTS.
aliceif 7 jan à 14h29 
Let's not forget that some software has dependencies that can be resolved on 13.10 and not on 12.04LTS because of outdated packages. It's not directly steam-related but still something to consider.
[REB] Lady From Hell 7 jan à 15h01 
i've never had an issue with 13.10 i don't see why people make a fuss over it, and as much as i'm looking forward to 14.04, its not exactly meeting the expectations set, still going to be using xmir.
R3450N 7 jan à 15h13 
To be honest, I think the best decision for Cannonical and Ubuntu as a whole is to just contribute towards Wayland's development and use Wayland instead. Honestly, Ubuntu is literlally on its own when it comes to Mir. GPU vendors of Nvidia and AMD are reluctant to support Mir; Intel developers are even more reluctant to support the open-source drivers on the Intel GPU. This whole thing with Mir is pointless and should just be scrapped completely. Wayland afterall can be used in conjuntion with mobile phones as well, and there's nothing stopping Cannonical from developing an implementation thereof if that feature is lacking; it would benefit all Linuxers after all should Wayland also be extended to the mobile platform. I think Cannonical are making a big big mistake by detracting and it would only cost the company its repuation therefore. When Mir rolls out, I am pretty much abandoning Ubuntu for a distro that either sticks with X or uses Wayland. Unless the Ubuntu devs add Wayland compatibility layer on top of Mir, there's no reason for any developer to be developing for Mir; and certainly no reason why we need two different implementations of EGL. What can of worms have invested Shuttleworth's brain is another matter.

With that in mind, I advise you to use Ubuntu until Mir rolls out where it's just going to be disgraced by far on Ubuntu's side than your own.
Letalis Sonus 7 jan à 15h24 
Remember that 12.04 got that Hardware Enablement Stack mess: 12.04.2 got the X Server and Kernel of 12.10 and 12.04.3 got those from 13.04 - each installation keeps the components it was installed with, combining any of those available components is officially unsupported. This causes a huge mess package-wise, which may cause lots of problems, e.g. the popular Xorg-Edgers PPA only supports the original 12.04 base system. An unexperienced user may easily uninstall half of the system due to dependency conflicts.

The LTS->LTS upgrade feature is known to be very buggy and requires some time to mature (upgrading generally keeps getting worse with normal upgrades on release date, however - eventually it might just come from the whole Canonical-egotrip stuff and might be less annoying with e.g. Xubuntu).
Junior s2 Camila 7 jan à 16h48 
Or go for Debian. You know what people say, Valve was stripping all the crap out of Ubuntu and they noticed that all that was left was Debian.
Dernière modification de Junior s2 Camila; 7 jan à 17h51
Doc Holliday 7 jan à 17h02 
12.04 will turn into 13.10 down the road so there is no point in reinstalling
Jamie F 7 jan à 19h49 
The diffrence is theres a 13 on the box :P


lol anyone get the refrence?
Pointex 8 jan à 23h15 
Or go for Debian. You know what people say, Valve was stripping all the crap out of Ubuntu and they noticed that all that was left was Debian.
I was already thinking about it since I have PowerLAN and would not have wireless issues with Debian like before. But Do you know if Debian runs smoother and faster than (x)Ubuntu with games? I mean Debian is actually a server system and not desktop
Junior s2 Camila 9 jan à 0h39 
In my opinion Debian is characterized as a server OS because it's main release is Stable. I mean, the thing WILL NOT BREAK, but it still has a Desktop Environment and everything that a fully functional distro has, not to mention that you can install all that server stuff (File Server, Web Server, Print Server, etc, etc) at install process.

In regards of performance, there are quite a few things to consider.
Ubuntu's LTS versions are mainly based off of Debian Testing, so the performance is usually the same. But Ubuntu tends to break a lot more than Debian, in one year of using Ubuntu you'll probably have a lot more breakage then if you were using Debian testing/unstable for tens of years (according to testimonies).

Ubuntu's non-LTS releases are mainly based off of Debian Unstable/Experimental, and we know that newer software equals better performance in most cases such as newer drivers or Kernels. So, you might get a few fps more in Ubuntu non-LTS than Debian Stable/Testing, but then again, the chances of Ubuntu breaking something is huge, Ubuntu is not Debian and it breaks a lot. In fact, I've had less breakage in Arch than Ubuntu, probably because Canonical loves to release software when it's not finished. By not finished I mean they've put their dirty hands on it, modify the damn thing, then release it half-finished.
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=debian_wheezybsd_freeze&num=2


So, if you want to experiment with Ubuntu, you might get a little percentage of performance improvement, and the chances of your system breaking improves a lot. Just keep in mind that you will also get a key-logger and a a spyware by default. That doesn't happen on Debian. You can trust Debian.

Just to finish:

Arch has way newer software than Debian or Ubuntu will ever had, and still I haven't noticed any noticeable performance gain. It's like:

70 fps on Debian Stable
72 fps on Debian Testing and Ubuntu LTS
(?) fps on non-LTS releases of Ubuntu
75 fps on Arch.

That's why I'm going back to Debian. My eye/brain won't feel the difference of that gain, and being rock-solid with Debian is better than getting to fix things once in a while.
Dernière modification de Junior s2 Camila; 9 jan à 0h40
Affichage des commentaires 1 à 15 sur 47
< >
Par page : 15 30 50