[Tutor] OT: Recommendations for a Linux distribution to dual-boot with Win7-64 bit

[Wolfgang Maier]

On 29.06.2016 04:16, Alex Kleider wrote:
>
>
> On 2016-06-28 11:46, David Rock wrote:
>> Here’s my take on a lot of this (it’s similar to what’s been said
>> already, so this is more of a general philosophy of distros).
>
> Very interesting reading for which I thank you.
> I'd be interested in knowing if you'd make a distinction between 'the
> latest
> Ubuntu' and their LTS releases?
> My approach has been to use LTS releases only and not bother with the ones
> in between.
>
> Comments?
> a

David kind of discussed the difference between them in an earlier post 
when he grouped distros into three categories, quoting him:

1. slower-moving, very stable, binary installs
2. fast-moving, stable-ish, binary installs
3. fast-moving, stable-ish, source installs

In a relative sense, linux stability is good regardless.  I only point 
out “very stable” because they are typically bulletproof on purpose, at 
the expense of some flexibility.

#1 examples:
Debian stable (codename jessie)
Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)
CentOS (a free RHEL repackaging)


Just add Ubuntu LTS releases here, while other Ubuntu releases fall in 
category #2. An LTS release never sees major version upgrades over its 
lifetime for its Linux kernel nor for other software package-managed by 
canonical so near the end of it things may be pretty outdated. That's 
not necessarily a big deal though. If your system works for you, why 
change it. I've sometimes upgraded to new releases just out of interest, 
but never because I felt I really had to.