
At this time you should not upgrade a production desktop from 14.04 to 16.04 - iheredia
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/XenialXerus/ReleaseNotes#Upgrade
======
sciurus
Why is this on Hacker news? Ubuntu 16.04 won't be released for another 16
days. Of course you shouldn't upgrade _anything_ production to it!

[https://wiki.ubuntu.com/XenialXerus/ReleaseSchedule](https://wiki.ubuntu.com/XenialXerus/ReleaseSchedule)

~~~
dajohnson89
I find the language "production desktop" a little interesting, as opposed to
"production server". Is a production desktop the same thing as my dev box,
which I use to develop and maintain production software?

~~~
toomuchtodo
Yes, and is just as critical as a server. When the server is down, you're
losing money. When a dev is down, your company (or you) are losing $X/hr,
based on your billable rate or fully loaded costs.

------
tacoman
The LTS to LTS upgrade path usually isn't enabled until a point release
anyway. For example, the the 12.04 to 14.04 upgrade wasn't enabled in the
software update application until 14.04.1 was released a month or two after
the initial 14.04 release.

------
voltagex_
Whole lot of noise in that bug report - they finally managed to narrow it down
and fix the issue:
[https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/dbus/+bug/1555237/...](https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/dbus/+bug/1555237/comments/28)

~~~
makomk
Yay, more systemd-related breakage in a core system component. (udev is
developed as part of systemd now and the developers don't particularly care
what happens when you run it on anything else. It's also the standard way of
creating device nodes on Linux and the only one the kernel developers are
willing to support.)

~~~
digi_owl
Largely thanks to the people involved developed both udev and the kernel
interfaces in lock step.

And who are those people? GregKH and Sievers. I really do wonder why Torvalds
still trust GregKH with anything kernel related.

[http://www.landley.net/notes-2015.html#05-07-2015](http://www.landley.net/notes-2015.html#05-07-2015)

------
ams6110
What is a "production desktop" ? I've never heard that term in over 20 years
of IT work.

~~~
chatmasta
I agree it seems a little silly, but to me any system can qualify as
"production" if you are responsible for maintaining it within some expectation
of reliability. So for example a "production server" is a server that your
customers expect to be reliable and stable. A "production desktop" could exist
within an IT environment, for example at a company that provides Ubuntu
workstations to its employees. If the sysadmin upgrades machines to 16.04,
then they break, employees will be pissed.

------
JdeBP
Interestingly, there's a still open upgrade bug from Debian 7 (with systemd)
to Debian 8 which hangs the upgrade process, that similarly involves udev
update.

* [https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=774153](https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=774153)

* [https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=737825](https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=737825)

------
stormbrew
More worrying than this to me is that they're removing the fglrx driver. I'd
love to use the open source drivers, but the radeon and amdgpu drivers do not
seem to be getting equal amounts of love and amdgpu only applies to _really_
new video cards.

~~~
talideon
My understanding is that it's not that they want to as such, but that their
hand has been forced on the issue, especially given that this is an LTS
release, and they've been supporting fglrx a lot longer than many other
distros. The fglrx driver is so horribly ancient that there's really no
sensible way of supporting it.

Apparently, there'll be a more suitable driver coming out of AMD some time
this summer.

~~~
chippy
Would it be correct in saying that flgrx is still available, but it's not in
the base distribution, and that it's been replaced in the distro by another
package?

In other words is it up to the user to install the desired graphics driver
that they want? For example, the ones from AMD/ATIs site?

~~~
talideon
Xorg 1.18, which is what 16.04 is shipping with, doesn't support fglrx, which
is why Canonical can't continue to support it.

~~~
merb
And that is just too bad since the radeon driver couldn't detect the Ratio of
my monitor with a VGA -> DVI adapter (yes the monitor is ancient 720p only)

------
thesorrow
I tried the 16.04 cloud image today on kvm. I'm stuck at btrfs loading...
Release date is in less than a month I expected the os to boot at least !
Definetely not production ready...

------
jlappi
Ran into this myself. Lack of ability to access the tty's greatly reduced my
ability to even debug the situation further. I just moved to CentOS.

