I dislike ubuntu ... not it's users or people who like it. So that isn't meant as a slight on buntu users. If they like it, hey ... use whatcha like and works for you, shrugs. Do have a serious problem with buntu for many reasons. If you had to use it. Guessing sticking to their LTS releases would make the most sense. As it's obviously prone to be more stable. While have no idea why someone who's come to represent gnu/nix to the point they have would insist on spitting out buggy on top of buggy software and in general giving linux a bad name.
Ubuntu 10.10 was my 1st nix experience. Thought it blew and had me about ready to give up on linux. Remember thinking if this is the best of linux ... NO THANKS, KEEP IT. That was after hearing how great ubuntu is supposed to be. Didn't give up and tried other things, including LM. Have found buntu in general at worst to be buggy, at best bloated and not even coming close to living up to the hype. Many nix distro's that imo put it to shame. Many less well funded nix distro's freely floating around that are put together by 1 person, Crunchbang for example. Slitaz is another one man show linux, that is just really unique and neat imo. Many others that are much better examples of linux. All doing it better, with a tiny fraction of the resources canonical is supposed to have available. Guessing the majority of nix distro's could rightfully claim to be at least as good as buntu. Many to be much better. Ubuntu is nothing at all special. Still have no idea why it's virtually come to represent linux to the world.
Also wonder why someone doing so would insist on spitting out 1/2 baked, buggy software every 6 months ... Ready or not here it comes. I mean you'd think the fact that it's based on Debian's "UNSTABLE" ... would tell the buntu devs, hey guys ... This stuff might not be stable and may have bugs in it n stuff.
Nope they keep pumping out software anyway and in my view badly representing linux every time they do it. Which considering how lil of ubuntu is something canonical actually made vs how much of it is just taken directly from Debian etc. Think ubuntu has a greater responsibility to better represent linux. They are benefiting from massive amounts of hard work of others who were creating and innovating with software to create linux. Decades before there was such a thing as ubuntu linux. The least they could do is produce quality software to showcase all those people's talents and hard work.
Why not ubuntu ? Why not any of the 323 other nix distro's actively being developed ? One of them Linux Mint ... many of them better than ubuntu ... imo anyway.