On 04/04/2016 07:02 AM, Tom H wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 6:44 AM, Yasha Karant <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>
>> The Ubuntu LTS ("stable" "server" "hardened" "enterprise" distro)
>> bootable DVD actually works in the consumer HP laptop my wife may have
>> to use.
>>
>> The kernel Ubuntu LTS uses is:
>>
>> 4.2.0-35.40~14.04.1
> That's because you installed 14.04.4.
>
> Had you installed 14.04.3, you'd have 3.19.
>
> Had you installed 14.04.2, you'd have 3.16.
>
> Had you installed 14.04.1 or 14.04.0, you'd have 3.13.
>
> And you could've stayed at whatever version that you'd want to use.
>
> Basically three or four months after the release of a non-LTS version,
> its kernel's made available within the latest LTS version; more or
> less.
>
>
>> In this regard, is anyone using Ubuntu LTS in a production
>> environment? Is it fact both stable and (reasonably) hardened (e.g.,
>> not a consume/enthusiast product such as MS Win or RH Fedora)?
> Yes.
>
> On the desktop, there are far more Windows systems deployed than Linux ones...
I understand that my following comment on your last statement may be 
regarded as "off subject for this SL list".  First, in many parts of
the world other than the USA, MS Windows is not that well deployed even 
on the desktop except that many machines come with
MS Windows pre-installed.  (Aside:  I do not like the name "Windows" for 
MS Windows.  I routinely correct my students not to use
Windows, but Microsoft Windows or MS Windows.  Open systems also have 
Windows -- X windows.  All of the current "windows" GUI
systems evolved from the Xeror Star system -- officially. Xerox 8010 
Information System -- that were based upon previous "non-commercial"
research and implementation.  Evolved does not mean necessarily sharing 
the same source code, but the same "style" of basic GUI system.

The reason for the proliferation of MS Windows on the desktop has 
nothing to do with stability, hardening, or functionality.  It has to do 
with for-profit
business practices -- Microsoft is a monopoly that really should be at 
least four independent companies:  an OS environment company (MS Windows),
a software applications company (MS Office, etc.), an ISP and services 
vendor (e.g., "cloud" services and vendor rented provisioning), and an 
integrated
full systems vendor (supplying a complete hardware, environment, and 
applications software solution, similar to what Apple does with Mac 
machines).
Because of the monopoly, not quality, Microsoft has gotten the market 
share it does in the USA.  Microsoft attempted to make massive 
intrusions into high
performance locally distributed-coupled MIMD architectured machines 
(e.g., machines such as those listed in 
http://www.top500.org/list/2015/11/) , and did
not succeed because of the intrinsic limitations of the MS Windows 
model.  Architecturally, in terms of "classical" computing (not quantum 
computing, etc.),
the BSD Mach type kernel model is "better" than the Linux monolithic 
kernel; however, due to practical deployment development, as well as 
licensing issues
at the early stages of "Free"BSD, Linux has  by far won the open systems 
base.  Most of the Top 500 listed machines have some Linux base.