[00:20] <arraybolt3> I just learned that the development release doesn't get the same security fix reliability as stable releases, for good reasons. I'm wondering, is there any similar preference for LTS releases over interim releases? Would it theoretically be more secure for me to run Jammy rather than Kinetic?
[00:27] <amurray> we treat all stable releases the same so it should not be more secure to run say jammy than kinetic from a unpatched known vulns perspective 
[00:28] <arraybolt3> +1, thanks for your help!
[00:28] <amurray> but since CVEs tend to affect newer software (in general), an argument could be made that it is perhaps more secure to run an older release since in general they have less CVEs affecting them over time
[00:29] <amurray> fwiw I run kinetic and will probably upgrade to lunar in the next month or two - but that is to help with devel tasks etc
[00:29] <arraybolt3> Eh, I generally don't worry about zero-days. As long as known vulns are patched, I'm happy - for the times when zero-days are important, QEMU to the rescue.
[00:30] <arraybolt3> Anyway I guess now it's just a matter of what flavor to jump to if I'm going to do a clean installation anyway. /me distrohops quite a bit :P
[00:30] <arraybolt3> (I guess jumping between different Ubuntu flavors isn't really a distrohop but you get what I mean.)
[00:37] <sarnold> I've personally got a variety of LTS machines ranging from "oh he really should upgrade that" to "yeah that's a good choice" :)