Ubuntu Making Linux Look Bad?

Are Ubuntu's regular releases in need of explanation?
Christopher Smart's article in Linux Magazine asks the question: "Should users be warned of the unstable nature of regular bi-annual releases"?

"Canonical releases a new version of Ubuntu every 6 months, come what may. Unfortunately what most often comes is a system full of bugs, pain, anguish, wailing and gnashing of teeth - as many “early” adopters of Karmic Koala have discovered."

I've only been with Ubuntu since the 2007 regular release, 7.04, and though I've seen some "issues" in releases since then, they've always been minimal.

Seriously, do you know of any non-Linux operating systems that you can reasonably expect to install on just about any hardware without running into problems?

Apple's Mac OS is usually referred to as the most stable of all desktop systems, - not surprising, since the Mac OS is designed to run on only Apple's own limited hardware suite. (This isn't a criticism of the Mac OS or Apple - I think limiting hardware compatibility concerns is shrewd engineering).

Linux users/aficionados seem to have exceptionally high expectations of their operating system(s) and their vendors.. - Generally speaking, Linux-users are more critical of their free OS than they are of it's proprietary counterpart.

I've observed this phenomenon for a while now. My expectations of my Ubuntu OS are so much higher than of my Windows install, that any problem that crops up, no matter how trivial, is an insult to me, my computer, my love of Ubuntu-Linux, and IT in general. Go figure.

Linux/Gnu operating systems are a completely different animal than proprietary systems, and using a Linux-desktop is a completely different experience than working in Windows or Mac. -- They're meant to be!
Comparisons between Proprietary and Free software are usually made based on experiences in a proprietary environment, and not vice-versa.

At times I've thought Canonical could make more of a distinction between regular releases and their rock-solid LTSs.
There really isn't very much at Ubuntu.com, Canonical's main Ubuntu website, to indicate the difference between an LTS and the current "regular" release.

But that's something for Canonical and their marketing team to ponder, not me. - I'm just one of the lucky stiffs who gets to look forward to trying each new release.

Ubuntu-Linux is software I'm comfortable recommending.