Hi
Here now walked back to 24.04.2 on a new computer after problems with 24.10
Now with 25.04 coming soon and 25.10 to be released in October.
What to do ?
I am on Ubuntu-Mate since 16.04 and I know about the LTS and the rest. But I can understand the 'newbies' to be a bit confused some way.
W
Hi, @Watford 
I can only tell my personal option: I only use LTS ("Long Term Support") versions of Ubuntu MATE which as you know (but indeed, as you said, some "newbie" may not know) are released every two years, in even years (in the sense of years that are divisible by 2), in April.
So, in this laptop computer that I'm using right now, I began with Ubuntu MATE 20.04 LTS ("Focal Fossa"), then I upgraded it to Ubuntu MATE 22.04 LTS ("Jammy Jellyfish") and finally I upgraded it to Ubuntu MATE 24.04 LTS ("Noble Numbat").
The following is taken from "Ubuntu release cycle | Ubuntu" - https://ubuntu.com/about/release-cycle :
"(...)
Long term support and interim releases
Version numbers are YY.MM
Releases of Ubuntu get a development codename (‘Oracular Oriole’) and are versioned by the year and month of delivery - for example, Ubuntu 24.10 was released in October 2024.
LTS or ‘Long Term Support’ releases are published every two years in April. LTS releases are the ‘enterprise grade’ releases of Ubuntu and are used the most. An estimated 95% of all Ubuntu installations are LTS releases.
Ubuntu LTS releases receive 5 years of standard security maintenance for all packages in the ‘Main’ repository. With an Ubuntu Pro subscription, you get access to Expanded Security Maintenance (ESM) covering security fixes for packages in both the ‘Main’ and ‘Universe’ repositories for 10 years.
(...)
Every six months between LTS versions, Canonical publishes an interim release of Ubuntu, with 24.10 being the latest example. These are production-quality releases and are supported for 9 months, with sufficient time provided for users to update, but these releases do not receive the long-term commitment of LTS releases. (...)"
The difference between "regular" Ubuntu and Ubuntu flavors / flavours ("Ubuntu MATE" is an Ubuntu flavor) is that Ubuntu flavors LTS versions usually are considered to be EOL ("End-Of-Life") 3 years after its release date. See, for instance, the following post by @franksmcb , that he posted in April 2023, regarding the EOL of "Ubuntu MATE 20.04 LTS" ("Focal Fossa"):
The following post by @guiverc is also informative about the difference in the LTS support period between "regular" Ubuntu and Ubuntu flavors:
My opinion is the same as Ricardo's. Stick with LTS only.
I did 2 separate installs of the non-LTS along the way (since my first install of Ubuntu 6), and those led to regrets.
Only if you REALLY need the features of the in-between releases should you consider installing them. Yes, for the most part they are good but ... they are not LTS for a reason, namely development transitional versions acting as test-beds!
I am with you guys. Since my first 16.04 I did roll with the new-releases (LTS or non-LTS) without any issue up to 24.10. Then fatality struck.
If your machine is a production machine I fully support ''Stick to LTS''. You may play around with the other versions on a separate machine.
And thanks Ric for republishing the release cycle stuff. I was trying to explain that to newbies...around a beer... not the best way...
W
I'm another "LTS only" user.
There are good reasons that the default is to notify users only when a new LTS is available.
Interim versions (e.g. xx.10 or odd-number.04) only seem useful if hardware isn't supported (even via HWE kernels on an LTS), or if some new feature is really needed.
There is yet another reason to stick to LTS releases: personal customizations are reapplied once in three years, not every six months.
Only LTS versions for me too, but I had to learn that the hard way on Zorin 5. I had no more than installed it and love it than it told me it was 'end of life'. I had to do some research and then found out about LTS releases, and then did a fresh install of Zorin 6.
I stayed with Zorin until about 10 when their aim was to make it as muck like Windows as they could. I hated it and moved on, it was to much like Windows to me, hidden and locked down.
I really appreciate people willing to install alpha, beta, RC (release candidates) and non-LTS releases. (I have tried that and they are not for me) They are the people willing to find and work through the bugs and they are the people that make the LTS releases more problem free. I am not one of those people, I just want stable releases. I have no desire for 'cutting edge'.
There is no Ubuntu 25.04.1 release scheduled, as it's not a LTS thus point releases make little sense. The last non-LTS to have such a .1 release was Ubuntu 17.10, but that was only because newer install media was required (thus mandating a .1 to be used).
Were you instead thinking of 26.04? ie. 2026-April release which is the next LTS.
Oops, sorry, mistake. I erased my comment
I'm another LTS user -- in my case I'm still happily on 22.04 LTS on my main machine. I had my fill of trying out the "latest and greatest" before when I was distro hopping a lot, now I'm just happy with my setup that works.
I have a secondary computer to scratch the itch of taking a look at new releases (see my post about my first look at 25.04 Plucky Puffin).
OK all of you are 'LTS type' 
The web is full or articles concluding about how great the new versions are.
Even though the logic of keeping with LTS stands, how one would describe (to newbies) the 'risks'/benefits of going from 24.04 to 25.04 (and having to go through 24.10 in between...) ?
This is not described as such in many places.
Just thinking...
W
To my experience, there are no essential risks or benefits in following intermediate releases vs LTS ones. I tried both and saw no difference, except for the need to reapply personal customizations more or less frequently.
IMHO, the rate of intermediate releases is forced by consumerist attitudes of the industry and customers. Oh, those bleeding edges... 
I saw it laid out in another post which I'd agree with.
In my personal opinion, I would explain:
(And, if the new user is like me and my production environment, Ubuntu Pro is an option to apply to the LTS, and get security updates for 10 years following the release date of the LTS. In my opinion, the so-called "capitalistic approach" i.e. consumerism and the obsession of getting the hands on the "shiny new toy" is the antithesis of a good, stable production environment.)
I hope this helps.
Jaymo
If you're interested in contributing but don't want to upgrade your system; a lot of MATE desktop bugs are discoverable via KVM/QEMU - even though the (virtual) hardware is quite different to true production settings.
There are a lot of online guides for virt-manager (and qemu-system etc) that could get you started.
I can't claim to have had much luck in resolving issues, but I think it is helping identify where some bugs lie and who might be able to fix them.
Truth be told: if your setup is composed of basic hardware (Such as a laptop or desktop that isn't running anything super niche) then whatever the latest version is, one should go with it.
Based on my experience: the worst time for such upgrade path is going from a LTS(24.04.2) to a non-LTS(24.10) to another non-LTS ( 25.04) to another-other non-LTS (25.10) and then to a LTS (26.10).
Last time I did experiment with such an upgrade path, I ended up having to wipe when the 2nd LTS was released as, it seems, upgrading back-to-back 3x non-LTS versions is living in danger mode.
Ubuntu's release model and rolling releases made me realise something — it really boils down to how close you want to be to upstream, the actual authors building software and libraries.
With rolling releases, it's pretty close. Sure, updates are more frequent and larger. One change may need to update other things too, but it feels more like "Let's make sure all our stuff keeps working together!"
..
............... (Rolling)
Debian/Ubuntu releases are like a "snapshot" of time, it may not ship the latest, but everything was tried & tested and works... until it doesn't. The other day, someone encountered a bug that we fixed over a year ago - the version of the 24.04 package is stuck behind (v3.7.0) as it was fixed in v3.8.0.
..... 
........... (Interim)
..........
........ (LTS)
...............
... (Stable)
I see interim releases like catching up with upstream. I suppose I avoid them since it's still a 'snapshot' with a short shelf life. Agree with @jaymo_chicago's points above that they may be an essential starting point.
I'd recommend LTS releases too for most users that just want a working system that isn't going to change much. Business and enterprises like that kind of "stability". The good distro people bring back bug fixes and security issues according to their rules.
Suppose the universal package formats (Snap, Flatpak) are trying to fill the gap where some software should always follow upstream, like a web browser.
Don't feel like consumerism or capitalism. A lot of work happens in the wider community, and different user bases have different appetites of how close they want to catch up.
Kudos to anyone running a digital life on the literal edge (master branches, unstable repositories)
There are a lot of articles about regular Ubuntu, you can't rely on them completely, since you are using a different distro. As far as I remember, your problem with the 24.04 --> 24.10 upgrade was purely an Ubuntu MATE problem (related to the lightdm greeter change) and has been raised and discussed here several times.
No chance. I believe the Ubuntu MATE user base is just tiny compared to the regular version.
I tend to agree with you on that one, im still running 20.04.6 and subscribed to Ubuntu Pro so im good until 2030. Its my main distro for day to day use and works just fine. I subscribe to the motto that if its not broke don`t fix it.
That's good to hear.
I've been on the other side of that coin when I was first getting into Linux, and trying Arch, Fedora, and some other distros that take more of a bleeding/cutting edge approach, and once the excitement of checking the new stuff out wears off, it just becomes a pain and a chore to manage. These also tend to run less smoothly in my opinion as something like an Ubuntu & flavours LTS.
I know that Ubuntu interim releases are not Arch, but they're still not as smooth as LTS.
I just want my production environment to work every time I need to hop on and do something. I have other things I need/want to do in my spare time rather than having to fix something caused by updates that could have used a little more time in the oven.
And @lah7 I definitely understand where you are coming from, with that different releases are for different audiences, and after thought I think it was wrong for me to call it too capitalistic/consumeristic. Where I settle is in the LTS + Ubuntu Pro camp (i.e., very LTS) but we wouldn't be here if people didn't use the interim releases and report bugs back to the development team.
Anyway, my two cents...on top of my previous two cents...
Jaymo