Discussion on LTS OSes
-
By the "observation isn't proof" issue, we can never prove that support even exists. Because we can only prove that support has ever existed by someone having gotten support, observing that it happened, and reporting it. If we don't believe observation, then the entire concept of support is ephemeral in both directions.
So by that logic, that there is no proof of support or lack of support, LTS is worthless, as is all support, because you can't prove support.
This is a slippery slope that makes no sense.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
I could say that Canonical stated the opposite to me
Stating that you will do something is a promise. It means very, very little.
Stating that you wont' do something and then refusing to do it, is an action and means, literally, everything.
"Hey, I'll go to dinner with you later." <--- Means very little, we don't even know if they intend to be honest.
"Oh yeah, I didn't go to dinner and didn't intend to." <--- Means a lot because it happened. That's proof. That they "didn't intend to" might be a lie, but at least a lie that matches the facts.
Stop the semantics. It's the point that the only proof is a person said it. There is no proof there.
What do you mean? It wasn't said, it was done. Needing support, they refused support. That's not "said it". You are trying to change a provable fact into heresay by acting like actions are just words.
No I'm saying you said that. You said they wouldn't do it. You are the subject of what we are talking about. The proof needs to be provided by you. Not just "they did it".
How would one ever provide proof for that? Once the observed facts are not believed, nothing is a proof. Everything is only a proof because someone observed it.
The original communication between the two parties. Just like any other case.
-
@stacksofplates said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
I could say that Canonical stated the opposite to me
Stating that you will do something is a promise. It means very, very little.
Stating that you wont' do something and then refusing to do it, is an action and means, literally, everything.
"Hey, I'll go to dinner with you later." <--- Means very little, we don't even know if they intend to be honest.
"Oh yeah, I didn't go to dinner and didn't intend to." <--- Means a lot because it happened. That's proof. That they "didn't intend to" might be a lie, but at least a lie that matches the facts.
Stop the semantics. It's the point that the only proof is a person said it. There is no proof there.
What do you mean? It wasn't said, it was done. Needing support, they refused support. That's not "said it". You are trying to change a provable fact into heresay by acting like actions are just words.
No I'm saying you said that. You said they wouldn't do it. You are the subject of what we are talking about. The proof needs to be provided by you. Not just "they did it".
How would one ever provide proof for that? Once the observed facts are not believed, nothing is a proof. Everything is only a proof because someone observed it.
The original communication between the two parties. Just like any other case.
Um.... how is that different?
-
@scottalanmiller said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
By the "observation isn't proof" issue, we can never prove that support even exists. Because we can only prove that support has ever existed by someone having gotten support, observing that it happened, and reporting it. If we don't believe observation, then the entire concept of support is ephemeral in both directions.
So by that logic, that there is no proof of support or lack of support, LTS is worthless, as is all support, because you can't prove support.
This is a slippery slope that makes no sense.
No you can definitely prove support, I can easily provide communication between myself and a company that has offered or denied support. What you can't do is prove support or lack of support by word of mouth.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
I could say that Canonical stated the opposite to me
Stating that you will do something is a promise. It means very, very little.
Stating that you wont' do something and then refusing to do it, is an action and means, literally, everything.
"Hey, I'll go to dinner with you later." <--- Means very little, we don't even know if they intend to be honest.
"Oh yeah, I didn't go to dinner and didn't intend to." <--- Means a lot because it happened. That's proof. That they "didn't intend to" might be a lie, but at least a lie that matches the facts.
Stop the semantics. It's the point that the only proof is a person said it. There is no proof there.
What do you mean? It wasn't said, it was done. Needing support, they refused support. That's not "said it". You are trying to change a provable fact into heresay by acting like actions are just words.
No I'm saying you said that. You said they wouldn't do it. You are the subject of what we are talking about. The proof needs to be provided by you. Not just "they did it".
How would one ever provide proof for that? Once the observed facts are not believed, nothing is a proof. Everything is only a proof because someone observed it.
The original communication between the two parties. Just like any other case.
Um.... how is that different?
Because we can't see what they said obviously? We are only getting it from one party....
-
@stacksofplates said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
By the "observation isn't proof" issue, we can never prove that support even exists. Because we can only prove that support has ever existed by someone having gotten support, observing that it happened, and reporting it. If we don't believe observation, then the entire concept of support is ephemeral in both directions.
So by that logic, that there is no proof of support or lack of support, LTS is worthless, as is all support, because you can't prove support.
This is a slippery slope that makes no sense.
No you can definitely prove support, I can easily provide communication between myself and a company that has offered or denied support. What you can't do is prove support or lack of support by word of mouth.
How can you prove it? That they did or did not support you is just hearsay to us. Just as that they didn't support me is just heresay to you. How is your getting or not getting support different than me getting or not getting support?
-
@stacksofplates said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
I could say that Canonical stated the opposite to me
Stating that you will do something is a promise. It means very, very little.
Stating that you wont' do something and then refusing to do it, is an action and means, literally, everything.
"Hey, I'll go to dinner with you later." <--- Means very little, we don't even know if they intend to be honest.
"Oh yeah, I didn't go to dinner and didn't intend to." <--- Means a lot because it happened. That's proof. That they "didn't intend to" might be a lie, but at least a lie that matches the facts.
Stop the semantics. It's the point that the only proof is a person said it. There is no proof there.
What do you mean? It wasn't said, it was done. Needing support, they refused support. That's not "said it". You are trying to change a provable fact into heresay by acting like actions are just words.
No I'm saying you said that. You said they wouldn't do it. You are the subject of what we are talking about. The proof needs to be provided by you. Not just "they did it".
How would one ever provide proof for that? Once the observed facts are not believed, nothing is a proof. Everything is only a proof because someone observed it.
The original communication between the two parties. Just like any other case.
Um.... how is that different?
Because we can't see what they said obviously? We are only getting it from one party....
You are saying you could record the conversation using a mechanical means and use that as proof. But if you don't trust me not to lie, why do we trust you not to tamper?
It's still about trusting the source.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
By the "observation isn't proof" issue, we can never prove that support even exists. Because we can only prove that support has ever existed by someone having gotten support, observing that it happened, and reporting it. If we don't believe observation, then the entire concept of support is ephemeral in both directions.
So by that logic, that there is no proof of support or lack of support, LTS is worthless, as is all support, because you can't prove support.
This is a slippery slope that makes no sense.
No you can definitely prove support, I can easily provide communication between myself and a company that has offered or denied support. What you can't do is prove support or lack of support by word of mouth.
How can you prove it? That they did or did not support you is just hearsay to us. Just as that they didn't support me is just heresay to you. How is your getting or not getting support different than me getting or not getting support?
Again I can provide the original communication between myself and the company. You haven't provided that. You've just told us they said something over 10 years ago.
-
I understand that having a copy of an email chain is really handy because it means that, unless intent to defraud, is involved, it shows exactly what was said and not "how things were remembered." And sure, that has great value. But if the issue is proof or trust, it doesn't help because that's easily recreated.
-
@stacksofplates said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
By the "observation isn't proof" issue, we can never prove that support even exists. Because we can only prove that support has ever existed by someone having gotten support, observing that it happened, and reporting it. If we don't believe observation, then the entire concept of support is ephemeral in both directions.
So by that logic, that there is no proof of support or lack of support, LTS is worthless, as is all support, because you can't prove support.
This is a slippery slope that makes no sense.
No you can definitely prove support, I can easily provide communication between myself and a company that has offered or denied support. What you can't do is prove support or lack of support by word of mouth.
How can you prove it? That they did or did not support you is just hearsay to us. Just as that they didn't support me is just heresay to you. How is your getting or not getting support different than me getting or not getting support?
Again I can provide the original communication between myself and the company. You haven't provided that. You've just told us they said something over 10 years ago.
Definitely not that long ago. About 7 years. A while, but that's a lot less than over ten.
-
@stacksofplates said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
Again I can provide the original communication between myself and the company.
Okay, so you are talking about a recording of the conversation when you request support. Which, I agree, is highly useful. But still requires proving who the parties are, not tampering, etc.
-
Locking to fork.
-
Should be unlocked now. And... go...
-
I am circling back to this, however I am seeing that if LTS is bad and the only bad things are the Software vendors then on that rationale Unifi and Zimbra are bad.
Zimbra just started Ubuntu 18.04 LTS Support (previously only beta)
https://zimbra.org/download/zimbra-collaborationUnifi is semi supported on the new version of 19.04 and 19.10 of Ubuntu and Debian but here they put the requirements very loosely and with the Mongodb and Java8 dependency that is old as well
https://help.ubnt.com/hc/en-us/articles/360012282453#2 -
@dbeato said in Discussion on LTS OSes:
then on that rationale Unifi and Zimbra are bad.
Absolutely. You might not agree, but that is exactly what I am saying. Zimbra, for example, relies on not keeping their components up to date (this is a major problem with them across the board and they abandoned their product update plans entirely two years ago!) and this not only is indicative of their overall problems, but also causes updates to be very painful on their platform and, likely, contributes to their performance overhead.
-
@dbeato said in Discussion on LTS OSes:
Unifi is semi supported on the new version of 19.04 and 19.10 of Ubuntu and Debian but here they put the requirements very loosely and with the Mongodb and Java8 dependency that is old as well
Yes, while I love Ubiquiti, these aren't good aspects of their software. Unifi itself is not their core product, so the scale of the impact is relatively minor, but they clearly struggle with system and component updates. Relying on LTS exposes problems that, if you dig, you can find playing out elsewhere.
-
@dbeato said in Discussion on LTS OSes:
Zimbra just started Ubuntu 18.04 LTS Support (previously only beta)
And while the LTS dependency is an symptom, not the problem, it's a symptom of a problem that is why we looked to other products and have now been deploying and using MailCow for projects and why NTG moved to Zoho. Zimbra stagnated and while it still gets some limited patches, years of promised updates have been canceled and Zimbra is struggling to keep something going for customers. Using LTS was just one way that they were able to hide the inability to keep innovating or updating the product, but in the end, that turned out to be the problem. One that they claim that they are trying to recover from, but they claimed that two years ago and canceled those plans silently.
-
NextCloud does the same. Only LTS builds are listed under System Requirements
https://docs.nextcloud.com/server/17/admin_manual/installation/system_requirements.html
Ansible Tower only has LTS Operating systems as well.
https://docs.ansible.com/ansible-tower/latest/html/installandreference/requirements_refguide.html
-
@IRJ said in Discussion on LTS OSes:
NextCloud does the same. Only LTS builds are listed under System Requirements
They've stated that that list is only tested, not requirements. We've spoken to them before and Fedora 30 is tested. Their doc just isn't updated.
-
@IRJ said in Discussion on LTS OSes:
Ansible Tower only has LTS Operating systems as well.
That one is a little unfair, it's made by and sponsored by a vendor that only sells LTS products. Yes, it only supports LTS, but only current LTS from its sponsored vendor and even the old LTS from Ubuntu is slated for removal. Ansible does this for business reasons in that they are directly financially tied to an LTS release.
We'll have to see how Stream plays out, but CentOS 8 isn't necessarily LTS anymore, right? So Ansible might be moving from LTS to non-LTS.
