Solved Issue installing Korora
-
That Mint maps to Ubuntu LTS is actually one of my concerns with it. Sticking with the most up to date and robust official Ubuntu option gives me more up to date software than using Mint. Mint does it to lower their effort, but it reduces the value of Mint IMHO.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Issue installing Korora:
@matteo-nunziati said in Issue installing Korora:
ubuntu LTS,
For robust you actually want to avoid the LTS release. It's a name, not a long term support agreement. This is straight from Canonica, it you want the robust Ubuntu option, you must stay on the current release, not the LTS.
https://mangolassi.it/topic/8737/how-ubuntu-lts-support-works
well, wrong word. I mean that I receive fewer security only updates - basically it is more close to debian stable in terms of security patches. I prefere to know my bugs than update every week a ton of packages. I really hate how ubuntu flows with tens of updates every week. I even consider to stay 1 version behind current LTS, even if, in the end I always land on the current LTS for other reasons.
-
@matteo-nunziati said in Issue installing Korora:
@scottalanmiller said in Issue installing Korora:
@matteo-nunziati said in Issue installing Korora:
ubuntu LTS,
For robust you actually want to avoid the LTS release. It's a name, not a long term support agreement. This is straight from Canonica, it you want the robust Ubuntu option, you must stay on the current release, not the LTS.
https://mangolassi.it/topic/8737/how-ubuntu-lts-support-works
well, wrong word. I mean that I receive fewer security only updates - basically it is more close to debian stable in terms of security patches. I prefere to know my bugs than update every week a ton of packages. I really hate how ubuntu flows with tens of updates every week. I even consider to stay 1 version behind current LTS, even if, in the end I always land on the current LTS for other reasons.
Oh no, LTS I avoid specifically because of bugs. Bug fixes and stability is only fully supported in the latest releases. That's specifically what gets left out of LTS. If you want robust, stable Ubuntu you stay current, that's just how the Ubuntu ecosystem works. I know of no reason to be on LTS other than "I have packages from a lazy vendor and that's more important that OS stability to me."
-
@scottalanmiller said in Issue installing Korora:
I know of no reason to be on LTS other than "I have packages from a lazy vendor and that's more important that OS stability to me."
That's it! you got me!
Seriously, Debian bug fix policy is really close to the one of Ubuntu (well you would rather say the opposite) and Debian is by no means a weak distro. My usage of ubuntu is as basic platform for java/python webapps. The ubuntu install I do is always in VM and always a minimal system install. The only addiction is open-ssh. bugs are there for sure. But I use the bare minimum OS, and it has worked quite well for now:
- setup an IP,
- have bash,
- schedule cron jobs,
- setup a systemd unit file.
- not having to deal with new API/ABI/interpreters
- p.e.r.i.o.d.
but my concern is mostly security fixes and a low flux of updates. Not because I'm really obsessed by security, but because well... you have to security fix stuff now and then
compare the pkg flow to debian stable or centos, it is quite similar in LTS, while standard Ubuntu litterally kills you with a ton of updates.
Let state this different: I do NOT trust Ubuntu for critical pieces but is just practical as a base to deploy your specific app in a VM. For this usage having security fixes for 5 years is enough to me, even if some pieces have bugs and are not fixed. I do not use it for any kind of virtualization, DNS, AD or similar.
Centos has not enough packages unless you activate third party repos, debian is too fast (basically and upgrade every 2 years), Ubuntu LTS blends. I'm now curious about Opensuse Leap.
BTW, I think we two are thinking about stability in a different way. You think, correctly, at it as system stability: avoid bugs that cause chrashes and races and so in the OS behaviour, having the best level of functionality a piece of software can give.
I think about stability as a coder: avoid ABI/API changes, interpreter major version bumps and so. just get security fixes and forget the platform for 5 years.
I use Ubuntu mostly as a platform to deploy my applications. So I think I'm interested in LTS mostly because it tends to not break API/API/interpreters (thinking about moving from python 2.7 to 3.5 or even 3.5 to 3.6 - on a minor note). -
HEY! this has derailed a lot from OP!
-
@matteo-nunziati said in Issue installing Korora:
Seriously, Debian bug fix policy is really close to the one of Ubuntu (well you would rather say the opposite) and Debian is by no means a weak distro.
Debian refuses to fix bugs in their mainline product and just leaves them? By definition, that's what makes Ubuntu LTS weak, that they don't resolve critical stability issues and only push those (when they are big) to the current releases. I've never heard Debian spoken of as being like that in any way whatsoever. Totally the opposite from what I know of Debian and Ubuntu. Debian is famous for stability, not for ignoring stability issues (Ubuntu does not ignore them, but LTS does.)
-
@matteo-nunziati said in Issue installing Korora:
compare the pkg flow to debian stable or centos, it is quite similar in LTS, while standard Ubuntu litterally kills you with a ton of updates.
I appreciate that there are lots of updates in supported Ubuntu, but that's because they are fixing things
Ubuntu LTS is the opposite of CentOS. That's exactly what I'm comparing against.
-
@matteo-nunziati said in Issue installing Korora:
Centos has not enough packages unless you activate third party repos, debian is too fast (basically and upgrade every 2 years), Ubuntu LTS blends. I'm now curious about Opensuse Leap.
Ubuntu LTS does not blend. I think you are looking purely at "release speed" and ignoring "support". The two have to be seen together. CentOS and Leap are long term supported products. Ubuntu LTS has that in its name, but is totally different in how it is supported. The "release speed" of Ubuntu tracks Debian, but it is not fully supported / patched for that duration, so it isn't comparable to CentOS which is fully supported throughout its lifetime.
-
@matteo-nunziati said in Issue installing Korora:
BTW, I think we two are thinking about stability in a different way. You think, correctly, at it as system stability: avoid bugs that cause chrashes and races and so in the OS behaviour, having the best level of functionality a piece of software can give.
I think about stability as a coder: avoid ABI/API changes, interpreter major version bumps and so. just get security fixes and forget the platform for 5 years.
I use Ubuntu mostly as a platform to deploy my applications. So I think I'm interested in LTS mostly because it tends to not break API/API/interpreters (thinking about moving from python 2.7 to 3.5 or even 3.5 to 3.6 - on a minor note).Yes, I'm talking primarily about support but support blended with change rate. Slow change rate without support is pointless. One is only useful with the other. If you don't care about support, then YOU determine the change rate. If you want Fedora to have a slow change rate, just stop updating it. It's only change rate + support that matters because it is only when you want things patched that the change rate affects you.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Issue installing Korora:
@matteo-nunziati said in Issue installing Korora:
Seriously, Debian bug fix policy is really close to the one of Ubuntu (well you would rather say the opposite) and Debian is by no means a weak distro.
Debian refuses to fix bugs in their mainline product and just leaves them? By definition, that's what makes Ubuntu LTS weak, that they don't resolve critical stability issues and only push those (when they are big) to the current releases. I've never heard Debian spoken of as being like that in any way whatsoever. Totally the opposite from what I know of Debian and Ubuntu. Debian is famous for stability, not for ignoring stability issues (Ubuntu does not ignore them, but LTS does.)
follow this thread on debian mailing list (really short)
-
@scottalanmiller said in Issue installing Korora:
@matteo-nunziati said in Issue installing Korora:
Centos has not enough packages unless you activate third party repos, debian is too fast (basically and upgrade every 2 years), Ubuntu LTS blends. I'm now curious about Opensuse Leap.
Ubuntu LTS does not blend. I think you are looking purely at "release speed" and ignoring "support". The two have to be seen together. CentOS and Leap are long term supported products. Ubuntu LTS has that in its name, but is totally different in how it is supported. The "release speed" of Ubuntu tracks Debian, but it is not fully supported / patched for that duration, so it isn't comparable to CentOS which is fully supported throughout its lifetime.
Well, support != security fixes.
I mind about the latter. not support. nor fixes in non security bugs.
OK, I agree with Linus Torvalds when he say in the end bugs are bugs, but security has some legal implications too...
Centos has support AND security fixes. both security and stability. Ubuntu has just one. Leap does strange things, actually. -
@matteo-nunziati said in Issue installing Korora:
@scottalanmiller said in Issue installing Korora:
@matteo-nunziati said in Issue installing Korora:
Centos has not enough packages unless you activate third party repos, debian is too fast (basically and upgrade every 2 years), Ubuntu LTS blends. I'm now curious about Opensuse Leap.
Ubuntu LTS does not blend. I think you are looking purely at "release speed" and ignoring "support". The two have to be seen together. CentOS and Leap are long term supported products. Ubuntu LTS has that in its name, but is totally different in how it is supported. The "release speed" of Ubuntu tracks Debian, but it is not fully supported / patched for that duration, so it isn't comparable to CentOS which is fully supported throughout its lifetime.
Well, support != security fixes.
It does to most people in IT. When IT talks about support, security and stability fixes are what is normally meant by that term.
-
@matteo-nunziati said in Issue installing Korora:
Ubuntu has just one.
Ubuntu LTS support... "Upgrade to current, we dont support LTS." That's their official statement for stability / race conditions.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Issue installing Korora:
@matteo-nunziati said in Issue installing Korora:
Ubuntu has just one.
Ubuntu LTS support... "Upgrade to current, we dont support LTS." That's their official statement for stability / race conditions.
Where?
-
@stacksofplates said in Issue installing Korora:
@scottalanmiller said in Issue installing Korora:
@matteo-nunziati said in Issue installing Korora:
Ubuntu has just one.
Ubuntu LTS support... "Upgrade to current, we dont support LTS." That's their official statement for stability / race conditions.
Where?
When you are a paying customer (investment bank) and need the boot process to work. If you are on LTS, this is what you get (real world, actually told this by Canonical support - LTS is just a name, only current gets supported for being fully working.)
Issue was a major race condition that made LTS literally useless.
The "support" process for LTS was to offer the explanation of what version to get to in order to get support. Had the LTS and the current overlapped (which it does 25% of the time) then we would have gotten the race condition addressed. But because the LTS was no longer the supported version (but it was the current LTS) it would not get fixed even though it meant that the system was non-viable
-
@scottalanmiller said in Issue installing Korora:
@stacksofplates said in Issue installing Korora:
@scottalanmiller said in Issue installing Korora:
@matteo-nunziati said in Issue installing Korora:
Ubuntu has just one.
Ubuntu LTS support... "Upgrade to current, we dont support LTS." That's their official statement for stability / race conditions.
Where?
When you are a paying customer (investment bank) and need the boot process to work. If you are on LTS, this is what you get (real world, actually told this by Canonical support - LTS is just a name, only current gets supported for being fully working.)
Issue was a major race condition that made LTS literally useless.
Ya that's not an official statement. And it's also Anecdotal. I know for a fact that Reddit still runs 12.04 and 14.04 for the support.
-
I also don't think you can get support from Canonical on non LTS releases and I don't think you can use Landscape.
-
@stacksofplates said in Issue installing Korora:
@scottalanmiller said in Issue installing Korora:
@stacksofplates said in Issue installing Korora:
@scottalanmiller said in Issue installing Korora:
@matteo-nunziati said in Issue installing Korora:
Ubuntu has just one.
Ubuntu LTS support... "Upgrade to current, we dont support LTS." That's their official statement for stability / race conditions.
Where?
When you are a paying customer (investment bank) and need the boot process to work. If you are on LTS, this is what you get (real world, actually told this by Canonical support - LTS is just a name, only current gets supported for being fully working.)
Issue was a major race condition that made LTS literally useless.
Ya that's not an official statement. And it's also Anecdotal. I know for a fact that Reddit still runs 12.04 and 14.04 for the support.
Yeah, lots of customers run old versions believing that they will get full support. This was Canonical stating their policy on LTS support.
-
@stacksofplates said in Issue installing Korora:
I also don't think you can get support from Canonical on non LTS releases and I don't think you can use Landscape.
Canonical states the opposite - that full support is exclusive to the current release (which can overlap with LTS.)
We know for a fact that tons of places (including the bank in question) run LTS believing that the name means that they will get extra support. But Canonical's direct statement of their policy was very clearly the opposite. We can state what people do all we want, and yes it is anecdotal, but it was an anecdote of Canonical making an official policy statement to a paying customer as to what support policy is.
-
Whether the written policy is to sell support or not, the action policy and the one given by Canonical was very clear and provable (they refused support because it was LTS.) If LTS is the reason that they give that you do not get support, and that is their official statement from corporate as to why customers must upgrade to retain their support, that's a very big deal.
The problem is is that we cannot realistically gain any meaningful evidence to the contrary. This included provable real world lack of support, and an official statement made by the vendor. Things like "companies run old software" don't mean that they are getting support for critical issues,only that they are paying for something. We don't know if they are hitting real bugs and need that support, we don't know if they are trying to use that support, we don't know if they are getting support when they try to use it.
See the dilemma? Unless we have evidence that someone ran into a truly epic stability issue in an LTS that was not current, was under LTS support, and got it fixed would we even have a suggestion that the Canonical former statement was not completely accurate. But even then, it's only suggestive. Because they might have only done it because it was a trivial fix or an upstream already handled it or it hit loads of people or whatever.
This is a case where one refusal of support is far more significant than thousands of provided supports... because what you are paying for with the support agreement is a guarantee. And if they ever refuse support, it means that no one got the guarantee. Just lots didn't need it.
