Solved Issue installing Korora
-
@Tim_G said in Issue installing Korora:
- Does LTS mean I only get support (like helpdesk support) if I'm paying for support?
This depends on your definition of support. The product is "supported" for everyone for its lifespan, meaning that you get security updates and patches. You never pay for those.
What you pay for is being able to call them with your own issues and have them help you. So in your helpdesk example, yes, that's only when paid for.
But this applies equally to LTS and Current. LTS never gets you "more" support than Current. Longer without you updating, not More at any moment.
-
@Tim_G said in Issue installing Korora:
- If I don't pay for support, is using the LTS version pointless?
No, the value of LTS vs Current remains roughly identical regardless if you used paid support or not. Think of it like RHEL vs CentOS (paid vs free support.)
Ubuntu LTS Paid is analogous to RHEL
Ubuntu LTS Free is analogous to CentOSThe code and product are identical. You get patches, updates and security fixes as long as they provide them. Everyone gets those equally. But if you want to call someone and have them help you do something, look at your system or fix a break that affects you, you have to pay for that in both cases.
So if you see value in CentOS vs Fedora, then you would see value in Ubuntu LTS Free vs Ubuntu Current Free.
-
Quick Matrix That Might Help Slightly. One thing that is confusing is that NO Linux system lines up exactly with another. They are all unique to quite some degree. We can't compare Suse really at all, it is SO different. The RH and Ubuntu worlds are closer, but not all that close. But here is how they map best...
Type of Product Red Hat Ubuntu 6 Month Cycle Free Fedora Ubuntu Current (16.10) 6 Month Cycle Paid No Offering Ubuntu Current (16.10) LTS Free CentOS Ubuntu LTS LTS Paid RHEL Ubuntu LTS -
Okay, still taking in everything you said above with an example... have a question in the meantime...
We are all aware of the differences between Gnome2 and Gnome 3. Just for example....
16.04.2 LTS would stick with Gnome2 for 5 years, even when you do an apt-get update.
and Ubuntu Server 16.10 could throw in Gnome3 at any time, therefore screwing up stability?
-
@Tim_G said in Issue installing Korora:
- In Ubuntu Server LTS, does this mean all repository items are "supported"? How is it different than the latest version?
What we know is that Current always has more up to date packages than LTS. This means that Current solves problems first, it also gets problems first (normally, 10.04 was an exception where the LTS release was also a rather untested early release of a new subsystem.)
What we believe from our analysis and what I was told is that Current gets "full support" meaning that as issues are identified, Ubuntu makes every effort to make the system stable and secure in the Current release. LTS releases only get this when it is convenient (define that as you will) and may require you to move from LTS to Current in order to get the level of support than you want.
-
@Tim_G said in Issue installing Korora:
Okay, still taking in everything you said above with an example... have a question in the meantime...
We are all aware of the differences between Gnome2 and Gnome 3. Just for example....
16.04.2 LTS would stick with Gnome2 for 5 years, even when you do an apt-get update.
and Ubuntu Server 16.10 could throw in Gnome3 at any time, therefore screwing up stability?
No. All versions of Ubuntu are "stable in their lifetimes." Meaning 16.04 LTS is the same from the first day to the last. 16.10 Current is also stable from first day to the last. (Stable meaning no package changes.) The difference is that the first day to last is five years, or nine months.
But no version gets breaking changes after release. That is only with Tumbleweed. No other enterprise Linux product attempts that.
-
@Tim_G Ubuntu releases a Current product every six months like clockwork. This is part of their thing. Every one is essentially identical. They have a six month cycle of preparing packages to be "frozen" in that upcoming release. Once released, that release becomes "Current" and remains "Current" for six months. Once released, the package versions (major.minor) are stable forever within that version.
3 out of 4 of those releases only "exist" for nine months and then are retired. 1 out of 4 of those releases gets marked as LTS and gets a "long tail" of security patches for an additional 4+ years. That's all, just longer patching (and installation / configuration support.)
-
@Tim_G said in Issue installing Korora:
- Does the LTS version mean that there are no major changes? And that the "support" part of LTS is a meaningless word where they meant to say "Long Term no major functional changes" instead of LTS? (LTnmfc)
Kinda. I think the real answer to all of this is "support" is a meaningless term in IT. Everyone has a different definition. Windows 10 doesn't come with support by any normal definition, yet is considered to have a "support end date". How can something that doesn't exist end? Of course you can buy support from MS, but only kind of. And you can buy support indefinitely from third parties. So in some ways, support never ends.
Red Hat support is different from Oracle support is different from IBM support is different from Canonical support. To one vendor, support might mean "answering the phone and keeping you calm" while to another it might be "do anything short of going out of business to ensure that the system works as advertised."
-
@scottalanmiller said in Issue installing Korora:
@Tim_G said in Issue installing Korora:
I'm completely lost with this... wow!
Lets say I have the most important website in the world to run on my server, and all I can use is Ubuntu Server. Which one do I download, and why?
Well maybe this helps....
- If your goal is for things to change as little as possible, LTS changes almost none over it's lifespan, which is moderately long. If it works when you first use it and your needs don't change, it will likely continue to work for you.
- If your goal is for the most mature code base with the latest fixes and most active "support" for resolving new issues, then you want the "current" release. This release gets the "most support", but also changes every six months.
What "things"?
What are some things that would not change in a LTS, that would change in "current"? What things would change that would make me not want to use current over LTS? Is this only really applicable if I'm a programmer working with the kernel or API's or whatever?
I'm trying to figure out the "value" of LTS from an IT systems engineer point of view:
Would I choose current to run Samba shares and web servers, and an app developer choose LTS to develop applications for? Is that all it really comes down to? If so, back to my question above with "what things?"?
-
@Tim_G said in Issue installing Korora:
What are some things that would not change in a LTS, that would change in "current"?
Everything. The WHOLE thing. LTS comes up once every two years. Current comes out every six months. If you go from one LTS to another, you get two years between updates. If you go from Current to Current (like me) you get a full OS update once every six months.
-
@Tim_G said in Issue installing Korora:
I'm trying to figure out the "value" of LTS from an IT systems engineer point of view:
Extremely little. It's not for system admins, it's for developers. The only "value" to system admins is being able to ignore systems without testing or updated (updates, not patches) for four times as long. Or longer. Maybe use LTS as an excuse to not just go two years between updates, but to skip every other update and go four years.
Think of people in the Windows world who are deploying 2008 R2 still today and think that that isn't crazy. And that only update Windows every two or three or even four releases. LTS is for those people in the Linux world.
-
The benefit to developers is that it is easy to target Ubuntu LTS and only have to test your software against packages every two years, not every six months.
Same logic between Fedora and CentOS, really. And it's what has really encouraged me to start looking was more seriously at Fedora compared to CentOS 7. With modern tooling, the benefits of any long term support OS is diminishing to the point of being effectively worthless while keeping systems up to date with the latest features retains its value.
So just as I've never subscribed to the Ubuntu LTS value proposition, I'm rapidly seeing CentOS has having very little of one (but does have some due to the obvious market pressures of being the job leader and because Fedora does not map to any supported product whereas CentOS does.)
-
@Tim_G said in Issue installing Korora:
Would I choose current to run Samba shares and web servers, and an app developer choose LTS to develop applications for? Is that all it really comes down to?
Pretty much, yes. For system admins that find updating their systems to be a trivial duty, LTS offers essentially nothing. But as we know, there are lots of admins for whom just updating their OS seems like a year long project.
LTS releases in every realm are also critical for government and other ridiculous anti-best practice certification. You need a ten year support cycle to get certified by the FDA for example.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Issue installing Korora:
The benefit to developers is that it is easy to target Ubuntu LTS and only have to test your software against packages every two years, not every six months.
I think this is the winning statement for my complete understanding.
As an IT systems engineer, I care about security, and I care about the services my servers provide to continuously provide those services without unplanned interruption.
That tells me I should, for my purposes, stick with "current". And that the app developers would more likely choose LTS for their purposes, and reasons already mentioned in previous posts.
-
@Tim_G said in Issue installing Korora:
@scottalanmiller said in Issue installing Korora:
The benefit to developers is that it is easy to target Ubuntu LTS and only have to test your software against packages every two years, not every six months.
I think this is the winning statement for my complete understanding.
As an IT systems engineer, I care about security, and I care about the services my servers provide continuously provide those services without unplanned interruption.
That tells me I should, for my purposes, stick with "current". And that the busy app developers would more likely choose LTS for their purposes, and reasons already mentioned in previous posts.
Ubuntu's convoluted system has led to real problems. Take MongoDB and Node.js. The MongoDB team only targets LTS for up to date releases. The Node team, only Current. If you want to run the latest from each team on a single box (a REALLY common thing to do) you are out of luck.
The biggest problem with Ubuntu's approach is that it is confusing. You can ask a product company "do you support RHEL" and when they say "yes" you know what they mean. But when you ask a company if they support Ubuntu, you don't. No one says that they support CentOS but only supports every fourth release. They might not always be up to date on the latest, but you can't say you support CentOS with a straight face and not support one of the last two releases at least.
But with Ubuntu, it's common for vendors to only target every fourth release AND trail by a year or two, meaning that they could be releasing for every fourth release... years behind. Making them up to eight releases behind current! It gets to be a mess.
The mix of LTS and Current I feel has made the "we just let it age" mentality in the Ubuntu world explode. Suddenly it is COMMON to hear of places actually running 12.04 today, that's about to be ten releases old in a few weeks. Imagine that in any other realm. It's the same as running Fedora 15 today on your servers! Imagine telling someone that you were doing that! But on Ubuntu... that's super common. Almost no one running Ubuntu that I talk to runs up to date. Ubuntu has taken on the Windows ecosystem's "don't update till it turns to dust" mentality.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Issue installing Korora:
@Tim_G said in Issue installing Korora:
@scottalanmiller said in Issue installing Korora:
The benefit to developers is that it is easy to target Ubuntu LTS and only have to test your software against packages every two years, not every six months.
I think this is the winning statement for my complete understanding.
As an IT systems engineer, I care about security, and I care about the services my servers provide continuously provide those services without unplanned interruption.
That tells me I should, for my purposes, stick with "current". And that the busy app developers would more likely choose LTS for their purposes, and reasons already mentioned in previous posts.
Ubuntu's convoluted system has led to real problems. Take MongoDB and Node.js. The MongoDB team only targets LTS for up to date releases. The Node team, only Current. If you want to run the latest from each team on a single box (a REALLY common thing to do) you are out of luck.
The biggest problem with Ubuntu's approach is that it is confusing. You can ask a product company "do you support RHEL" and when they say "yes" you know what they mean. But when you ask a company if they support Ubuntu, you don't. No one says that they support CentOS but only supports every fourth release. They might not always be up to date on the latest, but you can't say you support CentOS with a straight face and not support one of the last two releases at least.
But with Ubuntu, it's common for vendors to only target every fourth release AND trail by a year or two, meaning that they could be releasing for every fourth release... years behind. Making them up to eight releases behind current! It gets to be a mess.
The mix of LTS and Current I feel has made the "we just let it age" mentality in the Ubuntu world explode. Suddenly it is COMMON to hear of places actually running 12.04 today, that's about to be ten releases old in a few weeks. Imagine that in any other realm. It's the same as running Fedora 15 today on your servers! Imagine telling someone that you were doing that! But on Ubuntu... that's super common. Almost no one running Ubuntu that I talk to runs up to date. Ubuntu has taken on the Windows ecosystem's "don't update till it turns to dust" mentality.
Yeah, makes sense. I agree.
I really wish Microsoft wouldn't have gone with the Ubuntu integration... bash for windows... (windows subsystem for Linux) or whatever you want to call it. I think I would have preferred RHEL based.
-
@Tim_G said in Issue installing Korora:
I really wish Microsoft wouldn't have gone with the Ubuntu integration... bash for windows... (windows subsystem for Linux) or whatever you want to call it. I think I would have preferred RHEL based.
It's honestly so silly that... who cares. I can't fathom for whom that system has value. It's so cheesy.
-
Was just looking at this.... look how close our Vultr system is to being Ubuntu-free. You can see Fedora sneaking in quickly. There is already a plan for the remaining Ubuntu to move to Fedora, as well. But we will see if and when that happens.
-
That ISO image is CentOS, too.
-
We have two other cloud providers, both 100% CentOS.
