My Weekend Linux Misadventure
-
@Dashrender said in My Weekend Linux Misadventure:
@scottalanmiller said in My Weekend Linux Misadventure:
@Dashrender said in My Weekend Linux Misadventure:
@scottalanmiller said in My Weekend Linux Misadventure:
Canonical always supports updating your LTS to a supported version, and that's how they get away with calling it "supported." It's supported... to get to a supported version. But if anything requires LTS that thing can't be called supported because Canonical's support requires that that thing be out of support.
That would be like saying that Windows Server 2003 is supported because MS has a process to upgrade you to Server 2019 - that's just madness.
Exactly. Which no one in their right minds accepts as being "supported", but it's what people accept in many cases for Ubuntu. They don't accept that from any other vendor, why the special case here?
This is only a special case if you CAN'T buy support from Ubuntu for 18.04 LTS - So can you or can't you? Scott?
You CAN buy something BRANDED support, you CANNOT buy anything IT would consider to be support.
-
@Dashrender said in My Weekend Linux Misadventure:
@scottalanmiller said in My Weekend Linux Misadventure:
@IRJ said in My Weekend Linux Misadventure:
You sure can buy support for 18.04 LTS. We have Ubuntu Advantage that supports features only on 16.04 or 18.04
Obviously. And from Canonical's own support "we will support those version for updating to the supported current version."
Just because you can buy something called support, doesn't mean you get support.
Then you are not buying support! You're buying a lie.
Which I've been talking about for years.
-
-
Why do people put up with that? Why stay with a vendor who clearly enjoys lying to their customers? At minimum it's wordsmithing.. but screw that - it's lying!
-
@kamidon said in My Weekend Linux Misadventure:
Aside from security updates of course, those get applied likely around the same time more up-to-date Linux versions.
Right, this is how MS and Ubuntu use the term "support"... their LTSs are not "completely abandoned" so they call providing some patching "support". And their support teams will talk to you.
The problem is, the industry has one obviously well understood expectation of what support means. But legally, it's a loose term and you can call anything you want support as long as you define it a little when selling it.
-
@Dashrender said in My Weekend Linux Misadventure:
Why do people put up with that? Why stay with a vendor who clearly enjoys lying to their customers? At minimum it's wordsmithing.. but screw that - it's lying!
Find ANY customer that actually cares? Almost no one ever needs support. Buying support is a political thing, a checkbox, and not something really needed. They are looking to meet a useless requirement, and they get it. So what do they care if it is a lie?
-
Think about a government contract.... or a giant Fortune 500. Someone high up demands "support" as a line item, but never evaluates it. They just demand it. The IT teams don't care, they never call the OS vendor for support (until you are a Wall St firm doing fringe stuff), and the vendors want to get away on the cheap. So they come up with this system to satisfy the political entities at minimal cost. Everyone wins.
-
@scottalanmiller said in My Weekend Linux Misadventure:
@kamidon said in My Weekend Linux Misadventure:
Aside from security updates of course, those get applied likely around the same time more up-to-date Linux versions.
Right, this is how MS and Ubuntu use the term "support"... their LTSs are not "completely abandoned" so they call providing some patching "support". And their support teams will talk to you.
The problem is, the industry has one obviously well understood expectation of what support means. But legally, it's a loose term and you can call anything you want support as long as you define it a little when selling it.
I haven't ever found MS to say - yep, that's a problem, and the solution is to upgrade to the new Windows version - but then again, I've never run into a code related issue that I've taken directly to MS before - I'm guessing that's a pretty damned uncommon occurrence, even though Scott likely himself has run into it on likely every platform out there.
-
@scottalanmiller said in My Weekend Linux Misadventure:
Think about a government contract.... or a giant Fortune 500. Someone high up demands "support" as a line item, but never evaluates it. They just demand it. The IT teams don't care, they never call the OS vendor for support (until you are a Wall St firm doing fringe stuff), and the vendors want to get away on the cheap. So they come up with this system to satisfy the political entities at minimal cost. Everyone wins.
Except the stockholders.
-
@scottalanmiller said in My Weekend Linux Misadventure:
@Obsolesce said in My Weekend Linux Misadventure:
What's your definition of "supported"?
Same as the industry. We go over this a lot. That the vendor will do everything within reason to fix and make work the product in question.
The entire industry has the same definition, even if no one talks about it. Everyone asks "is something supported" and we all know what it means. And we all know that some vendors use the term loosely to make a quick sale. Like Windows is called "supported" but you don't get any support, not what anyone accepts as being supported.
The vendor as in the OS vendor, right?
They absolutely provide support for 18.04 and 19.x. So I have no clue what you are saying
-
@IRJ said in My Weekend Linux Misadventure:
@scottalanmiller said in My Weekend Linux Misadventure:
@Obsolesce said in My Weekend Linux Misadventure:
What's your definition of "supported"?
Same as the industry. We go over this a lot. That the vendor will do everything within reason to fix and make work the product in question.
The entire industry has the same definition, even if no one talks about it. Everyone asks "is something supported" and we all know what it means. And we all know that some vendors use the term loosely to make a quick sale. Like Windows is called "supported" but you don't get any support, not what anyone accepts as being supported.
The vendor as in the OS vendor, right?
They absolutely provide support for 18.04 and 19.x. So I have no clue what you are saying
he's claiming that if there is a requirement to 'fix' the code - they won't.. instead they will demand that you upgrade to 19.xx or whatever current is instead.
-
@Dashrender said in My Weekend Linux Misadventure:
@IRJ said in My Weekend Linux Misadventure:
@scottalanmiller said in My Weekend Linux Misadventure:
@Obsolesce said in My Weekend Linux Misadventure:
What's your definition of "supported"?
Same as the industry. We go over this a lot. That the vendor will do everything within reason to fix and make work the product in question.
The entire industry has the same definition, even if no one talks about it. Everyone asks "is something supported" and we all know what it means. And we all know that some vendors use the term loosely to make a quick sale. Like Windows is called "supported" but you don't get any support, not what anyone accepts as being supported.
The vendor as in the OS vendor, right?
They absolutely provide support for 18.04 and 19.x. So I have no clue what you are saying
he's claiming that if there is a requirement to 'fix' the code - they won't.. instead they will demand that you upgrade to 19.xx or whatever current is instead.
I thought we were talking about 3rd party vendor support. If I want to run 3rd party software, and you want support by this third party software, you need to run this software on an operating system they support. In many cases, this third party software will not support their software on the latest OS versions of Fedora for example, but WILL support it on LTS versions of Ubuntu and CentOS.
Lots of third party vendors are like that... many are not as well.
Most servers are purpose-specific, so you should know ahead of time if you can run non-LTS of Ubuntu for example. It shouldn't be an issue IMO. If you can't, you can't. Who gives a shit. Running the latest LTS version of Ubuntu isn't going to make or break your infrastructure.
-
@Obsolesce said in My Weekend Linux Misadventure:
@Dashrender said in My Weekend Linux Misadventure:
@IRJ said in My Weekend Linux Misadventure:
@scottalanmiller said in My Weekend Linux Misadventure:
@Obsolesce said in My Weekend Linux Misadventure:
What's your definition of "supported"?
Same as the industry. We go over this a lot. That the vendor will do everything within reason to fix and make work the product in question.
The entire industry has the same definition, even if no one talks about it. Everyone asks "is something supported" and we all know what it means. And we all know that some vendors use the term loosely to make a quick sale. Like Windows is called "supported" but you don't get any support, not what anyone accepts as being supported.
The vendor as in the OS vendor, right?
They absolutely provide support for 18.04 and 19.x. So I have no clue what you are saying
he's claiming that if there is a requirement to 'fix' the code - they won't.. instead they will demand that you upgrade to 19.xx or whatever current is instead.
I thought we were talking about 3rd party vendor support. If I want to run 3rd party software, and you want support by this third party software, you need to run this software on an operating system they support. In many cases, this third party software will not support their software on the latest OS versions of Fedora for example, but WILL support it on LTS versions of Ubuntu and CentOS.
As Scott has said above - Calling something "supported" doesn't mean just one aspect is supported - but ALL aspects are supported.
So Scott's claim is that since Ubuntu LTS is NOT supported (i.e. if there is a code change needed, ubuntu will demand you upgrade to the latest non LTS before you'll get a code update).
So, since LTS isn't actually supported by the manufacturer, then the whole chain (Hardware -> OS ->App) isn't "supported", therefore the solution isn't "In Support"
At least this is Scott's logic.
-
@Obsolesce said in My Weekend Linux Misadventure:
Most servers are purpose-specific, so you should know ahead of time if you can run non-LTS of Ubuntu for example. It shouldn't be an issue IMO. If you can't, you can't. Who gives a shit. Running the latest LTS version of Ubuntu isn't going to make or break your infrastructure.
No, it doesn't break it today - but it leads to so many situations where vendors drop support for things clients are doing, and then clients end up on systems that are 10 years old and un-upgradable... the client is in a bad spot.
-
@Dashrender said in My Weekend Linux Misadventure:
@Obsolesce said in My Weekend Linux Misadventure:
Most servers are purpose-specific, so you should know ahead of time if you can run non-LTS of Ubuntu for example. It shouldn't be an issue IMO. If you can't, you can't. Who gives a shit. Running the latest LTS version of Ubuntu isn't going to make or break your infrastructure.
No, it doesn't break it today - but it leads to so many situations where vendors drop support for things clients are doing, and then clients end up on systems that are 10 years old and un-upgradable... the client is in a bad spot.
Can you give me any actual examples that are not the fault of idiot IT, but the fault of using an LTS version?
What third party software is used that prevents most Ubuntu LTS release users from upgrading to the next LTS release a year or two later, where you would not be prevented upgrading fedore 29 to Fedora 30? Typically I see it the opposite, where shit breaks going from F29 to F30, but not from Ubuntu 16.04 to 18.04 two years later?
-
@Obsolesce said in My Weekend Linux Misadventure:
@Dashrender said in My Weekend Linux Misadventure:
@Obsolesce said in My Weekend Linux Misadventure:
Most servers are purpose-specific, so you should know ahead of time if you can run non-LTS of Ubuntu for example. It shouldn't be an issue IMO. If you can't, you can't. Who gives a shit. Running the latest LTS version of Ubuntu isn't going to make or break your infrastructure.
No, it doesn't break it today - but it leads to so many situations where vendors drop support for things clients are doing, and then clients end up on systems that are 10 years old and un-upgradable... the client is in a bad spot.
Can you give me any actual examples that are not the fault of idiot IT, but the fault of using an LTS version?
What third party software is used that prevents most Ubuntu LTS release users from upgrading to the next LTS release a year or two later, where you would not be prevented upgrading fedore 29 to Fedora 30? Typically I see it the opposite, where shit breaks going from F29 to F30, but not from Ubuntu 16.04 to 18.04 two years later?
Oh, well when comparing to moving from F29 to F30 - there are likely non... why would a software vendor support their shit on Fedora, but not Ubuntu? But better question - why only support it on Ubuntu on LTS?
No I can't give you any examples....
But Scott had examples where some Wall St firm was doing wacky (but acceptable) stuff and showed that the OS had bad code.. but they refused to fix it because the Wall St company was using LTS, not the latest version. So there was no 3rd party problem here, there was an OS problem in that case.
-
@Dashrender said in My Weekend Linux Misadventure:
Scott's claim is that since Ubuntu LTS is NOT supported (i.e. if there is a code change needed, ubuntu will demand you upgrade to the latest non LTS before you'll get a code update).
How do we know this true? If it is LTS and there is an actual bug, it wont be fixed? Ubuntu LTS gets more then security updates.
As Canonical states 95% of Enterprise customers are using LTS. So they absolutely do support it.
-
@Dashrender said in My Weekend Linux Misadventure:
But Scott had examples where some Wall St firm was doing wacky (but acceptable) stuff and showed that the OS had bad code.. but they refused to fix it because the Wall St company was using LTS, not the latest version. So there was no 3rd party problem here, there was an OS problem in that case.
How many times does the opposite exist? Where LTS is the only thing supported?
-
@IRJ said in My Weekend Linux Misadventure:
@Dashrender said in My Weekend Linux Misadventure:
But Scott had examples where some Wall St firm was doing wacky (but acceptable) stuff and showed that the OS had bad code.. but they refused to fix it because the Wall St company was using LTS, not the latest version. So there was no 3rd party problem here, there was an OS problem in that case.
How many times does the opposite exist? Where LTS is the only thing supported?
From a Linux POV - I have no clue.
