Discussion on LTS OSes
-
@IRJ said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
Negatives about bleeding edge:
Often not supported
No available benchmarks
Higher chance for bugs as it gets untested releases
What are the tangible negatives for LTS?Issue LTS Current Latest Technology (including security) Stagnant Updates Much Sooner Bugs More Time to View Code More Updated Code and Refactoring Support - Official Better from HR and Suse Better from Microsoft and Canonical Support - Devs Hated Focused Support - Products Better for Badly Supported Products Better for Well Supported Products In the Interest of the Vendor Low High Security Reviews More Time to Benchmark Less Time to Benchmark Security - Hackers More time to find holes Less time to find holes Features Fewer More Patching Consistent Consistent Performance Generally Worse Generally Better Abrubtness of Changes High Low OS Level Version Updates Generally Breaking Generally Painless Encourages Proper Maintenance Discourages Encourages Third Party Library Support Often Requires Leaving LTS Status to Work Less Likely Requires Leaving Supported Conf More Support for Components (DB) Higher Lower Lots of the things about one versus the other is "tends to". LTS tends to encourage bad behaviour. Current tends to see bugs first. Of hard and fast things it's less clear, which is why traditionally LTS was considered better in the 90s and 2000s, but isn't seen that way today. How software is delivered, maintained, used and supported is very different. DevOps, for example, has removed many of the arguments for LTS.
I bolded the winners in a category when there was one.
-
@stacksofplates said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@DustinB3403 said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller can explain what the fundamental differences is between LTS and anything bleeding edge.
To summarize it lazily, LTS is a set in time that is only updated for security concerns. BE is everything not that and you wanting to use the newest features as soon as they are released.
Yeah that's not true. Dot releases with CentOS/RHEL give you packages that weren't in previous releases. For example adding VDO in 7.5 or 7.6. By the way, I believe you still need copr on Fedora to install that (so not in upstream yet.).
New packages, but if they update old ones, it stops being an LTS and just becomes a different "current". But just adding something new and optional isn't the same as updating something old. MS follows the same rules.
Yeah that's not true. They definitely update packages. RHEL/CentOS 7.1 had NetworkManager-1.0.0-16. RHEL/CentOS 7.6 has 1.18.0-5. Just one example.
They definitely update packages as dot releases come out.
Right, which technically, makes it not an LTS but just a stagnant current
Basically, LTS is such a bad idea, everyone has abandoned it but people demand it, so they keep the terms around to make government agencies and such accept it. -
@WrCombs said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@Dashrender said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
Back to the OP.
@WrCombs wants to things most likely...
a desktop environment to run in - So Fedora or Ubuntu most likely... and then a separate "server" box to install Linux Server OSes on to experiment with to do things like - setup FreePBX, setup NC, setup file server, etc.
yes.
I could even VM those, right? or no? - Forgive the newbness, but I'm thinking a Desktop and then run a VM Boxes with server OS's to do what @Dashrender is saying and thoughts on which ones to try.You could do this with any platform, desktop or server. On Fedora and CentOS/RHEL it's just an option that you check at installation and you have everything you need to start building and creating VMs.
-
@Dashrender said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
Actually 1909 has been released officially.
ANd that's an LTSB? Or just current? I thought it was slated for LTSB but was breaking and they held it off?
-
@scottalanmiller said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@DustinB3403 said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller can explain what the fundamental differences is between LTS and anything bleeding edge.
To summarize it lazily, LTS is a set in time that is only updated for security concerns. BE is everything not that and you wanting to use the newest features as soon as they are released.
Yeah that's not true. Dot releases with CentOS/RHEL give you packages that weren't in previous releases. For example adding VDO in 7.5 or 7.6. By the way, I believe you still need copr on Fedora to install that (so not in upstream yet.).
New packages, but if they update old ones, it stops being an LTS and just becomes a different "current". But just adding something new and optional isn't the same as updating something old. MS follows the same rules.
Yeah that's not true. They definitely update packages. RHEL/CentOS 7.1 had NetworkManager-1.0.0-16. RHEL/CentOS 7.6 has 1.18.0-5. Just one example.
They definitely update packages as dot releases come out.
Right, which technically, makes it not an LTS but just a stagnant current
Basically, LTS is such a bad idea, everyone has abandoned it but people demand it, so they keep the terms around to make government agencies and such accept it.Not really. They don't jump major versions. Dot releases and patches of a project are stable. They just don't jump major versions like in upstream projects. It's still LTS.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@Dashrender said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
Actually 1909 has been released officially.
ANd that's an LTSB? Or just current? I thought it was slated for LTSB but was breaking and they held it off?
wouldn't that be current release?
-
@scottalanmiller said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@IRJ said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
Negatives about bleeding edge:
Often not supported
No available benchmarks
Higher chance for bugs as it gets untested releases
What are the tangible negatives for LTS?Issue LTS Current Latest Technology (including security) Stagnant Updates Much Sooner Bugs More Time to View Code More Updated Code and Refactoring Support - Official Better from HR and Suse Better from Microsoft and Canonical Support - Devs Hated Focused Support - Products Better for Badly Supported Products Better for Well Supported Products In the Interest of the Vendor Low High Security Reviews More Time to Benchmark Less Time to Benchmark Security - Hackers More time to find holes Less time to find holes Features Fewer More Patching Consistent Consistent Performance Generally Worse Generally Better Abrubtness of Changes High Low OS Level Version Updates Generally Breaking Generally Painless Encourages Proper Maintenance Discourages Encourages Third Party Library Support Often Requires Leaving LTS Status to Work Less Likely Requires Leaving Supported Conf More Support for Components (DB) Higher Lower Lots of the things about one versus the other is "tends to". LTS tends to encourage bad behaviour. Current tends to see bugs first. Of hard and fast things it's less clear, which is why traditionally LTS was considered better in the 90s and 2000s, but isn't seen that way today. How software is delivered, maintained, used and supported is very different. DevOps, for example, has removed many of the arguments for LTS.
I bolded the winners in a category when there was one.
Where did you get this chart? lol
-
@IRJ said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
Where did you get this chart? lol
I just made it! Like on the spot.
-
-
@IRJ said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@IRJ said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
Negatives about bleeding edge:
Often not supported
No available benchmarks
Higher chance for bugs as it gets untested releases
What are the tangible negatives for LTS?Issue LTS Current Latest Technology (including security) Stagnant Updates Much Sooner Bugs More Time to View Code More Updated Code and Refactoring Support - Official Better from HR and Suse Better from Microsoft and Canonical Support - Devs Hated Focused Support - Products Better for Badly Supported Products Better for Well Supported Products In the Interest of the Vendor Low High Security Reviews More Time to Benchmark Less Time to Benchmark Security - Hackers More time to find holes Less time to find holes Features Fewer More Patching Consistent Consistent Performance Generally Worse Generally Better Abrubtness of Changes High Low OS Level Version Updates Generally Breaking Generally Painless Encourages Proper Maintenance Discourages Encourages Third Party Library Support Often Requires Leaving LTS Status to Work Less Likely Requires Leaving Supported Conf More Support for Components (DB) Higher Lower Lots of the things about one versus the other is "tends to". LTS tends to encourage bad behaviour. Current tends to see bugs first. Of hard and fast things it's less clear, which is why traditionally LTS was considered better in the 90s and 2000s, but isn't seen that way today. How software is delivered, maintained, used and supported is very different. DevOps, for example, has removed many of the arguments for LTS.
I bolded the winners in a category when there was one.
Where did you get this chart? lol
Except things like bug fixes are still done in LTS, as I just pointed out above. So I don't know what you're pointing at with things like bugs and support...
-
@scottalanmiller said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@IRJ said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
Where did you get this chart? lol
I just made it! Like on the spot.
I have to admit the wording is quite amusing, but that not of it tangible.
-
Also more features? Like what in Ubuntu 19x that isn't in 18.04 LTS? Very minor things
-
The hackers finding holes goes two ways. More time to find holes means better review. Which is the concept of Open Source Software.
-
@IRJ said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
The hackers finding holes goes two ways. More time to find holes means better review. Which is the concept of Open Source Software.
Except if an OS is EoL'd very few people are going to be going back to check for things they've missed in those releases.
I get the point Scott is making with this one.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@Dashrender said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
Actually 1909 has been released officially.
ANd that's an LTSB? Or just current? I thought it was slated for LTSB but was breaking and they held it off?
I have no idea if 1909 will be LTSB or just current.. but you said current was 1903, and it's not.. 1909 is current (and maybe LTSB as well)
-
@DustinB3403 said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@IRJ said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
The hackers finding holes goes two ways. More time to find holes means better review. Which is the concept of Open Source Software.
Except if an OS is EoL'd very few people are going to be going back to check for things they've missed in those releases.
I get the point Scott is making with this one.
LTS isnt EOL.....
-
The thing about LTS isn't the concept of locking versions, that alone is fine. The issue with LTS is why people lock versions. It's done almost exclusively for two reasons:
- So that software vendors don't have to maintain their software at a reasonable pace.
- So that IT departments don't have to maintain their OSes at a reasonable pace.
Both major reasons, are quite bad. Software vendors like to claim that it is hard to keep software working, and that was the case in the 1980s and 1990s. WIth modern software that is realistically not an issue. But people still think that it is, so they get away with it. Modern software running on Java, .NET, PHP, Python, Go, NodeJS, etc. don't have these problems. Abstractions have made this a moot point. So when vendors don't support current OSes, this tells us that they are avoiding trivial amounts of testing that we would hope that they were doing all of the time anyway.
This increases our risks, a lot. First it's "we only support LTS", then it is "we only support every other LTS release." Suddenly we have software that's gone a decade without there being a code update, operational test, or any idea how to keep it working. This is how ghost ship software manages to exist - once you've convince customers that not testing for a decade is acceptable, you are home free to ride out software until the end of time. No actual developers, no documentation, no actual support... just make money selling the software as if it was maintained and hope for the best. When things fail, cash out and walk away. Customers are left holding the bag. The risk increases every step of the way, but LTS allows a "frog in the boiling water" technique to make customers ignore their pain until disaster strikes.
IT departments like to delay updates for similar reasons. For them it's generally the hope that the issues with future updates will not bite them until either they have moved on to another company or to another role within the company. Delaying is a powerful tool for internal IT because most people move on quickly and can leave problems for those that follow and blame them for any issues.
-
@WrCombs said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@Dashrender said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
Back to the OP.
@WrCombs wants to things most likely...
a desktop environment to run in - So Fedora or Ubuntu most likely... and then a separate "server" box to install Linux Server OSes on to experiment with to do things like - setup FreePBX, setup NC, setup file server, etc.
yes.
I could even VM those, right? or no? - Forgive the newbness, but I'm thinking a Desktop and then run a VM Boxes with server OS's to do what @Dashrender is saying and thoughts on which ones to try.yes... personally - I'd have only a Desktop OS on my laptop/desktop machine.... and I would use something like KVM or Hyper-V on the 'server' to run VMs of whatever you want.
As for what to do first - whatever floats your boat.
Maybe - file server first - for windows boxes but using a Linux OS to share the files
then move onto NextCloud - a file sharing platform
then perhaps onto FreePBX, make your own phone system.If you think of somethign else that interests you - go that way instead.
Coming up with the project is perhaps one of the harder things... and I just gave you three. -
@scottalanmiller said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
The thing about LTS isn't the concept of locking versions, that alone is fine. The issue with LTS is why people lock versions. It's done almost exclusively for two reasons:
- So that software vendors don't have to maintain their software at a reasonable pace.
- So that IT departments don't have to maintain their OSes at a reasonable pace.
Both major reasons, are quite bad. Software vendors like to claim that it is hard to keep software working, and that was the case in the 1980s and 1990s. WIth modern software that is realistically not an issue. But people still think that it is, so they get away with it. Modern software running on Java, .NET, PHP, Python, Go, NodeJS, etc. don't have these problems. Abstractions have made this a moot point. So when vendors don't support current OSes, this tells us that they are avoiding trivial amounts of testing that we would hope that they were doing all of the time anyway.
I'd like to agree with you, but time and time again, we see vendors having a hell of a time keeping up with updates - my EHR can't keep up with Chrome making updates to their browser... it was so bad the vendor started a major project to make their own browser based on Chromium, though undoubtedly they were going to update it only yearly... Luckily their new owners killed that madness!
-
@scottalanmiller said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
Security - Hackers | More time to find holes | Less time to find holesThis is a joke right? FIPS mode is validated on the non upstream projects (RHEL/CentOS) and not validated on the upstream. And again, the downstream projects still get patches, security fixes, and actual package updates.
here's all of what FIPS mode does with dm-crypt (this is for 6.2 but it's still valid, I couldn't quickly find the new pdf):
