Solved Issue installing Korora
-
@stacksofplates said in Issue installing Korora:
@scottalanmiller said in Issue installing Korora:
It's all about the definition of support. They will certainly support getting the product installed. But they are under no known obligation to support problems in the code, even their own code.
So against my arguments before, they don't own the code either. RedHat has an advantage there. They produce Fedora. Ubuntu has to get upstream updates.
Totally true and that could make for a great reason as to why they feel that this is how they should handle it. I'm totally okay with what Canonical does, I'm not saying that their model is bad. Only that we have to understand what it means for us in our context as people supporting it.
-
And again, I'm not saying you are lying. It's just saying a company doesn't support what they claim to support (whatever that means in each scenario) is a big thing.
-
Here's the support resolution matrix thing:
-
I think that vendors like IBM, Oracle, Suse and Red Hat have created a tradition of "we fix it no matter what" and, of course, you pay a hefty premium for that kind of support. But because RHEL support means "we guarantee that it works", a lot of IT pros carry that assumption on to other products. And that's not really fair to those vendors. Especially smaller ones. Those big players have the resources to absorb that risk, Canonical does not.
When Oracle says that they stand behind Solaris for a decade for every customer, they own every line of code and any fix will apply to every customer and even if they get unique customers who are the sole customers hitting a bug, they can afford to fix that because they have so much money that sure, they lose money that one time, but overall they earn plenty. It's a risk that they can take.
Canonical pouring money into one or two customers that hit a rare issue probably doesn't work. Especially when they have a fix, it just requires leaving LTS to get the fix. How silly to spend money fixing the LTS for two customers, when a non-LTS fix is out and tested and ready. Know what I mean?
-
Also:
- Hotfixes
To temporarily resolve critical support cases, Canonical may provide a version of the affected software (e.g. package) that applies a patch. Such versions are referred to as “hotfixes”. Hotfixes provided by Canonical are valid until 90 days after the corresponding patch has been incorporated into a release of the software in the Ubuntu Archives. However, if a patch is rejected by the applicable upstream project, the hotfix will be no longer be supported and the case will remain open.
- Hotfixes
-
@stacksofplates said in Issue installing Korora:
And again, I'm not saying you are lying. It's just saying a company doesn't support what they claim to support (whatever that means in each scenario) is a big thing.
I agree, but I'm just saying that I don't think that they say that. I don't feel that they are not providing support, just that the support isn't what we had assumed that it would be.
-
@stacksofplates said in Issue installing Korora:
Also:
- Hotfixes
To temporarily resolve critical support cases, Canonical may provide a version of the affected software (e.g. package) that applies a patch. Such versions are referred to as “hotfixes”. Hotfixes provided by Canonical are valid until 90 days after the corresponding patch has been incorporated into a release of the software in the Ubuntu Archives. However, if a patch is rejected by the applicable upstream project, the hotfix will be no longer be supported and the case will remain open.
I think this was too big to do that. It was a pretty huge issue.
- Hotfixes
-
An important thing to remember is that in the case that I'm talking about as the example.... Canonical absolutely provided a solution. 100% they had a fix. The fix just required "leaving LTS". In no way could we say that Canonical didn't have a fix, and they definitely provided support. And while I didn't test this at the time, I'm 99.999% sure that they would have provided great support for updating to the non-LTS version and all that.
There is no reason that we can't think of "leaving LTS" as a valid fix from the support group. Is there really anything wrong with that being their answer?
-
@scottalanmiller could we try to get an official response from Canonical to set there definition clear?
-
@Romo said in Issue installing Korora:
@scottalanmiller could we try to get an official response from Canonical to set there definition clear?
I'll tag them, I always do. But they've never responded publicly.
And to some degree, it is probably dependent on your support agreement. I'm betting that they are not all the same.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Issue installing Korora:
An important thing to remember is that in the case that I'm talking about as the example.... Canonical absolutely provided a solution. 100% they had a fix. The fix just required "leaving LTS". In no way could we say that Canonical didn't have a fix, and they definitely provided support. And while I didn't test this at the time, I'm 99.999% sure that they would have provided great support for updating to the non-LTS version and all that.
There is no reason that we can't think of "leaving LTS" as a valid fix from the support group. Is there really anything wrong with that being their answer?
No, in an emergency situation as a last ditch effort I don't think there is anything wrong with that. However I believe that's a far cry from
Ubuntu LTS support... "Upgrade to current, we dont support LTS."
-
@scottalanmiller said in Issue installing Korora:
@Romo said in Issue installing Korora:
@scottalanmiller could we try to get an official response from Canonical to set there definition clear?
I'll tag them, I always do. But they've never responded publicly.
And to some degree, it is probably dependent on your support agreement. I'm betting that they are not all the same.
No they aren't. The matrix spells that out.
-
@stacksofplates said in Issue installing Korora:
@scottalanmiller said in Issue installing Korora:
An important thing to remember is that in the case that I'm talking about as the example.... Canonical absolutely provided a solution. 100% they had a fix. The fix just required "leaving LTS". In no way could we say that Canonical didn't have a fix, and they definitely provided support. And while I didn't test this at the time, I'm 99.999% sure that they would have provided great support for updating to the non-LTS version and all that.
There is no reason that we can't think of "leaving LTS" as a valid fix from the support group. Is there really anything wrong with that being their answer?
No, in an emergency situation as a last ditch effort I don't think there is anything wrong with that. However I believe that's a far cry from
Ubuntu LTS support... "Upgrade to current, we dont support LTS."
Is it? If "supporting LTS" only refers to "not fixing things" where is the difference? They support LTS... by having you leave it. It's all semantics at that point. Is leaving LTS still supporting LTS?
-
@stacksofplates said in Issue installing Korora:
@scottalanmiller said in Issue installing Korora:
@Romo said in Issue installing Korora:
@scottalanmiller could we try to get an official response from Canonical to set there definition clear?
I'll tag them, I always do. But they've never responded publicly.
And to some degree, it is probably dependent on your support agreement. I'm betting that they are not all the same.
No they aren't. The matrix spells that out.
In what way? You can always pay for a support agreement that is above and beyond anything stated publicly.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Issue installing Korora:
@stacksofplates said in Issue installing Korora:
@scottalanmiller said in Issue installing Korora:
@Romo said in Issue installing Korora:
@scottalanmiller could we try to get an official response from Canonical to set there definition clear?
I'll tag them, I always do. But they've never responded publicly.
And to some degree, it is probably dependent on your support agreement. I'm betting that they are not all the same.
No they aren't. The matrix spells that out.
In what way? You can always pay for a support agreement that is above and beyond anything stated publicly.
It says "depending on your service agreement." That means there are different support agreements.
-
@stacksofplates said in Issue installing Korora:
@scottalanmiller said in Issue installing Korora:
@stacksofplates said in Issue installing Korora:
@scottalanmiller said in Issue installing Korora:
@Romo said in Issue installing Korora:
@scottalanmiller could we try to get an official response from Canonical to set there definition clear?
I'll tag them, I always do. But they've never responded publicly.
And to some degree, it is probably dependent on your support agreement. I'm betting that they are not all the same.
No they aren't. The matrix spells that out.
In what way? You can always pay for a support agreement that is above and beyond anything stated publicly.
It says "depending on your service agreement." That means there are different support agreements.
OH, sorry misunderstood your statement. You were saying that they definitely were not the same. I gotcha. Yes, that makes sense.
-
With Red Hat we used to have agreements like "you get L5 the moment you call and any issue over four hours we have to fly poor people to sit in your office and be yelled at until the issue is fixed." It's nice when you have those levels and a concierge answers the phone and everyone tracks you by company and you get anything you want. It's nice.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Issue installing Korora:
@stacksofplates said in Issue installing Korora:
@scottalanmiller said in Issue installing Korora:
An important thing to remember is that in the case that I'm talking about as the example.... Canonical absolutely provided a solution. 100% they had a fix. The fix just required "leaving LTS". In no way could we say that Canonical didn't have a fix, and they definitely provided support. And while I didn't test this at the time, I'm 99.999% sure that they would have provided great support for updating to the non-LTS version and all that.
There is no reason that we can't think of "leaving LTS" as a valid fix from the support group. Is there really anything wrong with that being their answer?
No, in an emergency situation as a last ditch effort I don't think there is anything wrong with that. However I believe that's a far cry from
Ubuntu LTS support... "Upgrade to current, we dont support LTS."
Is it? If "supporting LTS" only refers to "not fixing things" where is the difference? They support LTS... by having you leave it. It's all semantics at that point. Is leaving LTS still supporting LTS?
Because there may have not been a fix available. If they did everything possible to get you a solution but it was impossible. I call that support.
Just saying "upgrade to non LTS" without any troubleshooting isn't support, which is what that statement sounds like.
If they did everything in their power to fix it but it wasn't possible, I do call that support.
-
@stacksofplates said in Issue installing Korora:
@scottalanmiller said in Issue installing Korora:
@stacksofplates said in Issue installing Korora:
@scottalanmiller said in Issue installing Korora:
An important thing to remember is that in the case that I'm talking about as the example.... Canonical absolutely provided a solution. 100% they had a fix. The fix just required "leaving LTS". In no way could we say that Canonical didn't have a fix, and they definitely provided support. And while I didn't test this at the time, I'm 99.999% sure that they would have provided great support for updating to the non-LTS version and all that.
There is no reason that we can't think of "leaving LTS" as a valid fix from the support group. Is there really anything wrong with that being their answer?
No, in an emergency situation as a last ditch effort I don't think there is anything wrong with that. However I believe that's a far cry from
Ubuntu LTS support... "Upgrade to current, we dont support LTS."
Is it? If "supporting LTS" only refers to "not fixing things" where is the difference? They support LTS... by having you leave it. It's all semantics at that point. Is leaving LTS still supporting LTS?
Because there may have not been a fix available. If they did everything possible to get you a solution but it was impossible. I call that support.
Just saying "upgrade to non LTS" without any troubleshooting isn't support, which is what that statement sounds like.
If they did everything in their power to fix it but it wasn't possible, I do call that support.
Well... they had the power to backport from the non-LTS release. They had fixed the issue (the issue in this particular case actually came from Ubuntu, not Debian) themselves, but did not want to provide it to the LTS release. It would have been a pain, but it is was absolutely within their power to have done it.
They didn't really need to do troubleshooting beyond recognizing a known issue.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Issue installing Korora:
@stacksofplates said in Issue installing Korora:
@scottalanmiller said in Issue installing Korora:
@stacksofplates said in Issue installing Korora:
@scottalanmiller said in Issue installing Korora:
An important thing to remember is that in the case that I'm talking about as the example.... Canonical absolutely provided a solution. 100% they had a fix. The fix just required "leaving LTS". In no way could we say that Canonical didn't have a fix, and they definitely provided support. And while I didn't test this at the time, I'm 99.999% sure that they would have provided great support for updating to the non-LTS version and all that.
There is no reason that we can't think of "leaving LTS" as a valid fix from the support group. Is there really anything wrong with that being their answer?
No, in an emergency situation as a last ditch effort I don't think there is anything wrong with that. However I believe that's a far cry from
Ubuntu LTS support... "Upgrade to current, we dont support LTS."
Is it? If "supporting LTS" only refers to "not fixing things" where is the difference? They support LTS... by having you leave it. It's all semantics at that point. Is leaving LTS still supporting LTS?
Because there may have not been a fix available. If they did everything possible to get you a solution but it was impossible. I call that support.
Just saying "upgrade to non LTS" without any troubleshooting isn't support, which is what that statement sounds like.
If they did everything in their power to fix it but it wasn't possible, I do call that support.
Well... they had the power to backport from the non-LTS release. They had fixed the issue (the issue in this particular case actually came from Ubuntu, not Debian) themselves, but did not want to provide it to the LTS release. It would have been a pain, but it is was absolutely within their power to have done it.
They didn't really need to do troubleshooting beyond recognizing a known issue.
Right but what dependencies were there with the fix? I don't know the specifics obviously, but I can't imagine it's as simple as backporting some packages. It may have been intertwined enough that you would be on a non LTS anyway if you did it.
I think RedHat is a little different because their "LTS" vs their non is so vastly different that a large fix wouldn't be similar enough to Fedora. But here, if it's such a drastic change that the fix will be close enough to a non LTS, what's the difference?
Hard to put that into words if that makes sense.
