Solved Issue installing Korora
-
@scottalanmiller said in Issue installing Korora:
@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.
No. Canonical only supports LTS. Ubuntu will put out support updates for non-LTS. Two different things.
Also, again that's anecdotal evidence. If that were the case there would be people everywhere talking about how LTS isn't supported. But you are the only person saying this. I guarantee there are people that have used Canonical for actual support and have not run into this.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Issue installing Korora:
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.
Again, you can't prove this. It's just you saying this happened on some release of Ubuntu. This is like me saying that Red Hat told me to use Fedora the other day.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Issue installing Korora:
A similar example is insurance.
1,000 people buy insurance from one company. One of them has an accident and tries to file a claim. The insurance company says "sorry, we don't pay out, ever."
999 people we can use as examples of "they pay FOR insurance and they have no complaints." But we now that those cases aren't relevant because they didn't make claims. So that they paid for the purpose of being able to make a claim only tells us that they paid, not that they paid smartly. And that 999 didn't have problems only tells us that they didn't need to make a claim.
It's successfully getting support of a nature that falls under what support is paid for that is meaningful. Is it an isolated case? Absolutely. But it is one that includes the full example chain in a very unique way and one that includes an official statement as to why the standard support beliefs are myths. The examples of "lots of companies that run old systems" aren't important until we identify ones meeting all of the necessary criteria.
And in the real world, the insurance company will likely pay out super visible claims or super trivial ones to maintain a plausible facade. But an undisclosable, extremely large insurance claim they might deny knowing that their other customers will make the one important case look like an exception when it might be the rule.
But the problem here is, there is evidence everywhere that it's going on with the insurance companies. You are literally the only person I have ever seen say this about Canonical. Ever.
-
@stacksofplates said in Issue installing Korora:
No. Canonical only supports LTS. Ubuntu will put out support updates for non-LTS. Two different things.
This is your personal statement. This is the exact opposite of what Canonical support both said AND did in the real world. Canonical themselves said that this is wrong. What means more than Canonical's own policy as to Canonical's policy?
We are literally discussing Canonical policy.
-
@stacksofplates said in Issue installing Korora:
@scottalanmiller said in Issue installing Korora:
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.
Again, you can't prove this. It's just you saying this happened on some release of Ubuntu. This is like me saying that Red Hat told me to use Fedora the other day.
So okay, so ALL examples are fake because they happen to people. That's the argument? That nothing is valid?
-
@stacksofplates said in Issue installing Korora:
But the problem here is, there is evidence everywhere that it's going on with the insurance companies. You are literally the only person I have ever seen say this about Canonical. Ever.
What do you mean? I've never heard of any evidence to the contrary. And I've just explained why even things that appear as potential evidence are unlikely to be.
Do you have any proof of these examples meeting the stated criteria?
-
@scottalanmiller said in Issue installing Korora:
@stacksofplates said in Issue installing Korora:
@scottalanmiller said in Issue installing Korora:
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.
Again, you can't prove this. It's just you saying this happened on some release of Ubuntu. This is like me saying that Red Hat told me to use Fedora the other day.
So okay, so ALL examples are fake because they happen to people. That's the argument? That nothing is valid?
No. How did you arrive at this? There is one person saying this out of how many million that use the product. One person.
-
Did you miss the insurance example? You pay for guaranteed support, if everyone's support is not guaranteed, then no one received what hey paid for, even if they think that they did. People for whom Ubuntu worked in LTS aren't examples of getting the assumed support.
http://www.smbitjournal.com/2014/07/it-worked-for-me/
It can mean, and normally would mean, that they got lucky. Not that they got full support for stability and security issues
-
@scottalanmiller said in Issue installing Korora:
@stacksofplates said in Issue installing Korora:
But the problem here is, there is evidence everywhere that it's going on with the insurance companies. You are literally the only person I have ever seen say this about Canonical. Ever.
What do you mean? I've never heard of any evidence to the contrary. And I've just explained why even things that appear as potential evidence are unlikely to be.
Do you have any proof of these examples meeting the stated criteria?
WTF are you talking about. People have issues with insurance companies like this all of the time. Find me another person who says Ubuntu LTS isn't acutally LTS and they have had experience where Canonical won't support it.
-
@stacksofplates said in Issue installing Korora:
@scottalanmiller said in Issue installing Korora:
@stacksofplates said in Issue installing Korora:
@scottalanmiller said in Issue installing Korora:
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.
Again, you can't prove this. It's just you saying this happened on some release of Ubuntu. This is like me saying that Red Hat told me to use Fedora the other day.
So okay, so ALL examples are fake because they happen to people. That's the argument? That nothing is valid?
No. How did you arrive at this? There is one person saying this out of how many million that use the product. One person.
Using the product is NOT relevant. Only having show stopping stability bugs, during the time that LTS was not current, and attempting to get paid for LTS support is relevant. How many examples of that have you even looked at?
-
@stacksofplates said in Issue installing Korora:
@scottalanmiller said in Issue installing Korora:
@stacksofplates said in Issue installing Korora:
But the problem here is, there is evidence everywhere that it's going on with the insurance companies. You are literally the only person I have ever seen say this about Canonical. Ever.
What do you mean? I've never heard of any evidence to the contrary. And I've just explained why even things that appear as potential evidence are unlikely to be.
Do you have any proof of these examples meeting the stated criteria?
WTF are you talking about. People have issues with insurance companies like this all of the time. Find me another person who says Ubuntu LTS isn't acutally LTS and they have had experience where Canonical won't support it.
Yes, they do. And it means that the insurance is not providing what is paid for. The different is that insurance companies claim that the claim is fake, Canonical outright says that they don't provide support for LTS under that condition.
If you paid for insurance and they don't pay out when required, there was no insurance. It was a scam.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Issue installing Korora:
Canonical outright says that they don't provide support for LTS under that condition
Again, no they don't. You say they do, but they have never stated that anywhere else.
-
@stacksofplates said in Issue installing Korora:
Find me another person who says Ubuntu LTS isn't acutally LTS and they have had experience where Canonical won't support it.
You have two logical gaps here...
- You have zero evidence to the contrary. The singular evidence we have is this one. No one that I've seen and no one mentioned here has ever tested this theory and gotten the support, only failed to get it (and got told why and what the policy was.) That you are denying Canonicals' own statement shocks me.
- Even if nine out of ten people get support in this kind of condition, but 10% get denied by policy... is that enough for you to call it "supported." Under no circumstance would I or any business person that I know call that supported.
-
@stacksofplates said in Issue installing Korora:
@scottalanmiller said in Issue installing Korora:
Canonical outright says that they don't provide support for LTS under that condition
Again, no they don't. You say they do, but they have never stated that anywhere else.
Doesn't matter if they state it anywhere else. They set the policy AND it was demonstrable in their actions. I'm unclear why this isn't clear. Policies told to non-customers aren't really applicable.
-
@stacksofplates said in Issue installing Korora:
@scottalanmiller said in Issue installing Korora:
Canonical outright says that they don't provide support for LTS under that condition
Again, no they don't. You say they do, but they have never stated that anywhere else.
Let's flip it around. Have they stated something else to YOU when you made a support request for a proved stability issue?
-
@scottalanmiller said in Issue installing Korora:
@stacksofplates said in Issue installing Korora:
@scottalanmiller said in Issue installing Korora:
Canonical outright says that they don't provide support for LTS under that condition
Again, no they don't. You say they do, but they have never stated that anywhere else.
Let's flip it around. Have they stated something else to YOU when you made a support request for a proved stability issue?
No. I don't pay them for support, but I do know someone who did. And they got it when they needed it.
-
What we have is very little evidence. What we have accumulated so far is....
One extremely powerful and important anecdote that if true (I was there, it's pretty reliable) is enormously significant to the point, to me, of being enough alone to either make the product garbage or the support issue qualify as "unsupported" regardless of support provided (it's the case paid for.)
And nothing but heresay to the contrary. Not a single example of contrary evidence, just assumption.
While one anecdotal case is just one case, it's also the ONLY case. Do you see the problem there?
-
@scottalanmiller said in Issue installing Korora:
@stacksofplates said in Issue installing Korora:
Find me another person who says Ubuntu LTS isn't acutally LTS and they have had experience where Canonical won't support it.
You have two logical gaps here...
- You have zero evidence to the contrary. The singular evidence we have is this one. No one that I've seen and no one mentioned here has ever tested this theory and gotten the support, only failed to get it (and got told why and what the policy was.) That you are denying Canonicals' own statement shocks me.
- Even if nine out of ten people get support in this kind of condition, but 10% get denied by policy... is that enough for you to call it "supported." Under no circumstance would I or any business person that I know call that supported.
You have no evidence either. It's just you saying something.
-
What we (I) know....
- LTS has massive stability issues to the point of being useless.
- Canonical acknowledged the stability issues and that it made the product useless.
- Canonical acknowledged the support agreement.
- Canonical stated that the support agreement required that LTS be abandoned and the current release be used to continue support on an issue of that magnitude.
- No dissenting example has ever been produced in years of discussing this issue.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Issue installing Korora:
What we have is very little evidence. What we have accumulated so far is....
One extremely powerful and important anecdote that if true (I was there, it's pretty reliable) is enormously significant to the point, to me, of being enough alone to either make the product garbage or the support issue qualify as "unsupported" regardless of support provided (it's the case paid for.)
And nothing but heresay to the contrary. Not a single example of contrary evidence, just assumption.
While one anecdotal case is just one case, it's also the ONLY case. Do you see the problem there?
And my point is, it's a giant case that someone else would have encountered at the time. You weren't the only company running Ubuntu. If this would have happened, everyone would know about it.
