Solved 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?
-
@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.
-
@stacksofplates said in Issue installing Korora:
You have no evidence either. It's just you saying something.
Right. Your entire case rests on calling me a liar. You won't even state that you have information that I'm lying, just that you won't accept what I say because you think it's a lie.
That's fine, but that's your entire case.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Issue installing Korora:
@stacksofplates said in Issue installing Korora:
You have no evidence either. It's just you saying something.
Right. Your entire case rests on calling me a liar. You won't even state that you have information that I'm lying, just that you won't accept what I say because you think it's a lie.
That's fine, but that's your entire case.
No one is calling you a liar. But I have seen you misread enough posts to know it's a viable possibility that the information was misunderstood somewhere.
-
@stacksofplates said in Issue installing Korora:
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.
They did. Canonical had already found the issue with other customers, and their fix was to have them all update. And they all did or else lived with the issue (not all companies were impacted to the same degree, obviously.)
Everyone would NOT know about it, race conditions were rare. That's a false assumption. It was enough that they knew and had addressed it. It was affecting very few customers and only high performance ones. Most customers didn't pay for support so just had to update silently. Those that paid for support were all told, presumably, the same thing.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Issue installing Korora:
Everyone would NOT know about it, race conditions were rare.
Obviously I meant everyone who encountered the issue. Not everyone everywhere.
-
@stacksofplates said in Issue installing Korora:
@scottalanmiller said in Issue installing Korora:
@stacksofplates said in Issue installing Korora:
You have no evidence either. It's just you saying something.
Right. Your entire case rests on calling me a liar. You won't even state that you have information that I'm lying, just that you won't accept what I say because you think it's a lie.
That's fine, but that's your entire case.
No one is calling you a liar. But I have seen you misread enough posts to know it's a viable possibility that the information was misunderstood somewhere.
Of course, although I'm pretty shocked that the degree to which I've called this to Ubuntu's attention publicly and talked to companies about this that neither the vendor nor no IT pro nor no company has ever stated that this was questionable. I've never been presented with even the feeblest example of it not being true, not once. And you know how often I talk about it.
