Solved Issue installing Korora
-
@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.
-
And with LTS the kernels are much newer than RHEL. So when a new LTS is released every 2 years, it's harder to patch very much and not look like a non LTS.
Not making excuses, but another reason why I would still consider them to "support" it, but they may have more technical challenges against them.
-
And you also can't discount the fact they may have made a special agreement to support a non LTS if this was a big enough issue.
What if RHEL said "we can't fix this issue, but we will support you on Fedora." I would 100% consider that support. I almost consider that above and beyond (if that was indeed what they did).
-
@stacksofplates said in Issue installing Korora:
What if RHEL said "we can't fix this issue, but we will support you on Fedora." I would 100% consider that support. I almost consider that above and beyond (if that was indeed what they did).
RHEL's contract definitely says that they get RHEL fixed, though. It's a different world. But if this was their answer... that the "full" support was Fedora and RHEL was only "support up until we send you to Fedora" then I would totally say that we are back to the original point here which was... for the "full" support level you stay current, not on LTS.
Remember that the original issue was that you got more support on current, less on LTS. You can argue that the "more" might not be full support. But there is no means of arguing that "less" is full. See what I mean? The current release of Ubuntu is getting a higher support tier than LTS. I'm not saying that it doesn't make sense or isn't natural. But when companies "stay" on LTS thinking that they get "special support", that's what I am trying to correct. It doesn't work that way.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Issue installing Korora:
@stacksofplates said in Issue installing Korora:
What if RHEL said "we can't fix this issue, but we will support you on Fedora." I would 100% consider that support. I almost consider that above and beyond (if that was indeed what they did).
RHEL's contract definitely says that they get RHEL fixed, though. It's a different world. But if this was their answer... that the "full" support was Fedora and RHEL was only "support up until we send you to Fedora" then I would totally say that we are back to the original point here which was... for the "full" support level you stay current, not on LTS.
Remember that the original issue was that you got more support on current, less on LTS. You can argue that the "more" might not be full support. But there is no means of arguing that "less" is full. See what I mean? The current release of Ubuntu is getting a higher support tier than LTS. I'm not saying that it doesn't make sense or isn't natural. But when companies "stay" on LTS thinking that they get "special support", that's what I am trying to correct. It doesn't work that way.
Ya the RHEL analogy was bad since the world is so different. I'm not saying that you get more or less support on either. My argument is with the dismissive tone of that original statement.
Like I said. How do you know this wasn't a one time thing that was a complete special case.
I have a suspicion there is more than one meaning to support in different places mentioned. Support in their terms for LTS means the support we are thinking of. And "support" for non LTS means they give you patches and bug fixes.
Like support in their terms is a different meaning than their wiki. One is legal, one is community speak.
-
I'm completely lost with this... wow!
Lets say I have the most important website in the world to run on my server, and all I can use is Ubuntu Server. Which one do I download, and why?
Saying that I do not purchase a separate support agreement through Ubuntu:
What does the LTS version do for my system and environment that the latest version does not? And vice versa?
I see two options, currently:
Ubuntu Server 16.04.2 LTS
The Long Term Support version of Ubuntu Server, including the Mitaka release of OpenStack and support guaranteed until April 2021 — 64-bit only.and
Ubuntu Server 16.10
The latest version of Ubuntu Server, including the Newton release of OpenStack and nine months of security and maintenance updates.Questions:
-
What does Ubuntu's "S" (support) in LTS mean?
-
Does this mean they support everything in the repository? Just the kernel? Just the <whatever>?
-
And by "support", support how?
-
If I get the LTS version, does that mean I get security updates and the latest version of Ubuntu doesn't? I really don't get what support means in LTS.
-
Does LTS mean I only get support (like helpdesk support) if I'm paying for support?
-
If I don't pay for support, is using the LTS version pointless?
-
In Ubuntu Server LTS, does this mean all repository items are "supported"? How is it different than the latest version?
-
Does the LTS version mean that there are no major changes? And that the "support" part of LTS is a meaningless word where they meant to say "Long Term no major functional changes" instead of LTS? (LTnmfc)
I'm hoping for layman's terms here, because now I'm lost.
-
