Discussion on LTS OSes
-
@stacksofplates said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
LTS, by definition, gets patched. But as we've proven with Ubuntu, not fully patched.
So you picked one bad vendor to try to prove your point. That doesn't invalidate all of the others that do patch. And no you never proves that. You only stated it, which is obviously not proof.
I proved it to the point that it's Canonical's official stance. If it comes to that, you can't prove anything else. I at least got to the point of the vendor making it their support position. It's the most official thing that there could be.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
Yeah see you say that but literally everyone else views SCAP settings as good security. Even the people who make the software....
But I'm unclear how that goes against what I said. That's not a counter argument. That the government "can" sometimes produce something good or "seen as good" isn't in dispute.
SCAP could be pure gold, but if applied to a bad product, not be the best decision. SCAP being good, great, even amazing, doesn't logically have anything to do with LTS vs current support or release models.
@stacksofplates said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
The proof is in the pudding. Red Hats own hardening guide for Fedora is about 5% as large as RHEL/CentOS. And it's not because they are that drastically different.
That's not pudding, though. RH makes money only on RHEL, RH is a business. That RH chooses to do what is profitable doesn't even begin to suggest where good models for end users is.
This is like saying that McDonald's sells Big Macs, McD's is a big company, therefore Big Macs are healthy food. It's not logical. McD's sells what people want to buy. That's their job. RH sells the software people want to buy. Neither action is suggestive of what is good for us to purchase or use.
No because it applies to CentOS as well. It's not the same at all.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
LTS, by definition, gets patched. But as we've proven with Ubuntu, not fully patched.
So you picked one bad vendor to try to prove your point. That doesn't invalidate all of the others that do patch. And no you never proves that. You only stated it, which is obviously not proof.
I proved it to the point that it's Canonical's official stance. If it comes to that, you can't prove anything else. I at least got to the point of the vendor making it their support position. It's the most official thing that there could be.
Yeah except that's not proof. That's just you telling us that's what they said. That doesn't prove that a vendor doesn't support their releases.
-
@Dashrender said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@Dashrender said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@Dashrender said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@Dashrender said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@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!
What I don't understand is how that isn't agreeing with me?
Oh, OK perhaps it is, but my point was - most - MOST vendors suffer this lagging behind issue.... it would be different is most were on the current and always ready to move to current, but that simply isn't the case. At least not for purchased software... All you have to do is look over SW and you'll see all kinds of threads about how xyz isn't supported on Windows Server 2019 yet, etc.. I'm sure the same goes for some software on different Linux OSes.
and I don't mean not supported because they didn't try - but not supported because something is broken.Right, but what does that matter? That's been covered... LTS exists for software vendors that can't support their own software. We've covered this, it's the foundation of the conversation.
You are missing the conversation that we had, and using the "one problem justifies another" argument. "We chose bad software because we didn't consider whether the vendor could support it" therefore "this makes bad IT practices justified because we ignored that we made the bad decision that got us here."
IT in my case was completely not involved in the decision...
Whoever makes the decision, is IT. IT isn't a title, it's an action.
yeah yeah -
Well, you ignore this a lot. But it's a consistent thing. You can't constantly claim IT doesn't do any of the IT. He would does IT, is IT. Maybe it's shadow IT, but really, it's from the top down, so it's not even that. It's just IT in your organization isn't a labeled department. But you know that the owners and managers who refuse IT titles consistently demand IT decision making and are the IT managers.
-
@stacksofplates said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
Yeah see you say that but literally everyone else views SCAP settings as good security. Even the people who make the software....
But I'm unclear how that goes against what I said. That's not a counter argument. That the government "can" sometimes produce something good or "seen as good" isn't in dispute.
SCAP could be pure gold, but if applied to a bad product, not be the best decision. SCAP being good, great, even amazing, doesn't logically have anything to do with LTS vs current support or release models.
@stacksofplates said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
The proof is in the pudding. Red Hats own hardening guide for Fedora is about 5% as large as RHEL/CentOS. And it's not because they are that drastically different.
That's not pudding, though. RH makes money only on RHEL, RH is a business. That RH chooses to do what is profitable doesn't even begin to suggest where good models for end users is.
This is like saying that McDonald's sells Big Macs, McD's is a big company, therefore Big Macs are healthy food. It's not logical. McD's sells what people want to buy. That's their job. RH sells the software people want to buy. Neither action is suggestive of what is good for us to purchase or use.
No because it applies to CentOS as well. It's not the same at all.
It has to apply to CentOS, that it automatically applies there is neither here nor there. I'm not sure how you feel that relates to my point.
-
@stacksofplates said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
LTS, by definition, gets patched. But as we've proven with Ubuntu, not fully patched.
So you picked one bad vendor to try to prove your point. That doesn't invalidate all of the others that do patch. And no you never proves that. You only stated it, which is obviously not proof.
I proved it to the point that it's Canonical's official stance. If it comes to that, you can't prove anything else. I at least got to the point of the vendor making it their support position. It's the most official thing that there could be.
Yeah except that's not proof. That's just you telling us that's what they said. That doesn't prove that a vendor doesn't support their releases.
It does, that's precisely what it does. When called on to support LTS, that was the only way to continue support. What else could it mean?
It's more than what they said, it's also what they did. They didn't support LTS, but offered to update to current where there was support.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
LTS, by definition, gets patched. But as we've proven with Ubuntu, not fully patched.
So you picked one bad vendor to try to prove your point. That doesn't invalidate all of the others that do patch. And no you never proves that. You only stated it, which is obviously not proof.
I proved it to the point that it's Canonical's official stance. If it comes to that, you can't prove anything else. I at least got to the point of the vendor making it their support position. It's the most official thing that there could be.
Yeah except that's not proof. That's just you telling us that's what they said. That doesn't prove that a vendor doesn't support their releases.
It does, that's precisely what it does. When called on to support LTS, that was the only way to continue support. What else could it mean?
No because you have not provided us any proof that they said that. I could say that Canonical stated the opposite to me and that means that's proof?
-
@stacksofplates said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
LTS, by definition, gets patched. But as we've proven with Ubuntu, not fully patched.
So you picked one bad vendor to try to prove your point. That doesn't invalidate all of the others that do patch. And no you never proves that. You only stated it, which is obviously not proof.
I proved it to the point that it's Canonical's official stance. If it comes to that, you can't prove anything else. I at least got to the point of the vendor making it their support position. It's the most official thing that there could be.
Yeah except that's not proof. That's just you telling us that's what they said. That doesn't prove that a vendor doesn't support their releases.
It does, that's precisely what it does. When called on to support LTS, that was the only way to continue support. What else could it mean?
No because you have not provided us any proof that they said that. I could say that Canonical stated the opposite to me and that means that's proof?
Yes, but it's a one way proof. That they sometimes provide support doesn't mean that the reliably do. That they refuse support because it is LTS proves the point. To be supported, requires it to always be supported, not picking and choosing when they feel like it.
-
@stacksofplates said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
I could say that Canonical stated the opposite to me
Stating that you will do something is a promise. It means very, very little.
Stating that you wont' do something and then refusing to do it, is an action and means, literally, everything.
"Hey, I'll go to dinner with you later." <--- Means very little, we don't even know if they intend to be honest.
"Oh yeah, I didn't go to dinner and didn't intend to." <--- Means a lot because it happened. That's proof. That they "didn't intend to" might be a lie, but at least a lie that matches the facts.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
LTS, by definition, gets patched. But as we've proven with Ubuntu, not fully patched.
So you picked one bad vendor to try to prove your point. That doesn't invalidate all of the others that do patch. And no you never proves that. You only stated it, which is obviously not proof.
I proved it to the point that it's Canonical's official stance. If it comes to that, you can't prove anything else. I at least got to the point of the vendor making it their support position. It's the most official thing that there could be.
Yeah except that's not proof. That's just you telling us that's what they said. That doesn't prove that a vendor doesn't support their releases.
It does, that's precisely what it does. When called on to support LTS, that was the only way to continue support. What else could it mean?
No because you have not provided us any proof that they said that. I could say that Canonical stated the opposite to me and that means that's proof?
Yes, but it's a one way proof. That they sometimes provide support doesn't mean that the reliably do. That they refuse support because it is LTS proves the point. To be supported, requires it to always be supported, not picking and choosing when they feel like it.
That's a strawman and has nothing to do with the argument. I said that you stating canonical doesn't support an OS isn't proof. And it's not. There is still no proof they said that other than heresay.
-
@stacksofplates said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
LTS, by definition, gets patched. But as we've proven with Ubuntu, not fully patched.
So you picked one bad vendor to try to prove your point. That doesn't invalidate all of the others that do patch. And no you never proves that. You only stated it, which is obviously not proof.
I proved it to the point that it's Canonical's official stance. If it comes to that, you can't prove anything else. I at least got to the point of the vendor making it their support position. It's the most official thing that there could be.
Yeah except that's not proof. That's just you telling us that's what they said. That doesn't prove that a vendor doesn't support their releases.
It does, that's precisely what it does. When called on to support LTS, that was the only way to continue support. What else could it mean?
No because you have not provided us any proof that they said that. I could say that Canonical stated the opposite to me and that means that's proof?
Yes, but it's a one way proof. That they sometimes provide support doesn't mean that the reliably do. That they refuse support because it is LTS proves the point. To be supported, requires it to always be supported, not picking and choosing when they feel like it.
That's a strawman and has nothing to do with the argument. I said that you stating canonical doesn't support an OS isn't proof. And it's not. There is still no proof they said that other than heresay.
No, that requires calling me a liar. Because it was first hand.
By that logic, nothing is proof. Ever.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
I could say that Canonical stated the opposite to me
Stating that you will do something is a promise. It means very, very little.
Stating that you wont' do something and then refusing to do it, is an action and means, literally, everything.
"Hey, I'll go to dinner with you later." <--- Means very little, we don't even know if they intend to be honest.
"Oh yeah, I didn't go to dinner and didn't intend to." <--- Means a lot because it happened. That's proof. That they "didn't intend to" might be a lie, but at least a lie that matches the facts.
Stop the semantics. It's the point that the only proof is a person said it. There is no proof there.
-
@stacksofplates said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
I could say that Canonical stated the opposite to me
Stating that you will do something is a promise. It means very, very little.
Stating that you wont' do something and then refusing to do it, is an action and means, literally, everything.
"Hey, I'll go to dinner with you later." <--- Means very little, we don't even know if they intend to be honest.
"Oh yeah, I didn't go to dinner and didn't intend to." <--- Means a lot because it happened. That's proof. That they "didn't intend to" might be a lie, but at least a lie that matches the facts.
Stop the semantics. It's the point that the only proof is a person said it. There is no proof there.
What do you mean? It wasn't said, it was done. Needing support, they refused support. That's not "said it". You are trying to change a provable fact into heresay by acting like actions are just words.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
LTS, by definition, gets patched. But as we've proven with Ubuntu, not fully patched.
So you picked one bad vendor to try to prove your point. That doesn't invalidate all of the others that do patch. And no you never proves that. You only stated it, which is obviously not proof.
I proved it to the point that it's Canonical's official stance. If it comes to that, you can't prove anything else. I at least got to the point of the vendor making it their support position. It's the most official thing that there could be.
Yeah except that's not proof. That's just you telling us that's what they said. That doesn't prove that a vendor doesn't support their releases.
It does, that's precisely what it does. When called on to support LTS, that was the only way to continue support. What else could it mean?
No because you have not provided us any proof that they said that. I could say that Canonical stated the opposite to me and that means that's proof?
Yes, but it's a one way proof. That they sometimes provide support doesn't mean that the reliably do. That they refuse support because it is LTS proves the point. To be supported, requires it to always be supported, not picking and choosing when they feel like it.
That's a strawman and has nothing to do with the argument. I said that you stating canonical doesn't support an OS isn't proof. And it's not. There is still no proof they said that other than heresay.
No, that requires calling me a liar. Because it was first hand.
By that logic, nothing is proof. Ever.
Right. That's why contracts are written and signed and not someone saying "we will or will not do this". You were definitely under a contract with them for support. This would have had to have been written somewhere.
-
@stacksofplates said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
LTS, by definition, gets patched. But as we've proven with Ubuntu, not fully patched.
So you picked one bad vendor to try to prove your point. That doesn't invalidate all of the others that do patch. And no you never proves that. You only stated it, which is obviously not proof.
I proved it to the point that it's Canonical's official stance. If it comes to that, you can't prove anything else. I at least got to the point of the vendor making it their support position. It's the most official thing that there could be.
Yeah except that's not proof. That's just you telling us that's what they said. That doesn't prove that a vendor doesn't support their releases.
It does, that's precisely what it does. When called on to support LTS, that was the only way to continue support. What else could it mean?
No because you have not provided us any proof that they said that. I could say that Canonical stated the opposite to me and that means that's proof?
Yes, but it's a one way proof. That they sometimes provide support doesn't mean that the reliably do. That they refuse support because it is LTS proves the point. To be supported, requires it to always be supported, not picking and choosing when they feel like it.
That's a strawman and has nothing to do with the argument. I said that you stating canonical doesn't support an OS isn't proof. And it's not. There is still no proof they said that other than heresay.
No, that requires calling me a liar. Because it was first hand.
By that logic, nothing is proof. Ever.
Right. That's why contracts are written and signed and not someone saying "we will or will not do this". You were definitely under a contract with them for support. This would have had to have been written somewhere.
And according to them, the contract is fulfilled by "helping us move to current, where there is support for patching stability issues". Which has been my point all along. I've stated this so many times.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
I could say that Canonical stated the opposite to me
Stating that you will do something is a promise. It means very, very little.
Stating that you wont' do something and then refusing to do it, is an action and means, literally, everything.
"Hey, I'll go to dinner with you later." <--- Means very little, we don't even know if they intend to be honest.
"Oh yeah, I didn't go to dinner and didn't intend to." <--- Means a lot because it happened. That's proof. That they "didn't intend to" might be a lie, but at least a lie that matches the facts.
Stop the semantics. It's the point that the only proof is a person said it. There is no proof there.
What do you mean? It wasn't said, it was done. Needing support, they refused support. That's not "said it". You are trying to change a provable fact into heresay by acting like actions are just words.
No I'm saying you said that. You said they wouldn't do it. You are the subject of what we are talking about. The proof needs to be provided by you. Not just "they did it".
-
Calling Ubuntu LTS "supported" is a trick. It's supported... only if you either redefine what support means to IT, or you move from LTS to current. They won't drop your support just because you ran LTS for a while, but they won't provide full support unless you switch from LTS to current. But because LTS can be updated to current, it legally qualifies as supported.
But if your software requires LTS for support, then it breaks that requirement. Or if politics demand you use LTS.
It's a careful semantic trick to make LTS seem viable, but not require the vendor to provide what we assume support to mean.
-
@stacksofplates said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
I could say that Canonical stated the opposite to me
Stating that you will do something is a promise. It means very, very little.
Stating that you wont' do something and then refusing to do it, is an action and means, literally, everything.
"Hey, I'll go to dinner with you later." <--- Means very little, we don't even know if they intend to be honest.
"Oh yeah, I didn't go to dinner and didn't intend to." <--- Means a lot because it happened. That's proof. That they "didn't intend to" might be a lie, but at least a lie that matches the facts.
Stop the semantics. It's the point that the only proof is a person said it. There is no proof there.
What do you mean? It wasn't said, it was done. Needing support, they refused support. That's not "said it". You are trying to change a provable fact into heresay by acting like actions are just words.
No I'm saying you said that. You said they wouldn't do it. You are the subject of what we are talking about. The proof needs to be provided by you. Not just "they did it".
How would one ever provide proof for that? Once the observed facts are not believed, nothing is a proof. Everything is only a proof because someone observed it.
-
By the "observation isn't proof" issue, we can never prove that support even exists. Because we can only prove that support has ever existed by someone having gotten support, observing that it happened, and reporting it. If we don't believe observation, then the entire concept of support is ephemeral in both directions.
So by that logic, that there is no proof of support or lack of support, LTS is worthless, as is all support, because you can't prove support.
This is a slippery slope that makes no sense.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Linux OS Thoughts?:
I could say that Canonical stated the opposite to me
Stating that you will do something is a promise. It means very, very little.
Stating that you wont' do something and then refusing to do it, is an action and means, literally, everything.
"Hey, I'll go to dinner with you later." <--- Means very little, we don't even know if they intend to be honest.
"Oh yeah, I didn't go to dinner and didn't intend to." <--- Means a lot because it happened. That's proof. That they "didn't intend to" might be a lie, but at least a lie that matches the facts.
Stop the semantics. It's the point that the only proof is a person said it. There is no proof there.
What do you mean? It wasn't said, it was done. Needing support, they refused support. That's not "said it". You are trying to change a provable fact into heresay by acting like actions are just words.
No I'm saying you said that. You said they wouldn't do it. You are the subject of what we are talking about. The proof needs to be provided by you. Not just "they did it".
How would one ever provide proof for that? Once the observed facts are not believed, nothing is a proof. Everything is only a proof because someone observed it.
The original communication between the two parties. Just like any other case.
