Bug 0 review pls

[Matt Darcy]

Daniel Robitaille wrote:
> On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 11:59 AM, Matt Darcy
> <ubuntu.lists at projecthugo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>   
>> 2.) LTS fixes and backports. There is no enough fixes, updates and
>> upgrades to make LTS a viable long term (3 year) stratergy for business
>> use. Too much focus is on "fix for next release" or "upgrade product for
>> next release", which relates to point 1. If a server model is to be
>> considered usable it needs to have regular fixes applied to that
>> release, not pushed out into current +1. I understand why this is done
>> as unless the bug is mission critical it makes more sense from an ubuntu
>> standpoint to target the fix into the next release, as that release will
>> have updates in and is less than 6 months away. This is not an option
>> for a long term server audience. The 6.06 release was crippled on later
>> edition dell servers due to the lack of back ports on the kernel for
>> specific hardware controllers, if the LTS edition is to be truly LTS,
>> then I'm afraid kernel updates/back-ports will need to be on the radar
>> more, and things learnt from the non-LTS products need to be pushed back.
>>     
>
> Being the owner of a Dell server running 7.04 because that was the
> only version of Ubuntu that could deal with its hardware when it was
> set up in the spring of 2007, I totally agree with that paragraph.
> Doing a double upgrade (7.04 to 7.10 to 8.04) on a production box is
> not something I look forward in the next 6 months I have before
> Feisty's support runs out.   Given the choice last year, we would have
> used an older LTS version instead of a currenty  non-LTS version, but
> we simply didn't have the option while continuing using Ubuntu.
>
> Daniel
>
>   


It wasn't just dell servers, it was HP servers, and some X86_64 Sun 
servers which as ubuntu partners didn't look good.

I used dell as an example as it was the biggest server player that hit 
me on a regular basis when trying to design enterprise environments and 
intergration for large enterprises.

This is a critical thing that, for me needs addressing as part of bug 0, 
as all the cool stuff and tools in the world won't help if you have to 
use hardware of current -6 months to boot it.

Matt