Bug 0 review pls

[Brett Alton]

On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 6:54 PM, Anders Häggström
<hagge.lists at intercorner.net> wrote:
> 2008/6/3 Daniel Robitaille <robitaille at gmail.com>:
>> 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
>>
>> --
>> Daniel Robitaille
>>  http://friendfeed.com/robitaille
>>
>> --
>> ubuntu-server mailing list
>> ubuntu-server at lists.ubuntu.com
>> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server
>> More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
>>
>
> I am an Ubuntu user (both desktop and server platforms) and I want to
> give my point of view. When I install a server with LTS I want to be
> able to update bugs found in the software for the whole LTS-period. If
> I install a new server (with fresh hardware) in the middle of an
> LTS-period I want to be able to use the last released LTS-release and
> upgrade drivers to support my new hardware that was not supported when
> the LTS-release was first released. I do not want to install a normal
> release just because the LTS-resease didn't support my hardware at the
> release time (when for example my hardware was not manufactured yet).
>
> For the GUI discussion I don't want the server depending on Xorg. I
> would rather see a good integrated webinterface with little overhead
> and nice ajax-applications for various tasks on the server.
>
> Thanks for your time!
> // Anders
>
> --
> ubuntu-server mailing list
> ubuntu-server at lists.ubuntu.com
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server
> More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
>

That makes a lot of sense. Almost all server users want to use the LTS
version as their needs for the absolute latest and greatest is not as
pressing as a desktop user's but the need for support is much higher.

Only releasing LTSes might be a bit of a stretch (6.06 -> 8.04 ->
10.04) but if the point releases had more meaning behind them, like
Anders said, supporting newer hardware, then releasing only LTSes
might make more sense.

This becomes more apparent when you realize that developers are
supporting up to four (!) releases at the same time. Currently
(Dapper, Feisty, Gutsy, Hardy). By the next LTS it will be five (!!)
releases (Dapper, Hardy, Intrepid+1, Intrepid+2, Intrepid+3 LTS) [see
http://www.markshuttleworth.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/ubuntu-release-cycle.png
and then remember that Dapper is supported until
2011-06]. If they only released LTSes with major point upgrades then
they would have to handle three releases at maximum.

That sounds easy to me.

I also got frustrated last summer when I had to rollout my new Dell
PowerEdge 2950 with a release (Feisty) that was only supported for 18
months because Dapper couldn't install properly on it. If 6.06.1 added
support for my new hardware then I would have been able to enjoy five
years of support, just like an IT manager would expect from their
server OS.

18 months just doesn't cut it.

-- 
Brett Alton
brett.jr.alton at gmail.com

Do you really need to print this email? Help preserve our environment!