[ale] LTS doesn't always mean LTS

[James Sumners]

I use RHEL because I have to. I completely understand the staleness. I use
more repositories than epel and maintain my own rpms (1,2,3 and more)
because of it. But I wouldn't use a distro whose first order of business is
"desktop Linux" with a "server" flavor tacked on as an afterthought to get
away from the staleness. I'd put up with CentOS's package lag before that.

If you're willing to use a moving target, then go to the source and use
Debian's testing tree. Or Arch. Or Void. Or, and I can't believe I'm saying
this one, Gentoo.

[1] -- https://github.com/jsumners/failover-lb
[2] -- https://github.com/jsumners/ucarp-rpm
[3] -- https://github.com/jsumners/tomcat-rpm

On Tuesday, April 26, 2016, LnxGnome <lnxgnome at hopnet.net> wrote:

> James,
>
>   I think it boils down to the use case.
>
> I've been a diehard RHEL advocate on servers for about 12 years.
> S.u.S.E. 6.x up through openSuSE 12 on the desktop, until I went Mac in
> 2013.
>
> I tried Ubuntu server (16.04) this past weekend for the first time in
> many years.  I wanted to compare how easy it would be to build a SAN
> server on it.  Compared to CentOS7, the U was a lot faster to setup with
> similar components.
>
> CentOS72 - Ubuntu1604
> Linux kernel 3.18 (kernel.org)  >-<  Linux kernel 4.4.0 (Ubuntu)
> ZFS (ZFSonLinux)   >-<  ZFS (Ubuntu)
> TargetCLI (source)   >-<  TargetCLI(Ubuntu) w/patch from Debian
> Sernet-Samba (Sernet)   >-<  Samba (Ubuntu)
> 3 days   >-<  1 day
>
> For this use case, ZFS is important, and the ZoL folks tend to pay more
> attention to Ubuntu than 'EL', and conveniently Ubuntu is including ZFS
> in 16.04.  This means less maintenance to do on my part, and more
> compatibility testing, both of which work in my favor.  The only down
> side is that ZFS isn't available during installation in U16.04.
>
> RHEL7/CentOS7 fails on Target/FC support.  SCST would probably be it's
> replacement in my case, but that's a less apple-to-apple comparison than
> what I was looking for.
>
> Lost in the bit bucket,
> --LnxGnome
>
>
> On 4/25/16 9:21 AM, James Sumners wrote:
> > Why Ubuntu is used by people with a clue is beyond me. Well, except to
> > throw it at a family member who doesn't have one. But this even makes
> > that seem like a silly notion. There are better distributions out
> > there. Some even forked from Ubuntu.
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 9:02 AM, DJ-Pfulio <djpfulio at jdpfu.com
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >> In Ubuntu LTS, there's an issue with many packages not receiving
> security updates.
> >>
> >>
> https://www.wilderssecurity.com/threads/ubuntu-lts-many-vulnerabilities-despite-long-term-support.385386/
> >> ====
> >> $ ubuntu-support-status --show-unsupported
> >> Support status summary of 'lubuntu':
> >>
> >> You have 196 packages (8.0%) supported until February 2015 (9m)
> >> You have 12 packages (0.5%) supported until January 2017 (9m)
> >> You have 1679 packages (68.8%) supported until May 2019 (5y)
> >> You have 148 packages (6.1%) supported until May 2017 (3y)
> >>
> >> You have 101 packages (4.1%) that can not/no-longer be downloaded
> >> You have 304 packages (12.5%) that are unsupported
> >>
> >> No longer downloadable:
> >>   <insert huge-ass-list> .......
> >>
> >> Unsupported:
> >>  <insert even-huger-huge-ass-list> .......
> >> ====
> >> Saw this and freaked out a little! 196 packages have lost support
> already on a
> >> 14.04 desktop.  Most are java and perl helpers. The perl stuff doesn't
> bother
> >> me, since I use perl-brew for all my real work in perl (never depend on
> the
> >> system perl stuff). But there are some ssh2, TLS, and qemu in that list
> too!
> >>
> >>     Supported until February 2015 (9m):
> >>     chromium-browser chromium-browser-l10n expect .... qemu-common
> >> libsqlite3-dev libssh2-1 libssh2-1-dev libssl-dev libgnutls-dev
> libgnutls28
> >> libgnutlsxx27
> >>
> >> A non-supported browser is a non-starter for me. This is on my primary
> desktop!
> >> Must do something about that, even if it means removal of the browser.
> >>
> >> to see which installed pkgs have and do not have support on your boxes.
> >> It basically comes down to which repository the packages are in.  Just
> something
> >> more to be aware about.
> >>
> >> Someone did the same thing for Debian and claimed that all the package
> security
> >> fixes were back ported to the "supported" releases.
> >>
> >> Lucy (Canonical), you got some 'splaning to do.
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Ale mailing list
> >> Ale at ale.org <javascript:;>
> >> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
> >> See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at
> >> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org <javascript:;>
> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
> See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at
> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo
>


-- 
James Sumners
http://james.sumners.info/ (technical profile)
http://jrfom.com/ (personal site)
http://haplo.bandcamp.com/ (band page)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ale.org/pipermail/ale/attachments/20160427/7b084d93/attachment.html>