| |||||||||||
Canonical seeks profit from free Ubuntu (ZDNet)Canonical seeks profit from free Ubuntu (ZDNet)Posted Oct 7, 2006 21:21 UTC (Sat) by piman (subscriber, #8957)In reply to: Canonical seeks profit from free Ubuntu (ZDNet) by bronson Parent article: Canonical seeks profit from free Ubuntu (ZDNet)
> What reason do you have to doubt them at their word?
First, because everyone else has failed miserably so far, and because they've already screwed up once in the X update.
What reason do you have to think they can support all the servers from five years ago, all the servers from three years ago, all the desktop from three years ago, and all the current server and desktop software?
> The Ubuntu team has been very reliable so far.
They've never tried this before, and they've still never tried it. We are not yet into Edgy's release, let alone actual long-term support.
I'm not saying it can't be done. But saying "well, long-term support isn't a problem because there's Ubuntu LTS" is begging the question. If Ubuntu LTS works, then we'll know long-term support is viable.
(Log in to post comments)
Canonical seeks profit from free Ubuntu (ZDNet) Posted Oct 8, 2006 3:32 UTC (Sun) by skvidal (subscriber, #3094) [Link] Thank you for using 'begging the question' properly. It does my heart good to see someone using it as it should be and not bastardizing it to mean 'raises the question'.
-sv
Canonical seeks profit from free Ubuntu (ZDNet) Posted Oct 10, 2006 2:26 UTC (Tue) by mikov (subscriber, #33179) [Link] Please, can you clarify (for the non-native English speakers like me) ?
Canonical seeks profit from free Ubuntu (ZDNet) Posted Oct 10, 2006 2:58 UTC (Tue) by skvidal (subscriber, #3094) [Link] I can only refer you to better sources:
It has the definitive explanation.
hope that helps.
-sv
Canonical seeks profit from free Ubuntu (ZDNet) Posted Oct 8, 2006 6:17 UTC (Sun) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link] Yeah, the X disaster is probably the single biggest packaging fsckup in the history of stable Linux distributions. And I agree that the only way to find out if 6.06 will be viable in 5 years (and I think it will) is to just wait and see.
Until then, I'm taking an innocent until proven guilty stance and using it on servers that I'm setting up these days. It sounds like you're taking a guilty until proven innocent stance?
Canonical seeks profit from free Ubuntu (ZDNet) Posted Oct 8, 2006 16:55 UTC (Sun) by markhb (guest, #1003) [Link] Given both the track record of business startups in general (most fail in the first few years), and his reference to the past difficulties most companies have had in LTS for multiple Linux releases, I think he's using a "preponderance of the evidence" standard, or at least the Missouri standard of "show me."
Canonical seeks profit from free Ubuntu (ZDNet) Posted Oct 8, 2006 19:25 UTC (Sun) by sholdowa (guest, #34811) [Link] WHAT! You've not been around too long if you consider a fault that was fixed inside 18 hours to be the worst in packaging history.
Where do you think the phrase ''rpm hell' came from? Every major distributor has, at some point in the last 5 years, delivered package support that rendered your system unsupportable... for weeks, not hours.
Canonical seeks profit from free Ubuntu (ZDNet) Posted Oct 10, 2006 4:10 UTC (Tue) by piman (subscriber, #8957) [Link] > Where do you think the phrase ''rpm hell' came from?
"RPM hell", or the problem of having overly-complicated package dependency trees, is a derivation from the Windows issue of "DLL hell", the problem of applications not adaquately sharing their shared libraries. Both are problems with upgrading.
However, neither has any relevance to the Ubuntu situation -- where the package's dependencies were correct, and shared libraries were built correctly, but the software was just outright buggy.
Canonical seeks profit from free Ubuntu (ZDNet) Posted Oct 12, 2006 12:40 UTC (Thu) by jschrod (subscriber, #1646) [Link] You mean, unlike the ZMD disaster of SUSE 10.1, that needed weeks to manage, and still doesn't work on smaller-sized systems?
IMNSHO, many distributions had their packaging fsck moment already, Ubuntu is not alone here. But I agree with the poster that Ubuntu first has to show that it can support LTS, just labelling it is not sufficient.
Joachim
Well, they inherited something from Debian, didn't they? Posted Oct 9, 2006 16:52 UTC (Mon) by gwolf (subscriber, #14632) [Link] I mean... Debian officially supported Woody for over four years (three years as stable and still one more year after Sarge was released). Remember that, even with the frictions and all, Debian and Ubuntu work together - even with the same people.
Canonical seeks profit from free Ubuntu (ZDNet) Posted Oct 11, 2006 7:25 UTC (Wed) by philh (subscriber, #14797) [Link] > First, because everyone else has failed miserably so far, and because> they've already screwed up once in the X update.
Well, Debian has been doing pretty much the same thing (very long release cycle with backported security fixes) for quite a period, and several of the core people responsible for Debian's infrastructure are now also Cannonical employees, so they've got the experience, and Ubuntu has a much smaller package set than Debian to provide that security support for, and can leverage the efforts of the Debian security teams for packages that have not been significantly patched relative to the Debian package (which is the majority of them).
Obviously, we'll have to wait and see, but it strikes me that Ubuntu has a pretty good chance of succeeding in this case -- If you're worried about it, go for the proven option and use Debian instead :-)
|
|||||||||||