| |||||||||||||
Distribution quotes of the weekDistribution quotes of the weekPosted Dec 2, 2012 21:57 UTC (Sun) by tpo (subscriber, #25713)In reply to: Distribution quotes of the week by rsidd Parent article: Distribution quotes of the week
> Defining a "Linux platform" that includes systemd or GNOME3 will
> not increase the availability of proprietary software, either.
I'm not sure. If "defining" means some random persons decrees it, then no, it probably won't change anything.
If the biggest desktop distro says "we chose these technologies, and we'll be using them during the next 10 years and we guarantee they will be around during that period", then that'd be different.
When you write desktop SW, there's some choices you have to make:
* widget set?
Now if you know you have a stable platform to program against that will be able to reach the majority of your users for the next 10 years, than that's a big bonus for you (the developper/company).
(Log in to post comments)
Distribution quotes of the week Posted Dec 6, 2012 9:56 UTC (Thu) by yeti-dn (guest, #46560) [Link]
> If the biggest desktop distro says "we chose these technologies, and we'll
> be using them during the next 10 years and we guarantee they will be > around during that period", then that'd be
an utter lie.
To give you a brief idea what 10 years means, 10 years ago Fedora did not exist yet. Neither did Firefox, cups, udev, Xorg X server, ...
The only thing guaranteed by such promise would be that the desktop distro itself will no longer exist in 10 years (should they choose to stick to it).
Distribution quotes of the week Posted Dec 6, 2012 10:10 UTC (Thu) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582) [Link]
And yet, Ubuntu Dapper was released in June 2006 and supported for five years as promised. It does not seem impossible to me that a 10 year guarantee of stable technologies would work. In a sense it already does -- binaries written in 2002 (or 1992) are quite usable today provided you have the compatibility libraries. To claim that systemd and Gnome3 will be supported as "platforms" for 10 years means that vendor will supply compatible versions of those things on all releases for ten years, even if nobody else does and even if a totally incompatible Gnome4 is released in 2014. It can be done.
Don't use phrases like "utter lie" lightly.
Distribution quotes of the week Posted Dec 6, 2012 10:26 UTC (Thu) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
go back and look at what was supported in Dapper for those 5 years.
I believe that it didn't include 'desktop' things, only 'server' things
also look at how much (or how little) is supported in the RHEL2/3/4 releases over time.
some parts of the stack are pretty stable, these include the kernel, webserve, and sysV init.
other parts are very unstable, and maintinance of 'frozen' ports is not practical. These include Firefox, Gnome, and probably, given it's current rate of change and development, systemd init and udev.
Distribution quotes of the week Posted Dec 6, 2012 10:31 UTC (Thu) by tpo (subscriber, #25713) [Link]
I'm not sure if yeti-dn's comment is more than trolling. You rsidd mentioned Ubuntu's 5 year guarantee. I'd add Red Hat's [1]:
"Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 and 6 are offered with 10 years of Production Phase support, followed by a three year Extended Life Phase."
*t
[1] https://access.redhat.com/support/policy/updates/errata/
Distribution quotes of the week Posted Dec 9, 2012 10:34 UTC (Sun) by yeti-dn (guest, #46560) [Link]
Five years are about the edge for a desktop system. Both in the sense that it is doable since things are starting to fall apart but the technologies have not diverged too far yet and it may be still acceptable for conservative users.
Please go and read the actual conditions for RHEL. The later stages and extended support are clearly meant to just keep installed systems running. You get no new features, no support for newer hardware, services, file formats, etc. This is fine for a server that has a dedicated task to do. It is also fine for a single-purpose user machine, for instance used to control an instrument where you do not want, ideally, any changes at all (hence, little support). But this discussion started about desktop distros. And for a desktop (as in general purpose user system), not being able to connect most hardware newer than 10 years old, open any file formats that have appeared or changed substantially in last 10 years, use various services due to too ancient clients, ..., is deadly.
Also note you pay rather a lot for RHEL support -- fixing security holes in ten years old programs is terribly ungrateful work. Since community distros cannot make the contributors do it, those that tried to introduce this kind of long term support have all failed.
Distribution quotes of the week Posted Dec 9, 2012 17:46 UTC (Sun) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198) [Link]
But let's be clear, the extended support kicks in at the end of life, a life that does include feature updates so you'd have to count from the end of feature updates, not from the beginning ship date. Also, CentOS for those who aren't going to pay. In any event, as you say, the refresh rate for desktops is 5yrs or so which would bring new versions of the supported enterprise-style OS, one like RHEL which is highly backwards compatible with previous releases
|
|||||||||||||