[ale] LTS doesn't always mean LTS

[LnxGnome]

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> 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
>> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
>> See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at
>> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo
>
>