On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 7:41 PM, Jim Henderson <hendersj@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 13:28:11 -0600, Archie Cobbs wrote:
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Claudio Freire <klaussfreire@gmail.com> wrote:
To attempt a justification as to why older RHEL distros still exist, non-opensuse repos get added with less frequency. Otherwise, it wouldn't be possible to keep them all, just as it isn't possible with opensuse ones. You have to draw a line somewhere.
I appreciate this attempted explanation, but it is completely inadequate. Still waiting for a good one.
What exactly is inadequate about it?
1. You're using a free distribution 2. You're using services that are provided for free 3. Those services require disk storage, bandwidth, and other resources that aren't free. 4. Since those resources aren't free, it's not possible to keep everything for all versions going back forever. 5. That means that when resources are constrained, something gets clipped, and the logical starting place is to start with the oldest stuff.
If you want something that's got LTS, SUSE has some commercial options with the resources necessary paid for by licensing fees paid by customers so the support is retained for a longer period.
Free (as in beer) does have its limitations.
Understood. I don't take anything for granted and understand that when it comes to service, you get what you pay for... and if you're paying nothing, you have a right to demand nothing. In addition I would even argue that OBS users have a moral responsibility to contribute back, in the form of patches, bug reports, builds of new software, etc. (and I try to do this). I'm not demanding anything, just asking a fairly narrow question. I'm simply seeking to better understand, because my previous assumptions were obviously wrong. Your #5 is: "That means that when resources are constrained, something gets clipped, and the logical starting place is to start with the oldest stuff." Sounds good to me! So let's look at the facts: openSUSE 11.3: 1.5 years old, and is a SUSE distribution RHEL 4: 7 years old, and is not a SUSE distribution My simple question is: why openSUSE 11.3 before (for example) RHEL 4? What are the underlying priorities that resulted in that choice? If the answer is "because 11.3 is EOL" well then I guess what I don't agree with is that equation. All openSUSE are (by definition) supported by their owners. These owners need the OBS repos in order to perform that support. If that support is unilaterally denied at the 18 month mark, then it dramatically reduces the usefulness of openSUSE for a large swath of possible use cases (basically, everything other than personal use). OK, let's just admit the obvious: Novell is a business and it doesn't want to allow business' "mission critical" software to run on openSUSE because that represents lost revenue for SLES. Their enforcement mechanism is to limit openSUSE support to 18 months. While this is entirely in their right, this is a very blunt instrument. It is similar to the airlines charging you a higher price if you don't stay over a Saturday night: another blunt instrument targeted at business travelers. However there is a difference between the airlines' business and the open source software business: the latter is a true ecosystem, where you depend on the contributions of your customers. Food for thought. Thanks, -Archie -- Archie L. Cobbs -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+owner@opensuse.org