On 2022-01-10 15:55, Michael Ströder wrote:
On 1/10/22 14:45, rbrown wrote:
On 2022-01-06 16:02, Michael Ströder wrote:
On 1/6/22 14:10, Matěj Cepl wrote:
Dne 06. 01. 22 v 12:21 Michael Ströder napsal(a):
Nobody is willing to pay for increasing backporting efforts needed for keeping outdated stuff. It's just that these costs are not really made transparent.
Sancta simplicitas! Who do you think actually pays real money to SUSE for maintaining SLE? Users of free Leap? Exactly the companies who complain that we upgrade too much.
Re-read my postings.
Actually you're oversimplifying.
And you are oversimplifying also
Nope.
The reality is simple SUSE is paid by its customers to stay in Python 3.6
The above simple statement can only be false. And you know that very well.
SLE customers are paying for some sort of "stable" support. What they consider "stable" in various project situations is not as clear as you state here. It varies a lot.
Most times customers do not care about specific package versions of something until project requirements are in conflict with what's provided by the OS. So the big question is how to keep average amount of these conflicts low - and where the budget comes from.
Obviously nobody has any one-size-fits-it-all solution.
The above statement is true, because, as I explained - SUSE supporting Python 3.6 beyond it's upstream EOL _costs_ SUSE a significant amount of money SUSE will be maintaining Python 3.6 with security patches despite the end of upstream support. This is expensive for SUSE. SUSE only spends money like that when the spending of that money is likely/certain to bring them MORE money than it's costing them. Therefore, any external observer can easily deduce that, because Python 3.6 is still being supported by SUSE, AND it's expensive for SUSE to support it, that SUSE has customers paying SUSE _specifically_ to continue supporting Python 3.6. If you were right, and my statements were not true, then SUSE would NOT support Python 3.6 and instead support something _cheaper_ for SUSE to support.
While the wishes of the community matter, SUSE is a money-making company in the business of making money, so SLE/Leap will 'follow the money' I fully understand this. Being self-employed I also have to follow the money.
Please note that personally I'm not interested in Leap at all. Maybe I should have rather used "SLE15SP4" instead of "Leap 15.4" in the subject. Because SLE is what will affect my own customer projects.
well what exactly do you offer SUSE in return?
Happy SLE customers who do not consider migrating to another OS.
Then have your SLE customers use the _correct_ customer channels to speak to their SUSE representatives and get their opinions fed to SUSE Product Management. This is not a mailinglist for SLE customers (or their advocates) to discuss the development of SLE distribution.
The challenge in product management is that decisions are sometimes self-fulfilling prophecy. E.g. you limit a product in a certain way and then you can claim that the rest of the customers still willing to pay for that product are the nearly 100% who want to be it exactly that way. You will not know about the other customers and their needs.
Sure, Product Management is the art of choosing which customers you want your product to appeal to. SUSE chose. So why are you bellyaching on an openSUSE mailinglist that SUSE should have chosen different? What do you expect the most positive outcome of this complain-thread could possibly be?