The key here is that you and your colleagues
update your machines
whenever YOU want. If another guy (your admin) would do this with your
machines a few times per year overnight then you would probably know
what I'm talking about.
We are happy to have control on our desktops and servers by ourselves,
as our group has no admin and the central adminstration is not flexible
I'd say _especially_ in science where you
sometimes have to reproduce
results from old papers, etc. it has a lot value for users that they
maintain their most heavily used software by themselves
(gnu-modules/virtualenv/anaconda/whatever). Much better than using
randomly whatever comes with your distro. But to make such local
installations usable/possible you have to give them an LTS distro.
Otherwise their local installation will break on every distro upgrade.
I have the impression you don't understand. For our desktops we *don't want*
an LTS with most of the time outdated versions. This is different from
and clusters but we sit 40h/week in front of our desktops.
So if you are unhappy with your current mixed
machines, I'm sure you all could have it a lot easier if you all would
use the same LTS distro, plus modules/virtualenv as described.
You missed the desktops: We have desktop distros (just me with TW) and LTS
servers/clusters. Currently we are happy. But I feel you want to remove a
modern desktop distro without replacement.
like "why this is working for you but not
for me" should be more
seldom. Just ask your cluster admin for help or providing such modules.
The reason is currently that either they have to use non-standard repos or
build manually to have the cmake/python/gdb/... stuff that works for me on
or I have to fight my TW because I cannot run the commercial Intel vTunes
analyzer due to kernel incompatibilities.
Once again, we *don't want* LTS desktop systems, simply for the reason that
our use cases it is good to have newest software. We prefer "newer" instead
"stable and old" for our desktops.
understanding is that having only TW and LTS Leap would mean that
there is no modern desktop available
most of the time.
Isn't TW up-to-date enough?
It is, but in my eyes not necessarily robust enough for general broad
productive desktop use.
I would like to take this point in the thread to conduct a
theoretical, thought experiment.
I want to make something absolutely clear, I'm asking the below as
'Richard the contributor', not 'Richard the SUSE employee', and what
am about to suggest should not be taken as an indication that SUSE are
even considering the below.
Would the users and contributors on this list be interested in a 100%
matching SLE-like LTS distribution?
The main difference from Leap would be
- absolutely no divergence from SLE, period
- no additional community packages in the distribution (ie. pretty
much 1 tool for 1 task. One DE, One web server)
- Release schedule that lags SLE (would only be able to release
*AFTER* SLE, whereas Leap we can develop it WITH SLE because we're
There would be no guarantee of a release-lifecycle any different from
Leap, because such an idea could rely entirely on the sources made
available to openSUSE via SUSE's contributions to Leap.
If the answer to the above is Yes the follow up questions are
Would you like this in addition to Leap, or instead of?
What use cases would you use it for which Leap couldn't do?
Would this mean reducing the scope of Leap?
Would you be willing to contribute to/release manage/help
maintain/support such a distribution?
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner(a)opensuse.org