On 28 March 2017 at 17:23, Fabian Wein
Rüdiger Meier wrote:
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, simply as our group has no admin and the central adminstration is not flexible enough for our needs.
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 For our desktops we *don't want* an LTS with most of the time outdated versions.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 servers and clusters but we sit 40h/week in front of our desktops.
So if you are unhappy with your current mixed LTS/TW/colleagues 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 on 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 TW or I have to fight my TW because I cannot run the commercial Intel vTunes performance analyzer due to kernel incompatibilities.
Once again, we *don't want* LTS desktop systems, simply for the reason that for our use cases it is good to have newest software. We prefer "newer" instead of "stable and old" for our desktops.
My 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.
Fabian
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 I 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 working together) 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@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org