On Sun, Mar 26, 2023 at 5:14 AM Larry Len Rainey wrote:

Making leap a rolling is stupid as it would become Tumbleweed.

Most users could care less about being current and needing to update and rebooting. I have seen some OpenSUSE users do nothing until End of Life forces them to a new version.

Rolling requires that you update daily or risk being patched past the point of the system being stable.

As support for many users across America, I left Fedora when they became a rolling and went to Centos, when Walmart went SLES, I went to OpenSUSE and have not had any reason to switch to another distro. I do run other distos to test VirtualBox as it is the reason may folks use it.

I for one say NO to rolling Leap.

On 3/26/23 05:04, Emanuel Castelo via openSUSE Factory wrote:

So the issue is your old machine? I would suggest you dont TW, do 15.x without making 15.x rolling or you will be back to TW like issues.

Sent from my iPad

On Mar 25, 2023, at 20:47, Fritz Hudnut wrote:

@Emanuel Castelo OK, well, as mentioned, I have been running TW on my "aging" machine for ten years or so . . . it's only in the last couple of years that TW has gone "new distribution release, with total system rebuild" requiring the processing of thousands of packages. Previously it was more "rolling" where there were less "balloon" package upgrades involved with maintaining it. So, the "decision" is to either put the machine time into keeping a totally freshened system, or, as Larry mentions, "don't upgrade anything" . . . allowing browser and kernel and so forth to become "old" and "weakened" . . . no "happy medium." @Larry Len Rainey O . . . my . . . hopefully you are aware that Leap 15.5 is "end of life" for Leap?? So, at some point coming up Leap will no longer be supported and will wither away?? like a dried up husk of an OS . . . and will "tumble" away into the history books of linux development?? My "model" . . . as mentioned is Manjaro . . . sometimes weeks go by with "nothing to do" . . . seems like just the basic stuff is upgraded, upgrades run through quickly . . . stuff isn't blowing up, etc. Leap could become that platform . . . a "happy medium" between staid stability and total rebuilding of the platform every couple of months . . . a "freshening" of the kernel and so forth . . . . Is that really "stupid" or . . . simply "inadvisable" in your humble opinion?

On 2023-03-26 20:35, Stefan Seyfried via openSUSE Factory wrote:

On 26.03.23 18:19, Fritz Hudnut wrote:

...

Leap could become that platform . . . a "happy medium" between staid stability and total rebuilding of the platform every couple of months . . . a "freshening" of the kernel and so forth . . . .

This is what openSUSE was before Leap.

...

 Is that really "stupid" or . . . simply "inadvisable" in your humble opinion?

No, you can create that. You "just" need to find enough people willing to do the necessary work.

Hint: Leap was created as is for a reason, part of that was that thee is not enough contributors to sustain the old way of doing things. But if you can organize enough manpower to pull that off, that will probably make many people happy.

Yes, it would :-) -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 15.4 x86_64 at Telcontar)

On 2023-03-26 05:14, Larry Len Rainey wrote:

, I left Fedora when they became a rolling

Fedora is not a rolling release, and hasn't changed in really significant ways since it started.

On 2023-03-26 10:34, Larry Len Rainey wrote:

If Fedora is not - why is it on the same versions of code as Tumbleweed.

If you want a specific answer, you need to share the context that led you to that conclusion.  I cannot explain what I cannot see. Any answer that anyone gives you to a question so broad and vague is going to be largely speculation. Very probably, the explanation is going to be a mix of factors, including: the major release of Fedora that you're examining was recent, and few projects have made breaking changes since its release.  Without breaking changes, there's no cause to hold back updates to those packages.

I have multiple Fedora Virtual Machines for testing. It updates just as often as Tumbleweed. Sometimes a day later or a day earlier.

Update frequency isn't the defining characteristic of a rolling release.  The absence of defined lifecycles and predictable dates for breaking or feature releases is.

* Larry Len Rainey [03-26-23 14:14]:

TW-GNOME:~ # uname -a Linux TW-GNOME 6.2.8-1-default #1 SMP PREEMPT_DYNAMIC Wed Mar 22 18:56:06 UTC 2023 (221c28f) x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux TW-GNOME:~ #

[root@fedora ~]# uname -a Linux fedora 6.2.7-200.fc37.x86_64 #1 SMP PREEMPT_DYNAMIC Fri Mar 17 16:16:00 UTC 2023 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux [root@fedora ~]#

suse15r2:~ # uname -a Linux suse15r2 5.14.21-150400.24.49-default #1 SMP PREEMPT_DYNAMIC Tue Mar 7 08:07:05 UTC 2023 (bad820e) x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux suse15r2:~ #

If Fedora were stable it would still be on Kernel 5 not Kernel 6.

On 3/26/23 13:02, Gordon Messmer wrote:

On 2023-03-26 10:34, Larry Len Rainey wrote:

If Fedora is not - why is it on the same versions of code as Tumbleweed.

If you want a specific answer, you need to share the context that led you to that conclusion.  I cannot explain what I cannot see.  Any answer that anyone gives you to a question so broad and vague is going to be largely speculation.

Very probably, the explanation is going to be a mix of factors, including: the major release of Fedora that you're examining was recent, and few projects have made breaking changes since its release.  Without breaking changes, there's no cause to hold back updates to those packages.

I have multiple Fedora Virtual Machines for testing. It updates just as often as Tumbleweed. Sometimes a day later or a day earlier.

Update frequency isn't the defining characteristic of a rolling release.  The absence of defined lifecycles and predictable dates for breaking or feature releases is.

12 years old on Tw

Linux crash.wahoo.no-ip.org 6.2.6-1-default #1 SMP PREEMPT_DYNAMIC Mon Mar 13 10:57:27 UTC 2023 (fa1a4c6) x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux -- (paka)Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA @ptilopteri http://en.opensuse.org openSUSE Community Member facebook/ptilopteri Photos: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/piwigo paka @ IRCnet oftc

On 2023-03-26 11:11, Larry Len Rainey wrote:

On 3/26/23 13:02, Gordon Messmer wrote:

...

Very probably, the explanation is going to be a mix of factors, including: the major release of Fedora that you're examining was recent, and few projects have made breaking changes since its release.  Without breaking changes, there's no cause to hold back updates to those packages.

If Fedora were stable it would still be on Kernel 5 not Kernel 6.

Yes, as I said: You're looking at Fedora 37, which was released on 2022-11-15, which is later than the Linux kernel version 6, which was released 2022-10-02.  It would not be unusual for a stable release to contain Linux kernel version 6 if it were released after that kernel. And, because the kernel's public interface hasn't had any breaking changes since then, it's not necessary to hold it on an earlier release branch within a stable release. I think your definition of "stable" might be... non-standard? Software developers use that term in a way that's not intuitive for many people. https://medium.com/@gordon.messmer/what-does-stable-mean-4447ac53bac8

Il 26/03/23 09:14, Larry Len Rainey ha scritto:

Making leap a rolling is stupid as it would become Tumbleweed.

Most users could care less about being current and needing to update and rebooting. I have seen some OpenSUSE users do nothing until End of Life forces them to a new version.

Rolling requires that you update daily or risk being patched past the point of the system being stable.

As support for many users across America, I left Fedora when they became a rolling and went to Centos, when Walmart went SLES, I went to OpenSUSE and have not had any reason to switch to another distro. I do run other distos to test VirtualBox as it is the reason may folks use it.

I for one say NO to rolling Leap.

On 3/26/23 05:04, Emanuel Castelo via openSUSE Factory wrote:

...

So the issue is your old machine? I would suggest you dont TW, do 15.x without making 15.x rolling or you will be back to TW like issues.

Sent from my iPad

...

On Mar 25, 2023, at 20:47, Fritz Hudnut wrote:

Folks:

Once again, when "we" in TW hit these "balloon upgrades" when thousands of packages are dropped into zypper to maintain the system, and those of us with older hardware (circa '12) run into time consuming issues for our geriatric machines to be able to process them . . . .

We get into "discussions" on the forum about what exactly does "rolling" mean vs "new distribution release for total rebuild of the system" . . . and during those interactions it came to me that perhaps Leap 15.5 could be the "mule" for developing the more traditional "rolling" platform, similar to Manjaro, where the basic system is upgraded/maintained . . . generally a couple hundred packages every other week or so . . . ??? Kernel and browser freshness is generally all that an end user such as myself would need, to support his DE of choice.

As of late the "protectors of TW" are raging about how "we need to upgrade gcc completely to maintain parity with . . . newness"??? That may indeed be the case, but, In kicking around with TW for roughly 10 years I can't recall a time on the forum when I was having issues, where a guru would say, "You need to upgrade to gcc12, right now!!!!" Or whatever gcc option that would be the next new option.

Leap 15.5 could provide the opportunity to continue using that technology, but buttressed with "stability" for the basic system, and just "roll in" kernel updates and so forth, "evolution" rather than "totally revamping every package" as now seems to be the case with TW.

Thanks for the bandwidth.

IMHO, transforming Leap into a rolling distro should be a wrong approach for OpenSUSE, just because here we already have Tumbleweed, which I use on daily bases with much enjoyment and, on contrary to what you think, I believe it's not stupid at all! But the world is nice also because "your mileage may vary". -- Marco Calistri Build: openSUSE Tumbleweed 20230325 Kernel: 6.2.8-1-default - XFCE: (4.18.1)

On 2023/03/26 04:01, Axel Braun wrote:

Then your hardware is really old - I just upgraded my 2008 eeePC with 1G RAM and 18G HD to the latest (i586) TW release. Takes some time, but worked flawless.

--- You have to understand. For every one of you "works flawless", there could be 100 or more on each upgrade that are "no longer supported", for whatever reason. At each upgrade, many get dropped from support/working. You experience is the cream of the crop. Example -- I tried to drop "unused" 32-bit libs on my sys during one update (maybe where they said 32-bit wasn't going to be supported anymore). Then I could no longer install a new kernel to boot from -- reason? One of the 32-bit libs was used by the create-boot process but not listed as a dependency. The lib was too old to be found in any recent image, and I was told, of course, that it was my fault for running lilo. So haven't been able to update kernel since then. I've been skittish about installing a new bootloader, since if it didn't work, system wouldn't boot. So I keep looking at it, and wondering the safest way to fix it, but given that it is still working, and smallish plate is full w/other nonsense, I'm just selected out of the upgrade process (not that many might not think this a good thing). Whatever. Things that make upgrades less reliable and more error prone lose users/customers over time. Cheers to you too. -l