Was just having a conversation with a computer tech friend who was interested in using openSUSE for his customers instead of Windows. As soon as he found out the short support cycle, he immediately became disinterested. This is common amongst most people I talk to. On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 9:57 PM, John Andersen wrote:

On 9/23/2014 9:25 PM, S S wrote:

...

Many people run their OS for 10 years. openSUSE people want the desktop, yet they're unwilling to support it longer than 18 months unless it's an Evergreen release, and even then it's not Ubuntu LTS comparable.

In the past long running stable releases were the area for SLED instead of Opensuse.

Will we ever get out of the mold of just being a proving ground for SLED?

-- _____________________________________ ---This space for rent--- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

On 9/27/2014 5:19 PM, Dirk Gently wrote:

S S wrote:

...

Was just having a conversation with a computer tech friend who was interested in using openSUSE for his customers instead of Windows. As soon as he found out the short support cycle, he immediately became disinterested. This is common amongst most people I talk to.

Of course. It makes it quite precarious for a business.

On the the other hand SLED was designed for this. -- _____________________________________ ---This space for rent--- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

Pretty sure they could work a volume discount, probably down to zero in conjunction with the maintenance proposal that the city requires. Have you tried Sled? It had bash patched before Opensuse. On September 28, 2014 7:28:34 PM PDT, Dirk Gently wrote:

John Andersen wrote:

...

On 9/27/2014 5:19 PM, Dirk Gently wrote:

...

S S wrote:

...

Was just having a conversation with a computer tech friend who was interested in using openSUSE for his customers instead of Windows. As soon as he found out the short support cycle, he immediately became disinterested. This is common amongst most people I talk to.

Of course. It makes it quite precarious for a business.

On the the other hand SLED was designed for this.

And at the price charged, businesses just might as well turn to Microsoft, if not for better software {because that is mostly lacking], but for the benefit of large-network effects.

-- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

From: "Evergreen releases are still less than half the supported time of a Ubuntu LTS release, so it would be a poor choice and difficult sell to the city of Munich. That's one major drawback to openSUSE and one debate that should be had; I've been talking to lots of people on Windows and they're still running XP or Vista. Many people run their OS for 10 years. openSUSE people want the desktop, yet they're unwilling to support it longer than 18 months unless it's an Evergreen release, and even then it's not Ubuntu LTS comparable." From: "In the past long running stable releases were the area for SLED instead of Opensuse. Will we ever get out of the mold of just being a proving ground for SLED?" This is what I think we should do! openSUSE Evergreen releases can range from 3-4 years of support but 3 is essentially guaranteed. Starting with Ubuntu 12.04 LTS, both The Server and Desktop versions will receive 5 years support. We are slightly shorter by around two years for Evergreen LTS releases, as the next Evergreen release is also free of cost and openSUSE upgrades do work rather well. I do not really see needing to bump up to a five year Guarantee. I would like to see openSUSE start using the Major.0 release again and possibly move to this type of release cycle. 14.0 Evergreen Release 14.1 Developer/Tester/Enthusiast Release targeted to development of the next Evergreen 14.2 Developer/Tester/Enthusiast Release targeted to development of the next Evergreen 14.3 Developer/Tester/Enthusiast Release targeted to development of the next Evergreen 15.0 Evergreen Release (15.1 + 3 Months) = 14.0 Evergreen EOL This would provide around a 13 month stabilizing for the Evergreen release before users need to migrate over to it. This would make an evergreen release receive support for just over four years, but incorporating release delays it would put us close to five years. Evergreen EOL = (5 Releases + 3 Months) For the minor update releases they are currently supported for around 18 months (2 releases + 2 months). I would rather see these change to (1 release + 4 months). Most users do not keep minor releases for 18 months. Keeping them maintained this long does use up resources. I think we should treat the 3 minor update release's as the proving ground developer/tester/enthusiast targeted releases to work up to the new Evergreen release. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

I wonder if SUSE would consider putting together a proposal to bid to migrate them to openSUSE. The City of Munich has vocalized that their goal is to utilize The community support as their primary support so it would primarily be the desktop and possibly server migrations that they would be doing. openSUSE would end up gaining 15K or whatever number of desktops they have now. It would be a great advertising tool and case study for migration to SUSE and implementing a Enterprise that large on SUSE. The City of Munich will of course continue to get headlines for MiLux for years to come. On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 9:20 AM, Marcus Meissner wrote:

Hi,

The main issue with the City of Munich is that we would be just one component.

They probably need a consulting/software company that can handle a big city with ten thousands of machines.

Release plans / schedules should be discussed under a different mail topic.

Ciao, Marcus

On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 09:06:29AM -0500, Timothy Butterworth wrote:

...

From:

"Evergreen releases are still less than half the supported time of a Ubuntu LTS release, so it would be a poor choice and difficult sell to the city of Munich. That's one major drawback to openSUSE and one debate that should be had; I've been talking to lots of people on Windows and they're still running XP or Vista. Many people run their OS for 10 years. openSUSE people want the desktop, yet they're unwilling to support it longer than 18 months unless it's an Evergreen release, and even then it's not Ubuntu LTS comparable."

From:

"In the past long running stable releases were the area for SLED instead of Opensuse.

Will we ever get out of the mold of just being a proving ground for SLED?"

This is what I think we should do!

openSUSE Evergreen releases can range from 3-4 years of support but 3 is essentially guaranteed. Starting with Ubuntu 12.04 LTS, both The Server and Desktop versions will receive 5 years support.

We are slightly shorter by around two years for Evergreen LTS releases, as the next Evergreen release is also free of cost and openSUSE upgrades do work rather well. I do not really see needing to bump up to a five year Guarantee.

I would like to see openSUSE start using the Major.0 release again and possibly move to this type of release cycle.

14.0 Evergreen Release 14.1 Developer/Tester/Enthusiast Release targeted to development of the next Evergreen 14.2 Developer/Tester/Enthusiast Release targeted to development of the next Evergreen 14.3 Developer/Tester/Enthusiast Release targeted to development of the next Evergreen 15.0 Evergreen Release (15.1 + 3 Months) = 14.0 Evergreen EOL

This would provide around a 13 month stabilizing for the Evergreen release before users need to migrate over to it. This would make an evergreen release receive support for just over four years, but incorporating release delays it would put us close to five years. Evergreen EOL = (5 Releases + 3 Months)

For the minor update releases they are currently supported for around 18 months (2 releases + 2 months). I would rather see these change to (1 release + 4 months). Most users do not keep minor releases for 18 months. Keeping them maintained this long does use up resources. I think we should treat the 3 minor update release's as the proving ground developer/tester/enthusiast targeted releases to work up to the new Evergreen release. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

Greg, Thank I will take a look at the site you sent out. The 12.x series is still downloaded for users that want to use The Plasma Active repo because it did not have a 13.1 option. That may explain some of these if you can pull stats from The Plasma Active Repo you could compare the two of course. Tim On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 9:58 AM, Greg Freemyer wrote:

On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 10:06 AM, Timothy Butterworth wrote:

...

I would like to see openSUSE start using the Major.0 release again and possibly move to this type of release cycle.

14.0 Evergreen Release 14.1 Developer/Tester/Enthusiast Release targeted to development of the next Evergreen 14.2 Developer/Tester/Enthusiast Release targeted to development of the next Evergreen 14.3 Developer/Tester/Enthusiast Release targeted to development of the next Evergreen 15.0 Evergreen Release (15.1 + 3 Months) = 14.0 Evergreen EOL

This would provide around a 13 month stabilizing for the Evergreen release before users need to migrate over to it. This would make an evergreen release receive support for just over four years, but incorporating release delays it would put us close to five years. Evergreen EOL = (5 Releases + 3 Months)

Let me make sure I understand your proposal:

month 0: 14.0 month 8: 14.1 month 12: 14.0 End of normal support, start of Evergreen Support month 16: 14.2 month 24: 14.3 month 32: 15.0 month 40: 15.1 month 43: 14.0 Evergreen EOL month 44: 15.0 end of normal support, start of Evergreen Support

So the Evergreen team would have a one month break every 44 months. During that month they would be preparing the process of moving to the next 31 month Evergreen support cycle.

In the above, I'm not arguing for or against your proposal. I have no maintainer activity for Evergreen. I just wanted to make sure I understood the proposal.

== With my opensuse maintainer hat on:

The Evergreen cycle described may or may not be acceptable to the Evergreen team. The idea of openSUSE .0 releases only coming out every 32 months and those being especially well tested in advance is likely not going to fly. You should post that proposal on either the -project or -factory mailing list.

As to your assumption that most users upgrade to a new release within the first 4 months of its release is belied by the facts. There is a blog post about the breakdown of users of the various versions. It is very enlightening to review.

Scroll down to "INSTALLATIONS" at https://lizards.opensuse.org/2013/08/23/more-on-statistics/

Remember 11.4 was an Evergreen release, so you can see there were still a lot of 11.4, 12.1 and 12.2 users a few months after 12.3 came out.

The real surprise in that for me is the number of 12.1 installations still in place at that point. They were in the last days of support (or it had already ended) and yet there was still a sizable number of users.

In fact if you look at the older releases and try to find their end of support date via looking at the graph, I think you will fail. I would expect to see a significant migration away from a release either shortly before or shortly after the end of support. We don't see that.

Greg -- Greg Freemyer -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

Carlos E. R. wrote:

On 2014-09-24 16:06, Timothy Butterworth wrote:

...

openSUSE Evergreen releases can range from 3-4 years of support but 3 is essentially guaranteed. Starting with Ubuntu 12.04 LTS, both The Server and Desktop versions will receive 5 years support.

I use Evergreen; I think that 3 years is very reasonable, and that 5 is excessive for an open release.

Why?

Because upgrading the machine at the end of the cycle will be close to impossible. You have to install fresh, and on a long used machine there will be lots of configurations and localizations to re-do.

As it is, upgrading from 11.4 to 13.1 is a bit difficult. In fact, YaST wants to bail out and not do it.

You could do it in steps though. Works very well.

On the other hand, a 4 year old operating system is obsolete.

I disagree. It may lack some of the latest functionality, but it's by no means obsolete. (my desktop still on openSUSE 10.3 - I do have some issues with openOffice interoperability now, but that's all).

For instance, you have to interact with other people, exchange documents, etc, which you can not do because of the gap.

That is the only gap I have found so far. There are slight differences in {open/libre}Office that make it difficult, yes.

Yes, I know that many people have been using XP for a very long time. Many still do. But it is a maintenance/support nightmare.

We still use it privately for gaming - so far not much nightmare except when manufacturers start cutting you off. -- Per Jessen, Zürich (15.1°C) http://www.hostsuisse.com/ - dedicated server rental in Switzerland. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

A bit of a thread-branch here... To what extent does Microfocus control Opensuse? -- _____________________________________ ---This space for rent--- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 2014-09-24 20:42, Per Jessen wrote:

...

As it is, upgrading from 11.4 to 13.1 is a bit difficult. In fact, YaST wants to bail out and not do it.

You could do it in steps though. Works very well.

2 steps, means double work: 1 point against openSUSE for the Munich case :-P

...

On the other hand, a 4 year old operating system is obsolete.

I disagree. It may lack some of the latest functionality, but it's by no means obsolete. (my desktop still on openSUSE 10.3 - I do have some issues with openOffice interoperability now, but that's all).

openOffice interoperability problem: 1 point against openSUSE for the Munich case :-P

...

Yes, I know that many people have been using XP for a very long time. Many still do. But it is a maintenance/support nightmare.

We still use it privately for gaming - so far not much nightmare except when manufacturers start cutting you off.

Private, aka internal usage, is no problem. Having to work in a network of machines and people, with malware and targeted attacks, is an issue. I know that /we/ can use an operating system for 20 years. But /they/ can not. And should not. We are special people: geeks, IT professionals, IT skilled amateurs... They are users, working for/at a bureaucracy. Their training is different. Maintaining a 4 year old Linux Desktop setup becomes problematic for the IT personnel of almost any organization. It is different for a Windows setup, because upgrading has an important licensing cost, so they postpone it. When they finally do it, the cost is probably much greater, because the effort needed increases with the gap. - -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" at Telcontar) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlQjTB0ACgkQtTMYHG2NR9UcXgCaA2R6QJv7UR+gv1pcOzrzntFm OEoAnj5IQdEs6hmbQcukLSN11sn9i/de =EGbd -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

The City of Munich City Council has already publicly stated they are still focusing all efforts on GNU/Linux and continued freedom and will not support a move back to closed source Microsoft Windows. Microsoft is trying to take them back over with its proposed 2016 German Headquarters migration to Munich which the Mayor and Deputy mayor are kissing up to MS to try to make happen in order to pull in tax dollars from MS. It seems Microsoft will stop at nothing to put an end to MiLux even if it costs them quite a bit of money. I would hate to let Microsoft or Canonical get a stronghold there. openSUSE has many more capabilities than Ubuntu particularly since they are not using Unity. The MiLux build has already changed over to LO from AOO and they are currently planning to launch another round of LO development to add in more functionality. I personally have no issue with a Evergreen release every 4 releases approx once every 32 months. I was trying to think how to make openSUSE more attractive for Small Medium Businesses who do not want to perform OS upgrades every two or three years. If we did do this it would only mean having two Evergreen releases under support at a time one starting the maintenance period and one beginning to end the maintenance period. Obviously Windows is supported for 10 years but the initial release is not and Service Packs become required after a period of time. If anyone has a method of advertising openSUSE against Redmonds support cycle please share it. I did not realize until today how many users are actually running old openSUSE releases that are not even under maintenance any more that is kind of a scary though. I am curious as to the reasons why they are doing this? If it is a technological issue preventing them from upgrading, if they are doing this to hold onto KDE 3.5.x etc. Saying 5 years is too long for a openSUSE Evergreen is slightly being contradicted by the number of old versions still in active use. It would be good if a official survey could be put together to collect all the reasons why. Zypper dup does work well for upgrading but you do have to replace all the repos with an updated repo. If you have a lot of OBS repos and external repos then it does become more and more burdensome. The only way to get rid of those issues is to get as much of the external and OBS repos included into the OSS repo of the new release as possible to eliminate their need. Unless a user has them to track the upstream stable then they simply need to adjust those repos. I have had mixed experiences performing distribution upgrades in the past. The only time I found it to be easy is when only the shipping repo's were in use but that is a rather useless system with no codecs. On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 6:24 PM, Doug wrote:

On 09/24/2014 06:56 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote:

...

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1

On 2014-09-24 20:42, Per Jessen wrote:

...

...

As it is, upgrading from 11.4 to 13.1 is a bit difficult. In fact, YaST wants to bail out and not do it.

You could do it in steps though. Works very well.

2 steps, means double work:

1 point against openSUSE for the Munich case :-P

...

...

On the other hand, a 4 year old operating system is obsolete.

I disagree. It may lack some of the latest functionality, but it's by no means obsolete. (my desktop still on openSUSE 10.3 - I do have some issues with openOffice interoperability now, but that's all).

openOffice interoperability problem:

1 point against openSUSE for the Munich case :-P

I thought I read that Munich has decided to go back to Windows. Is it still up in the air? If Munich is still interested in running Linux, then why don't they look at a rolling release system, like PCLOS, where it is not necessary to completely reinstall the system every year or two? I believe there are one or two other rolling release systems, also.

(I don't know what will happen to present systems like PCLOS while the systemd ruckus is in progress. So far they have not been steam-rollered, but it will be hard to keep up with applications if most of them come to depend on systemd. I'm not smart enough to know if systemd can be implemented without a new installation.)

--doug -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

I understand your opinions but once a defect is found and an exploit is created and made available in a automated scripted form you are still vulnerable to it. GNU/Linux is not some kind of solid steel box with no cracks in it all software has defects that will be found eventually and a large portion with have automated exploit kits produced for them. The longer you wait to plug holes by not upgrading the more holes start to show up. The biggest advantage to FLOSS Community distros is the low upgrade price of free. I imagine you have more than one NTP server on site or have a external configurd as a backup, I would seriously consider jumping up to 13.1 particularly if you are only running ntpd on it! Also just because a server is only available on an Internal Network also does not make it impervious to attacks either because any machine on the network that can accesss that resouce can be used to launch an attack on it if it has been compromised. Obviously you could build your own kernel and install the latest maintenance releases from the upstream into /opt but still letting you system turn into a giant attack target of known exploitable vulnerabilities seems crazy to me. Maleware in the forms of viruses, trojans and spyware may not be in large abundance on GNU/Linux but nessus and metasploit certainly have a large collection of known defects to choose from to own a unmainted system. You may want to install the latest version of Nessus on it and run a quick privilidged scan just to see how much red does show up. You could very well have heart bleed, the bash vulnerability that was patched this week as well as a slew of kernel defects that can be used for privilidge escalation. You can harden GNU/Linux very well but not upgrading your software to fix known issues defeats the entire purpose of hardening to begin with. Obviously your systems are not mine. I do not know what they are supporting so the risk is of course yours to take but I would sign up for the US Cert weekly aggregate list and take a look through that for a month and possibly rethink your position. On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 7:45 PM, John Andersen wrote:

On 9/24/2014 5:05 PM, Timothy Butterworth wrote:

...

I did not realize until today how many users are actually running old openSUSE releases that are not even under maintenance any more that is kind of a scary though. I am curious as to the reasons why they are doing this?

Your fears are largely unfounded.

For a servers not exposed to the net there is very little to worry about. For servers that don't host websites and don't allow password based outside login of any kind, there is even less to worry about.

The only adjustment I've made in a long time was restricting access to my NTP server recently. After doing that I peeked at my iptables and found I was already blocking outside access to that.

This idea that something has to be under maintenance is something learned learned in the microsoft world, or in risk avoidance school taught by bean counters.

-- _____________________________________ ---This space for rent--- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

I am just saying that it seems like a big risk. I do understand the desire to use older software with well tested features and not take on a lot of unknown. On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 9:01 PM, John Andersen wrote:

On 9/24/2014 6:47 PM, Timothy Butterworth wrote:

...

You could very well have heart bleed, the bash vulnerability that was patched this week as well as a slew of kernel defects that can be used for privilidge escalation.

I was born in the morning Tim. But not THIS morning.

Just because I don't jump to current releases, and expose my systems to all the bugs therein, does not mean I don't apply patches, or test for vulnerabilities.

Heartbleed? Really? Did you read a word I wrote? My in-house server is too old to have been affected by heartbleed.

-- _____________________________________ ---This space for rent--- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 1:32 AM, Per Jessen wrote:

Timothy Butterworth wrote:

...

I did not realize until today how many users are actually running old openSUSE releases that are not even under maintenance any more that is kind of a scary though. I am curious as to the reasons why they are doing this? If it is a technological issue preventing them from upgrading, if they are doing this to hold onto KDE 3.5.x etc.

For desktops in the office, we have been deliberately holding back to stay on KDE3 for now. We're slowly introducing 13.1 with KDE4, and at some point we will have to bite the bullet.

KDE 4 has gotten a whole lot better since the KDE 4.2-4 time frame. I used it the whole way though but I can see why people would want to hold back on such a large development moving target until it reached a stable maturity. You may want to take a look at Trinity Desktop if you really want to continue to stay with KDE 3.5.x until Plasma 2 goes mainstream and is recommended for daily user functions. https://www.trinitydesktop.org/ Trinity has Repos for openSUSE 11.4, 12.2, 12.3 and 13.1. It would be nice if we could phase out all KDE 3 from openSUSE and replace it with Trinity Desktop possibly in openSUSE 13.3. I do not know how many others would also like to have this option made available. Hopefully we can just talk this group into packaging the openSUSE versions into OBS or just migrating the entire project to OBS since it can package for multiple different distros.

For servers, it's a matter of avoiding unnecessary change and effort. If an upgrade brings no discernable/necessary benefits, why bother?

-- Per Jessen, Zürich (15.1°C) http://www.hostsuisse.com/ - dedicated server rental in Switzerland.

-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

Carlos E. R. wrote on 2014-09-26 20:39 (UTC+0200):

Timothy Butterworth wrote:

...

It would be nice if we could phase out all KDE 3 from openSUSE and replace it with Trinity Desktop possibly in openSUSE 13.3.

Little misunderstanding here.

There can be no "replacing". The people keeping KDE3 on openSUSE are a group of volunteers that want precisely to do just that, keep and maintain kde 3 in openSUSE. openSUSE simply accepts the offer, and they get some help and advise from other maintainers.

Having Trinity just needs the same: a group of volunteers /adding/ it to the distribution in OBS. Once there, it can be added to the main distribution body.

I don't think it can be that simple. Take a read of http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-kde3/2014-08/msg00033.html if you missed it or don't remember it. -- "The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation) Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks! Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 2014-09-27 05:39, Felix Miata wrote:

Carlos E. R. wrote on 2014-09-26 20:39 (UTC+0200):

I don't think it can be that simple. Take a read of http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-kde3/2014-08/msg00033.html if you missed it or don't remember it.

Hum. No, I'm not subscribed to that list. And I had forgotten/not noticed that trinity and kde3 conflict. TDE is a fork of KDE3 (so says wikipedia). So there are two independent groups maintaining separate kde3 "forks"? Maybe they should join efforts. But I can not really give an educated opinion on this. I'll sit back and listen. - -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" at Telcontar) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlQnEhwACgkQtTMYHG2NR9U3UgCdE+Yivj57jI/Jzkpq3m2QjHrh SnsAnRGIERegoLJ9QS5NTrhK3/sZkXkL =xLhz -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

Timothy Butterworth wrote:

On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 1:32 AM, Per Jessen wrote:

...

Timothy Butterworth wrote:

...

I did not realize until today how many users are actually running old openSUSE releases that are not even under maintenance any more that is kind of a scary though. I am curious as to the reasons why they are doing this? If it is a technological issue preventing them from upgrading, if they are doing this to hold onto KDE 3.5.x etc.

For desktops in the office, we have been deliberately holding back to stay on KDE3 for now. We're slowly introducing 13.1 with KDE4, and at some point we will have to bite the bullet.

KDE 4 has gotten a whole lot better since the KDE 4.2-4 time frame. I used it the whole way though but I can see why people would want to hold back on such a large development moving target until it reached a stable maturity.

We will be going KDE4, that's a definite. We just didn't want to do it overnight - training costs etc. Introducing it slowly, starting with people who are more inclined/open towards new stuff means a much smoother migration. -- Per Jessen, Zürich (15.1°C) http://www.dns24.ch/ - your free DNS host, made in Switzerland. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

On 2014-09-25 02:26, John Andersen wrote:

On 9/24/2014 3:56 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote:

Linux by itself provides so much protection from exploits and malware that you probably CAN run old systems with naive users. One sysadmin can keep a whole herd of sheep fairly well guarded.

Maybe. Probably. But if I'm the person in charge of a bunch of computers in a organization, like a city, and something does happen, that somebody can blame on the software not being updated, it is my arse which would be burnt. If the machines are updated, or if I'm mandated not to update, then it is somebody else's arse. Simple as that. -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" at Telcontar)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 2014-09-25 13:55, Per Jessen wrote:

Carlos E. R. wrote:

...

Maybe. Probably.

But if I'm the person in charge of a bunch of computers in a organization, like a city, and something does happen, that somebody can blame on the software not being updated, it is my arse which would be burnt.

If you're in charge, it's up to you to a) chose how to do your job and b) take responsibility when things go wrong. How you chose to secure your organisation is not really relevant, with or without updates.

Where I live, if you follow /the rules/ you are pretty safe. If you take your own decisions, you are not. No matter how correct your decisions may be. (unsafe in this context equals fire) - -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" at Telcontar) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlQltFcACgkQtTMYHG2NR9UwqgCglPwJE2ZpvarhH1wKZuV1OXlJ +ooAn2YDbPfhmxJL+TXF9gFnbPGVgJQq =zd1f -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org