Ubuntu Issues - SysAdmin side (Rant)

Ubuntu Backport Issues - SysAdmin side (Rant)

Anyone else feel completely hung out to dry on the Ubuntu LTS stuff or is it just me?

I see from reading through some threads that others have some issues with backports, as do we at the workplace.

When this issue is brought up on a list:
Most people(read ubuntu contributors) start screaming that I need to test out and help vet the backports, whenever I ask about them.
Sure with the budget that our Non-Profit organisation gets each year, I will just go buy a identical server to try to create the same issues.
Or wait, better yet just apply them to a running production LTSP server and risk it going to hell in a hand basket.(Which in turn trickles down to kids not getting the support they need in a foster care environment)
Sure that works for me... </Sarc>

When I get past the wall:
I have given as much info as requested in each case and hell, I even found the solution in some upstream commits. But are they backported? Nope.
You may ask why I don't compile the backports myself? Well, what is the sense of a LTS release if I am breaking the "update cycle"?
ie. This will not be updated for the remaining 2/4 years of the LTS if I compile myself(you lose the repo versions in most cases).
Again it comes back to production servers vs test servers which we cannot afford to have.

Ubuntu/Canonical really need to get their stories straight, either you _can_ provide the 3/5 year support you claim or you tell everyone to focus on updating every 18 months, period.

I can't wait for Centos/RHEL 6, maybe then I can change my bosses mind on distros.

 

I honestly have no idea what you meant to say there
Mrk

 

Are you kidding around or it is not clear to you?

 

I'm serious mate ... did not intend it as a joke. I did not understand the post.
If you can explain again, I'd appreciate it.
Mrk

 

Don't really know how else to put it.

I feel like we are getting hosed on the LTS stuff, the main post relays my experiences I have had with bringing this up.
And I asked if anyone felt the same way from a SysAdmin standpoint it is not a request for help, just input.

 

OK, reread and I think I got this time. I think support is one of the sore points for most Linux distros. Commercially, RH and SLES offer the best long-term support. And even so, 7 years is too short. I think 10 years is a minimum. 3/5 years is too short.
Mrk

 

Re: Ubuntu Backport Issues - SysAdmin side (Rant)

Do you happen to post over at the BBR Forums? There was a guy over there complaining about this very issue.

 

Re: Ubuntu Backport Issues - SysAdmin side (Rant)

To me it seems like your wanting to get the stability of an LTS edition, but have package freshness approaching more frequent releases.

I know that if you have a choice of the same software available via backports or a new dist release, the new dist release WILL be more tested.

You say you can't afford a new identical server, this implies you are wanting to upgrade software that is dependant on your hardware, but your willing to blindly run these updates on a server.
If these backports are not hardware dependent (maybe its your backup device software) you have option of virtualisation and/or a cheaper spare box.

I've seen config file changes causing breakage (because newer was espected but as the old one was modified was not changed on upgrade) and another issue is newer app relying on a new system or library call that is not available on the version of the kernel installed. Yes these should be caught during testing, but as you have said backports has a lack of testing.

 

Re: Ubuntu Backport Issues - SysAdmin side (Rant)

Nope! But glad to see I am not the only one.

 

Re: Ubuntu Backport Issues - SysAdmin side (Rant)

Not the case at all, I would like the support of a stable LTS. Right now IME 8.04 is not that stable. There are known issues mentioned here that are yet to be resolved and just shrugged off for the sake of the latest and greatest. The common response is that it is fixed in Intrepid/Jaunty/Karmic etc.
IPsec is one, you cannot use compression in certain scenarios because a flag in the Kernel build was set wrong causing kernel panics.... Right sure I can compile it, but then I have to compile each and everyone after the fact also. That IMO is not a LTS release. BTW this has been open for over a year.

Isn't that part of the LTS though?(Testing)

Not blindly, with careful reading of the changes and possible major conflicts. If you are willing to donate the money I sure as hell will buy an identical server to try these out.

Sure, but I cannot pass the idea of VM's yet. I have been trying.
And if you worked at a NFP you would realize how little money they really have for IT stuff.

Right but if you don't put them out how are you ever going to find out? And why not fix bugs that severely degrade the usability/stability of a system?

 

Re: Ubuntu Backport Issues - SysAdmin side (Rant)

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22159413?hilite=lts

 

Re: Ubuntu Backport Issues - SysAdmin side (Rant)

Simple answer. If the LTS doesn't work, without fixes, on your hardware, then you need to find another distro. You are claiming that "updates" can break your "distro," even though its LTS. But the fact is, your distro isn't LTS because you've modified it.

The fact that you had to modify the kernel in order to make it work, doesn't change that fact. Once you modify the kernel, it no longer qualifies as an LTS. It is then up to you to patch each and every kernel change that comes along. If this isn't satisfactory, you can always PAY for support that puts the onus on the support provider. Till that time, your rant amounts to nothing more than sour grapes. "Aw gee!! This free software isn't PERFECT!" Well, that's just too damned bad!

 

Re: Ubuntu Backport Issues - SysAdmin side (Rant)

I can't believe I am actually going to respond to your comments but here goes:

#1 - I don't need to find another distro, the fixes are there they are just not backported. If you read the thread you would see that.

#2 - I have not modified it. I don't know where you got that idea from, if you read the thread you would note that I said I _would_ have to manually patch it thus making it a non-LTS anymore.

#2 Before you shoot your mouth off I suggest you READ the thread Troll.

I am a strong supporter/proponent of Free Software, I donate to the community as much as my job and time allow me. Now, if you don't mind please head back to the basement and next time think before you speak.

Have a nice day!