Re: Re: Is oldstable security support duration something to be proud of?

[Filipus Klutiero <chealer@gmail.com>]

> This one time, at band camp, Filipus Klutiero said:
> > RHEL and derivatives: 7 years
>
> This is longer than Debian.
>
> > openSUSE: 2 years
> > Ubuntu: a bit more complex.
> > 	1.5 in general
> > 	LTS releases: 3 on desktop, 5 on server
>
> These are all shorter, except for Ubuntu server LTS.
>   
No, support for Ubuntu LTS in general is longer. Ubuntu LTS is supported 
for 3 years on the desktop, which is more than Debian 3.1.
> So your complaint is that, even though Debian's security team does
> actually rank in the top half of the examples you put forward (and I'm
> not even going to discuss the fact that the 2 that do longer security
> support have paid people doing it, not volunteers), they have nothing
> to be proud of?
No. Besides Debian not ranking in the top half, Luk Claes changed the 
discussion to the total duration of security support. The bug is about 
the sentence about oldstable security support.

>   And denigrating the work they do and telling them they
> have nothing to be proud of is good why?
It isn't good, which is why I don't do it.