[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Debian LTS?

On Wed, Oct 05, 2011 at 09:15:18PM +0100, Bart Swedrowski wrote:
> I have been "forced" to use switch from Debian to RedHat and clones
> in my last job specifically because usual life time of a server was
> 3.5 - 4 years.

Same here. In my exerience, large sites typically use a 3-5 year
lifetime for hardware, and the OS is never upgraded once a host goes
into production.  If you've got thousands of hosts, all of which are
doing just fine in terms of software functionality and are in a static,
generally unchanging production configuration, there's very little
benefit to performing an OS upgrade.

On the other hand, many of these large environments don't see a lot of
value in Debian's major contributions.  The Social Contract is not
typically not a very important consideration when large enterprises
choose a software platform.  The OS environments are pretty strictly
defined and generally don't change much, so they don't see a lot of
value in Debian's package management tools.

Canonical and Redhat both need to earn money, and it's worth a lot of
money to big companies to have an LTS software platform.  Debian doesn't
need money, and (afaict) there's not a particularly large community of
volunteers interested in the difficult task of maintaining an LTS
platform.  It's a generally thankless task that involves working on
ancient versions of packages, often coming up with new fixes to old bugs
so you can maintain existing interfaces, when the obvious fix would
involve changing the behavior of a program or a library's API or some


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: