3 ms·
> it's mostly blackmail ("port or else you wont run on 3, and we'll stop the 2.x line"). Would you also call the RHEL life cycle a blackmail? I'm using version
by duckmysick 10y ago
> it's mostly blackmail ("port or else you wont run on 3, and we'll stop the 2.x line").
Would you also call the RHEL life cycle a blackmail? I'm using version 5 now and the normal support ends in March 2017. My options now are "port or pay extra for extended life cycle or else my RHEL will be without security fixes". And like Python, major RHEL versions break backwards compatibility.
- coldtea 10y ago>Would you also call the RHEL life cycle a blackmail? The RHEL life cycle is based on real business needs (and a real business need to balance between newer releases/features and stable environments). Not on some decree from above that "you should use this new thing".
- paulddraper 10y ago"The RHEL is based on...some decree from above"
- guitarbill 10y agoYes, and that's why you pay for it. Yet here is somebody complaining about that. If you e.g. can't be bothered to do continuous integration or automated testing, then you might consider RHEL with it's life cycle to be an acceptable alternative. Which is fine. Just be ready to pay for that service. Similarly, if you wanted continued Python 2 support, you could have donated time or money towards that goal. I would be surprised if anybody complaining did that. There's just not that much business value in dragging legacy Python further along.
- e40 10y agoAnd you went into that RHEL relationship with full information ahead of time. So, your comparison is terrible.
- toyg 10y agoAnyone who started a Python project in the last TEN YEARS had full information ahead of time - pep 3000 came out in April 2006. Honestly, that 10 years later we're still having this conversation is ridiculous.