2 ms·

Everyone commenting here how author wants 15 years support for free hasn't read the article. >Those of us creating medical devices, software for factory lines,

Everyone commenting here how author wants 15 years support for free hasn't read the article. >Those of us creating medical devices, software for factory lines, and systems that matter need a minimum of 15 years for an LTS especially if you have it in your fool head we should pay money for it. Emphasis mine. Author is saying, rightfully, that "long term" support needs to be more than 5 years. Author is also saying, reasonably, that it should be at least 15 years if the developers in question want to be paid for support. Author is saying he will pay for long term support if that's what it takes, but not if it's any shorter than 15 years.

Arnavion 3y ago
They're implying they wanted to pay for 15 years support but found no takers. Is the problem that nobody wanted to support them for 15 years (their insinuation) or that they didn't pay enough? Given they keep talking about 5-year LTSes without bringing up any of the 10-year LTSes that do exist (Freexian, RHEL, etc), it seems clear to me that it's the latter. Also their requirement is nonsensical. They want support, ie bugfixes, which will require them to install updates. But at the same time they don't want a model that will update them to the latest supported version. Why do they care what the content of the update is? The point of the support contract is that they will be supported regardless. Also also, speaking as someone who works at a company supplying software to car manufacturers, we don't have 15-year LTS for our software either and the manufacturers don't have a problem with it. Their stacks are being designed around automatic updates, which again they had to be anyway to get bugfixes in general. Support contracts are support contracts. Whether an update changes v1.0.0 to v1.1.0 or v2.0.0 makes no difference to them. So what the author says about car manufacturers is also nonsense.

Arnavion 3y ago

They're implying they wanted to pay for 15 years support but found no takers. Is the problem that nobody wanted to support them for 15 years (their insinuation) or that they didn't pay enough? Given they keep talking about 5-year LTSes without bringing up any of the 10-year LTSes that do exist (Freexian, RHEL, etc), it seems clear to me that it's the latter. Also their requirement is nonsensical. They want support, ie bugfixes, which will require them to install updates. But at the same time they don't want a model that will update them to the latest supported version. Why do they care what the content of the update is? The point of the support contract is that they will be supported regardless. Also also, speaking as someone who works at a company supplying software to car manufacturers, we don't have 15-year LTS for our software either and the manufacturers don't have a problem with it. Their stacks are being designed around automatic updates, which again they had to be anyway to get bugfixes in general. Support contracts are support contracts. Whether an update changes v1.0.0 to v1.1.0 or v2.0.0 makes no difference to them. So what the author says about car manufacturers is also nonsense.