> The article is full of shit, the author wants free LTS support for 15 years so he can more easily make money... The article doesn't say that. It says that p

> The article is full of shit, the author wants free LTS support for 15 years so he can more easily make money... The article doesn't say that. It says that proclaimed LTS releases aren't such. The article says that all we have is short-term-releases, it doesn't go into details on how much we should pay for the lengths of support of release at all. I don't see why is this a problem to want to make more money, the easier the better, imo. The author never claimed that they aren't willing to pay for any services though, so you are putting words in their mouth. But, let's for the moment say they wanted to pay for real LTS releases instead of what we have today -- they need to convince many people to share the brunt of doing so, otherwise it's going to be very expensive for them. Their disappointment comes from the perception that a lot of those who would potentially benefit from sharing this expense with them don't do that by following short-term gains and disregarding long-term losses. --- From my personal experience: we dig ourselves a hole with creating short release cycles. We ended up in a situation where every new iteration of software we release is of despicable quality and there's no hope of improving the quality because the next release is already on the horizon and most and best resources are dedicated to it. Releasing often is seen as a primary driver of profits. This acts to demotivate and devalue QA teams, who, in the present day are seen more and more as a waste of resource and are even sometimes repurposed to do things unrelated to QA, s.a. release management or even customer support. And, I think, this is what the author talks about when they talk about how agile is a bad thing. The ultimate claim the author makes is that we don't really need short release cycles. Not the individual users neither the companies no matter how big. We'd benefit from higher quality software released less often. We don't need to pay extra for longer term support as you put it. What you perceive as longer term should be the norm. We chose the wrong driver for companies profits -- selling new versions works, but leaves customers more and more dissatisfied with the results. Perhaps, we should think about a different way to pay for programmers' work? Perhaps instead of version upgrades we need to sell maintenance? -- I don't know, and am not enough in the know of how the profit is made in this instance and where it's possible to take it.