4 ms·

I cannot update the OS per the contract. It’s Ubuntu’s problem because they decide they’re smarter than their users and nuke their repos. Fuck all of that.

• dismalaf 1y ago
  It's well publicized that they don't maintain support for old, non-LTS distros. They literally delivered what they promised. Could have been avoided by using an LTS distro. Fedora does the same. No corporate vendor supports 6 month cycle distros for more than a year. RHEL releases come super slowly, for example.
  • dgfitz 1y ago
    I didn’t have a say in the matter of OS choice, it doesn’t matter how well-publicized Ubuntu’s stance is, it’s wrong. I don’t care if it’s not an LTS, keep the fucking repos open and advertise you’re using an insecure OS. Let me, the user, make that choice. Don’t pretend I’m stupid and need some kind of benevolent dictator to make choices for me, or handicap me because they’re smarter than me. They’re not.
    • dismalaf 1y ago
      "Keeping the repos open" has a cost on their part. Servers aren't free. If you think you're smart then mirror your own repos.
      • dgfitz 1y ago
        Really? How much more can it cost to host their LTS and non LTS repos open at the same time? C’mon, that’s such a weak argument I think you know it.
        • dismalaf 1y ago
          If there's no cost in time, effort or equipment then mirror it yourself. It's easy, right? Or just use an LTS distro like literally every single other organization that depends on Ubuntu for their business SMH. Like, it's absurd to even think about...
          • dgfitz 1y ago
            You ignored the premise. I can’t update. Shake you head, I didn’t make the call, canonical did.
            • dismalaf 1y ago
              Anyhow someone else showed they do indeed host old repos, just in a different place. Also, why can't you update? Who the hell made that contract? And is it the client the said you can't update or Canonical? Because the latter seems sus...
              • dgfitz 1y ago
                I can see that you’re now realizing, I didn’t have a say in the constraints. I also hate said constraints. Hand I was dealt. Ubuntu is a cancer on the gnu/linux/open source community.
                • dismalaf 1y ago
                  [flagged]
    • eddythompson80 1y ago
      That’s exactly how it works. If you want to use an unsupported, insecure OS, you just have to opt into it. You opt into it by changing your repositories to the https://old-releases.ubuntu.com https://old-releases.ubuntu.com archive mirror. You can install and use Ubuntu 6.10 if you want.
• unmole 1y ago
  Sounds made up.
• viraptor 1y ago
  The vendor should provide you with updates to the new version, or use LTS. There's absolutely nothing here bad on the Ubuntu part. Your contract is with the vendor if you have one. Unless you have a contract with Canonical and then you can ask them for support.
• Propelloni 1y ago
  I get your frustration but this is really a problem of the vendor. We had something similar about 3 years ago, where a vendor delivered a proprietary driver for a piece of hardware that only worked with a specific 2.6 Linux kernel version--making it at least six years old. Is this the Linux project's fault? I don't think so.
• aragilar 1y ago
  Oh, you got that bit of fun... That's not an apt problem, that's a Ubuntu problem (and it's a reason I encourage people to either stick to LTS if they must use Ubuntu, or just run Debian or and other distro which doesn't block upgrades).