Timeline for EOL Policy Revisited: a case for letting Ubuntu questions be on-topic
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 25, 2015 at 21:35 | comment | added | Elder Geek | IMHO you and @Rinzwind both deserve bonus points for pointing the asker to U & L for EOL release support. While I understand that the point on Meta is discussion and consensus, and personally I feel that the policy regarding EOL releases is necessary, I still feel that actionable information has the most value. | |
| Oct 26, 2014 at 15:23 | history | edited | terdon | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1 character in body
|
| Sep 17, 2014 at 19:57 | comment | added | Seth Mod | @terdon You need to think of non LTS releases as "rolling" (in a sense). They aren't meant to survive their projected lifetime in any way shape or form. If you don't like upgrading you shouldn't be using a middle release. Just saying, even though it isn't entirely applicable. | |
| Sep 17, 2014 at 13:32 | comment | added | Braiam | "How can I mount a samba share on version Y" IMO, if your version is not relevant to your question, is better to be left out. To take your example, mounting Samba shares has been the same headache since immemorial times, but is the same headache, with the same solution for all versions. I don't care what version of Ubuntu you are using unless your question is about hardware, and most of the time I remove those references from any question to prevent people from blindly close them. | |
| Sep 16, 2014 at 16:05 | comment | added | terdon | @Mateo that's different. Questions like "How can I install the newest version of X on my 10-year-old machine" are indeed a problem. I was thinking more of questions like "How can I mount a samba share on version Y" or whatever, where the details have changed in the newer Ubuntus. | |
| Sep 16, 2014 at 16:02 | comment | added | Mateo | Ah, but if we do help them say 'Install xx new Program on 9.04, missing dependencies' we would end up telling them to try and install newer versions of certain programs that that program needs - thus only partially upgrading some of the system, and probably breaking some of the things they stayed on that version for... | |
| Sep 16, 2014 at 15:50 | comment | added | terdon | @Seth the main reason for me is that 1) upgrading is not always an option so we're basically saying "screw you" to anyone who doesn't have 100% control of their machine and 2) upgrading can be a hassle and I, personally, object to being forced into it. Whatever, I don't really feel very strongly about this, if the community doesn't want them, pass them on to U&L :) | |
| Sep 16, 2014 at 15:36 | comment | added | Seth Mod | FWIW I am willing to listen, and maybe even change the policy, but I haven't seen any good reasons so far (granted, I just skimmed the above question so far) | |
| Sep 16, 2014 at 15:26 | history | answered | terdon | CC BY-SA 3.0 |