It would seem that the standard support is the most logical. I never use
Ubuntu, only Debian, but I guess the same principle for both. That is what
I would have thought most people would understand by the term EOL
On Sat, 30 Jan 2021 at 11:32, James Gregory-Monk <jgxenite@???> wrote:
> Hey Andy,
>
> I'd argue for using the "end of standard support" dates for Ubuntu. I
> suspect that's the generally well known "EOL" date (5 years from release of
> the LTS) that most folk will know. It's certainly the date that I try to
> stick to with upgrades and such.
>
> Cheers,
> James
>
> On Thu, 28 Jan 2021, 4:47 pm Andy Smith, <andy@???> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> On:
>>
>> https://bitfolk.com/techspec.html#toc_2_Available_Linux_distributions
>>
>> I am listing Ubuntu EOL dates as found at:
>>
>> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Releases
>>
>> However, it seems that the EOL dates from the Ubuntu wiki refer to
>> Extended Security Maintenance:
>>
>> https://ubuntu.com/security/esm
>>
>> If I understand things correctly, this:
>>
>> - covers only a small subset of the archive
>> - requires an Ubuntu Advantage account
>> - entitlement to ESM updates is only available for free for
>> personal use on up to 3 machines
>>
>> So, for example, the recent "sudo" security issue is not available
>> for 14.04 LTS users unless they meet the above requirements.
>>
>> If I have misunderstood things can someone correct me?
>>
>> If not, I don't think it is particularly clear of us to list those
>> EOL dates on BitFolk's page and instead we should list the "End of
>> Standard Support" ones.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> And if we do list "End of Standard Support" dates, should that be
>> matched with "end of stable support" dates for Debian? The situation
>> for Debian is not straightforward either:
>>
>> https://wiki.debian.org/DebianReleases#Production_Releases
>>
>> While LTS and ELTS are available free to everyone (BitFolk is one of
>> monetary sponsors that makes that possible), they do only cover a
>> subset of what was in Debian stable.
>>
>> A summary of what each thing means for Debian is something like:
>>
>> Stable Security:
>>
>> - Supported until release end of life
>> - Package maintainers and security team are supposed to provide
>> security fixes for every package in the stable release
>> - buster EOL: some time in 2022
>>
>> Long Term Support:
>>
>> - Dedicated team of paid developers provide security fixes on a
>> best effort basis; sometimes package maintainers help.
>> - Known to only cover a subset of the archive; most important
>> packages do get updates.
>> - buster LTS EOL: likely some time in 2024
>>
>> Extended LTS:
>>
>> - Even smaller team of paid developers provide security fixes
>> - buster ELTS EOL: likely some time in 2026
>>
>> Which is these things is fair to call a supported Debian release?
>> Really I'd just like to keep some consistency.
>>
>> (Personal controversial interjection: I'm no CentOS fan but this is
>> exactly what people will miss about CentOS. It was a straightforward
>> 10 year support commitment. Which was a massive commitment. It
>> wasn't always timely, but you knew that RHEL would get an update and
>> then CentOS would. For 10 years. That has value.)
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Andy
>>
>> --
>> https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting
>> _______________________________________________
>> users mailing list
>> users@???
>> https://lists.bitfolk.com/mailman/listinfo/users
>>
> _______________________________________________
> users mailing list
> users@???
> https://lists.bitfolk.com/mailman/listinfo/users
>
