ubuntu-bugcontrol team mailing list archive

["Christopher M. Penalver" <christopher.m.penalver@xxxxxxxxx>]

 Please CC me directly when responding.

To: ubuntu-bugcontrol@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: Daniel Letzeisen <dtl131@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 15:56:45 -0400
In-reply-to: <CAF4BKcDPNvGf4kgrV1yVWdMD=88Z0+UWHUb5+j6aFa==xFQStA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:30.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/30.0

> On 06/13/2014 06:36 AM, Christopher M. Penalver wrote: However, you are still misunderstanding that support is not on a per package basis (whether linux, libreoffice, etc.), but a release one (Lucid Desktop v. Lucid Server). You are encouraging those with EoL releases into thinking they are supported, when they are clearly not.

>> Support IS still on a per package basis, as Brian Murray confirmed with this link (please bookmark it!) https://bazaar.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-security/ubuntu-cve-tracker/master/view/head:/lucid-supported.txt

First, it's considered rude when you haven't given me a chance to
respond yet, and are still marking bugs a duplicate of 1327300:
2014-06-14 00:14:39 Daniel Letzeisen marked as duplicate 1327300

Second, this is support for Lucid Server on a per package basis, not
Lucid Desktop. That link doesn't trump
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Releases it sets the expectations in a more
granular fashion.

Third, let's review each bug report you marked a duplicate on a line
item basis specifically to clarify the support they are looking for:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/1327014
They upgraded kernels on a Lucid Desktop ISO install (not supported).
They logged into GNOME (not supported).
Mouse cursor is a sandbox (not supported).
Their mouse doesn't work in GNOME (not supported).

https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/1327220
They upgraded kernels on a Lucid Desktop ISO install (not supported).
Their sound applications stopped working (not supported).

https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/vlc/+bug/1327349
They upgraded kernels on a Lucid Desktop ISO install (not supported).
VLC stopped working for them (not supported).

https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/1327979
They upgraded kernels on a Lucid Desktop ISO install (not supported).
They are having graphic driver problems (not supported).
They are having problems with Firefox (not supported).
They are having problems with Midori (not supported).
They are having problems with GNOME Terminal (not supported).

https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/1328360
They upgraded kernels on a Lucid Desktop ISO install (not supported).
They are having problems with google-chrome-stable (not even a Ubuntu
provided package, and not supported).
They are having problems with compiz (not supported).
They are having problems with USB mouse working in the GUI environment
(not supported).

https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/1328869
Too vague to determine, but I would bet Lucid Desktop packages aren't
working (not supported).

https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/alsa-driver/+bug/1328964
They upgraded kernels on a Lucid Desktop ISO install (not supported).
They are having problems with alsa-base (not supported).

https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/1329069
They are having problems with google chrome (not even a Ubuntu
provided package, and not supported).
They are having problems with Firefox (not supported).
They are having problems with Ubuntu Update Manager (not supported).

>> Also, I'm definitely not encouraging anyone to run Lucid.

But you are though, by marking those Lucid Desktop package bugs a duplicate.

>> In fact, some of the people I've communicated with in the forums about this issue explicitly said they knew Lucid Desktop was no longer supported (but still ran it for one reason or another).

Not terribly relevant to this discussion.

>> If anything is deceiving people into thinking...

Deceiving would imply malicious intent, which wouldn't be the case here.

>> that their OS is still supported, it's those updates that keep coming from apt...

I don't agree that because a granular enough update method wasn't
designed to prevent Lucid Desktop ISO installs to still gets updates
for the kernel, but their unsupported userspace package(s) break, and
the support structure was clearly stated and publicly viewable for
over half a decade means they get support for their documented
non-supported packages.

Especially when I have brought to their attention the support
structure via my comment:
"Lucid Desktop reached EOL on May 9, 2013. See this document for
currently supported Ubuntu releases:
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Releases";

However, it wouldn't hurt to have the package support link added to
the stock reply to bring to their immediate attention.

Also, if they truly wanted to resurrect their box with formal Lucid
Desktop package support, they could get paid support.

If they want informal support, there are many places on the web for
that, Launchpad bug reporting wouldn't be it.

> By marking a bug a duplicate of another, after I've clearly marked it Invalid or Won't Fix as per this discussion, this would be overriding. However, I'm always happy to have someone catch a mistake I would have made and override that. I appreciate it that folks are that concerned that they do share their knowledge on a subject I may not be as
familiar with. It's an opportunity to learn. However, this is not that case.

>> The "master" bug is also marked Invalid.

It's marked Invalid for linux (Ubuntu) tasks because it's not
affecting later Ubuntu releases. As you will notice below that, it
notes Lucid (Fix Committed).

>> And yes, you've made a mistake here...

Which is what precisely?

>> (though I don't expect you to admit it or change your viewpoint). I certainly don't blame you though.

Please leave the condescending attitude off the mailing list.

>> It's Canonical's policy (or rather, their uneven enforcement of it with apt) that is to blame. At least Lucid is the last LTS to try to make this Server/Desktop distinction...

> That policy was set in place at the release of Lucid Desktop, and has been known for going on 6 years. I wouldn't classify it as lousy, given that the support expectations were clearly communicated since day one.

>> Was it made clear to users then that Canonical would still push them "fixes" that would break their system after it was EOL?

I would say that those users with systems being made broken after EoL
in just about any way, whether an update to their unsupported release
unintentionally broke their unsupported packages, or their system was
compromised due to a security loophole, should have no expectation of
support, nor be encouraged to that. By marking duplicates of 1327300,
you did just that.

Now, let me put my enterprise hat on, and answer that question. I
don't allow any updates unless I know what it is specifically, and
have a backout plan if the update doesn't roll out successfully.

> By marking Lucid Desktop bugs a duplicate of a Lucid Server bug, you are doing one thing on Launchpad, and then saying the complete opposite here at a later point in time.

>> Again, support is on a per-package basis (as established above).

Again, no it's not as per above.

>> By agreeing that bug 1327300 is valid and then marking duplicates as non-duplicates, you are not really agreeing that bug 1327300 is valid..

I already stated previously I agree 1327300 is a valid regression in
the Lucid Server linux package, which from my reading the report, is
going to get fixed sooner rather than later, Not for fall out of
unsupported packages or releases.

> Well, blaming Canonical for not implementing 6+ years ago a granular update mechanism to prevent Lucid Desktop users from receiving Lucid Server updates would not be the issue here. ... There is no matter to settle. The policies speak for themselves loud and clear.

>> Actually, that is the issue. Otherwise, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Also, the policy is obviously not clear, since you thought that support was based on original ISO installed rather than per package.

The support is based on that, as when one installs the Desktop ISO, it
installs the userspace that is now unsupported.

> It's like calling Microsoft for server support for Windows XP. You are going to get laughed off the phone.

>> Microsoft also pushed security updates to XP users after the EOL date. If those updates had severely broken the users' systems and they had refused to revert/fix those, MS would have gotten laughed right out of court.

Those updates were released as per MSFT because of how close to the
EoL date of XP was (less than 1 month), and how severe the security
vulnerabilities were
http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_blog/archive/2014/05/01/updating-internet-explorer-and-driving-security.aspx#
. But those updates were specifically targeted to XP.

For Ubuntu, they weren't targeted to Lucid Desktop as these are not
supported as previously discussed. The fact it happened to break Lucid
Desktop userspace, while that would be unfortunate, doesn't entitle
them to support now, nor should we be encouraging them to use their
security weak install, which you are doing.

As well, you are arguing about recent unsupported userspace breakage
for a release that has been EoL for a over a year. That's not even
close.

Christopher M. Penalver
E-Mail: christopher.m.penalver@xxxxxxxxx