Solaris 11.4 To Move From GNOME 2 Desktop To GNOME Shell

[pavlerson]

Lets point out how this simple statement is so far wrong its not funny, Bug tracking by Redhat on their kernels shows without question using old kernels have more bugs than using newer kernels. What is going on here. Simple new kernel gets to alter internal structures to fix serous issues old kernel has to have the patches modified to kept the same internal structs to deal with the same issues and in a lot of cases being stuck with the same internal structs makes repairing bugs impossible..

So what you said is false. The real world probably if you use real world numbers instead of guess work is that old Linux kernel will have more bugs than using a more modern version. This is also coming from the fact that more complete quality control is used on Linux next branch than on the older LTS branches and older.

Eh? So you do believe that new code is more bug ridden than old mature code? Are you serious or trolling? I guess you are trolling. Ask anyone who works or have worked in programming, and he will tell you that you are wrong. You clearly know nothing about programming, and have never worked as a programmer. You should not speak about things, you know nothing about. Ask any programmer about new code vs old code.

But.... Hahaha! You are funny! I almost fell in your trap. It sounded like you really meant it!

[oiaohm]

Eh? So you do believe that new code is more bug ridden than old mature code? Are you serious or trolling? I guess you are trolling. Ask anyone who works or have worked in programming, and he will tell you that you are wrong. You clearly know nothing about programming, and have never worked as a programmer. You should not speak about things, you know nothing about. Ask any programmer about new code vs old code.

Really just look at recent KPTI patches. 4.14 and newer Linux kernel gets one version due to those kernel having a structure change and 4.13 and before get a different version to work around security flaw. The 4.14 and newer is complete and correct fix to the issue. This happens over and over again with back ported security patches.

If Red Hat use an old and battle tested kernel instead of the latest kernel - that is because the old kernel probably has less bugs and therefore is more stable. Production never use bleeding edge software, they always use old software.

The reality is newer code when you are talking about the Linux kernel is less bug ridden. The old so call mature Linux kernel code is old stacked with bad backports of patches that have flaws due to not being able to alter the internal structures.

pavlerson it was you who put up the false idea that new code is more bug ridden than so called old mature code. Your example is pure bogus. Lot of examples put forwards for old mature code being less bug ridden than new code fail closer inspection.

[Vistaus]

If stability above anything else is so extremely important for corporations, then why is Google switching to a rolling release model for its production computers? They are huge so wouldn't they need extreme-tested, stable code?
http://news.softpedia.com/news/googl...x-519426.shtml

[Vistaus]

Really just look at recent KPTI patches. 4.14 and newer Linux kernel gets one version due to those kernel having a structure change and 4.13 and before get a different version to work around security flaw. The 4.14 and newer is complete and correct fix to the issue. This happens over and over again with back ported security patches.

4.13 and 4.14 are a moot point as they're not even an LTS kernel, so corporations aren't even using it.

[oiaohm]

4.13 and 4.14 are a moot point as they're not even an LTS kernel, so corporations aren't even using it.

https://www.kernel.org/category/releases.html

Excuse me 4.14 is a LTS kernel. So any corporations keeping up on there kernel deployments new installs should be targeting 4.14.

Its repeated over and over again there LTS kernels are maintained for hardware compatibly not for security once they are no longer the current LTS kernel.

Vistaus please have your facts in order. Only 1 for the LTS kernels currently get complete KPTI patch and that is 4.14.

This is the true Elephant in the room.

Enterprises have been skipping out on investing in like https://kernelci.org/ Automated Linux Kernel Testing. To make sure the latest LTS at its release date will be compatible with the hardware enterprise wishes to run. To be secure you do need to be on the latest LTS as soon as possible.

Enterprises have been waiting for the LTS release before starting testing process and this is leaving them security vulnerable because normally by the time a new LTS linux kernel is released there is some security in the older LTS linux kernels that cannot patched properly because it requires an internal kernel structure change . The testing needs to start when the kernel is in development stage before LTS release is made. It help no one to make excuses. Yes a lot of LTS distributions don't have the latest LTS kernel as an install option and due to the security problems they deserved to be complained to about that.

[Vistaus]

You're right about 4.14
But please answer my other post about Google.

[oiaohm]

If stability above anything else is so extremely important for corporations, then why is Google switching to a rolling release model for its production computers? They are huge so wouldn't they need extreme-tested, stable code?
http://news.softpedia.com/news/googl...x-519426.shtml

Debian Testing uses 4.14 Linux kernel. Its with the introduction of flatpak that under mines the reason for LTS distribution.

Main reason for LTS distribution was so that old applications would work. So you put the applications you need for a long time in a flatpak and it bundled with the dependencies it needs after that you ask question. If I am using flatpak for old applications that must be exact versions why would I use a LTS distribution and been running lots of libraries and applications with back-ported possible broken security fixes instead of updating those applications past the point of the security updates.

Also debian testing does more quality control than ubuntu LTS.

The stability arguement about enterprise is mostly bogus. Yes enterprise need method to run exact versions of programs. Enterprise does not need all bits of software stuck in old buggy versions so they can run exact versions of programs. LTS distributions with dependency hell at times preventing running new versions of programs also is getting in enterprise way.

It comes clear when also do some digging and find some enterprises are using selected update locations in fedora.

[Vistaus]

But it's not about Debian Testing only, it's about the fact that Google wants to move their Linux computers to a rolling release. That's very unusual in Enterprise, right? Esp. for such a large company. They can't guarantee stability with a rolling release.

[oiaohm]

But it's not about Debian Testing only, it's about the fact that Google wants to move their Linux computers to a rolling release. That's very unusual in Enterprise, right? Esp. for such a large company. They can't guarantee stability with a rolling release.

You are missing that debian testing is not the full rolling release of Debian. The layout of debian

1) unstable/sid people have build distributions full based off sid https://manual.siduction.org/welcome so quality assurance has already started at this point and this is the first rolling release distribution debian and shows a lot of the behaviours of most other rolling release distributions.
2) Testing this is parts brought from sid that are presumed good enough to be included in future stable release because they have been in sid for a while and no errors were reported.
3) Stable this debian start of LTS distribution.
4) oldstable what is the prior version of stable.
5) LTS supported where only selected application are maintained.

Debian is not one distribution is 5-6 distributions.

So testing is not a pure rolling release distribution working in isolation. There is a quality control process with packages going to sid first tested there then moved to testing if there is not a problem. Anything that shows major issues in unstable/sid is rejected out to experimental repository until it fixed and does not get to testing either.

The idea that you cannot guarantee stability with a rolling release is kind of false. Debian testing over the years has proven fairly solid with sid and automated testing before packages get to enter testing.

To have a stability in a rolling release does require some serous server power that Debian has go by donations. Debian testing usage in some area of enterprise is not that strange either.

[torsionbar28]

I don't see how gnome 2 looks "dated" and Gnome Shell is somehow an improvement. To me Gnome Shell looks like a Fisher-Price toy set, something for "special" people.

^ This. The Gnome 2 desktop metaphors and workflow are familiar, efficient, and timeless. The Gnome 3 Shell is a demented Speak-n-spell, defective by design. This will not bring new customers to a Solaris workstation... if anything, it will drive them away.