well heres where im kinda against using backup like that

so unless SJWs are going to hack America and fuck up everyone's backups, this isnt a thing

you are just archiving a 1:1 image of the os that was snapshoted at a very specific date

it might be stable enough now but what about later on down the road?

I know this will sound crazy to anyone who has never worked in IT, or talked to someone who has, but that shit happens *all the time*
People are still running earlier versions of MS Server software

like '03

there are companies with machines running on windows 3.0

so people are still running windows xp?

yes

like there are companies that are *just* upgrading to 7

well in a realistic scenario, virtual machines like that are supposed to be closed off from the general public from accessing them

think a lot of ATMs still us XP

legacy support exists for a reason

or at least they did not too long ago

thats the thing though- if the new version's fucked, people use the old one until an unfucked alternative is presented

for me once the legacy software stops functioning, you are left no choice but to upgrade to a newer variant or adopt something else

you would only hold onto legacy software until something makes it obsolete enough that it would hold no value

you've got it a bit backwards though. Enterprise software (third party at least) conforms to the needs of the consumer

the consumer being the company

which means those companies still end up supporting older versions becasue everyone's on XP/7/whatever

well you know how you get the customer to adopt newer operating systems

you choose to end support for said platforms

by not breaking the OS :^)

and that only works on new versions, which like... people only upgrade for new features/added utility

but the main point is i really dont care what you use for software on your os, i only care for the stability of the os itself

right but in terms of damage caused, a fucked patch isnt as bad as y'all are making it out to be. It happens all the time

it's unfortunate, but it's very surmountable

and then the question is: does a linux fork happen, or does mainline linux get better commits

okay in the short term, you would want to stick with what works the best for the entire scene

in the long term, when the fork gets better, you adopt that

that depends on who you're talking about, but sure

if you want to be an early adopter and use the fork as soon as it comes out, thats fine and all

but if you want stability or just want to run a server, you really dont want this

as linux has a stronger presence in the enterprise industry, it would seem to mater there

this coc change affects the home, non-commercial users

give it a few years

it will then affect those who runs servers

the CoC affects everything really
>important contributor hates CoC
>works on fork instead
>fork now has important changes and no CoC

>company now has to choose between CoC version and version with important changes

well the coc means nothing if you dont actively contribute to the scene

if you are paranoid, then sure it would