why making easy buster die?

[helloworld]

i heard easy buster was gonna reached the EOL?Well ,if TRUE,i think it is a very bad news.
And,i think the author needs to be careful to make a decision to kill it.Why choosing easy buster (even if there is easy dunfell)?Of course,dunfell is new, but not many apps can run on it ,lots of apps we cant find, which makes it impossible as daily-use and general OS .If you found many of your favorite apps that could not run and be found on a OS,you would not use the OS, even if it is very new.And it is more like a experimental OS
Easy buster can run lots of apps from debian,we have so many apps to choose with it,and with its specific features like easy container and totally running in ram, so that is the OS most of users want to run for daily life.Afterall,we acually use the apps ,not the OS.
Why dont make at least two kind of easy OS ? one for a daily-use and general OS,one for experiment.Hopefully ,this can come true.

[BarryK]

Easy Buster is dying a slow death.
I did do an update not so long ago, and will probably do another later this year.

[helloworld]

Easy Buster is dying a slow death.
I did do an update not so long ago, and will probably do another later this year.

Easy bulleyes OS has started,that's a good news .Couldnt wait to get it's first release.Incidentally ,that fearture of totally running in RAM is awesome.

[BologneChe]

Easy Buster is dying a slow death.
I did do an update not so long ago, and will probably do another later this year.

I still admire your work! Can't wait to see this one

[mikewalsh]

@helloworld :-

The simple fact of the matter is, no developer on the planet is going to continue to support every single OS ever produced ad infinitum. It's just not practical, and any given OS is merely a platform to run software applications anyway.....NOT an end in itself.

Furthermore, do bear in mind that whatever the OS developer decides to do, other developers will continue to develop for newer platforms, full steam ahead. It simply makes sense to build/maintain newer OSs that will support that newer software for as long as possible.

It may not be what you want to hear, but life seldom runs like that. As I've just pointed out to someone else in another thread, if you take the trouble to set up your personal data external to Puppy, and run as many apps as possible in 'portable' format, Puppy (and Puppy-related) upgrades are pretty painless, TBH.

And if you automate as much of it as you can, via scripting & sym-linking, it CAN be quite quick as well.....

Mike.

[8Geee]

Mike, I would agree with about 95% of what you wrote, but the developers are avoiding (like the plague) using a LTS kernel that can be patched or updated through kernel org. 4.19 can be upgraded to the security level/bug-fix of a 5.12. At some point end-users have-what-they-have. Bleeding edge minority aside, there really isn't a need for the latest/greatest. All the world IS NOT an Apple iPhone!

Regards
8Geee