Nut upsuser - Aug 2024 - APC BX ...MI series

On 20/08/2024 19:18, Greg Troxel wrote:
> Peter Bell<peter at bellfamily.org.uk> writes:
>
>> The problem I had with my BX950MI unit was that it was frequently
>> reporting off-line, on batt and often not responding to requests from
>> apcupsd (apcaccess) and then going back online again. However, the
>> warranty replacement was prompted by a failed battery, apparently
>> leaking acid, after around ten months use.? As a matter of interest, I
>> had a problem a few years ago with battery failure on another APC
>> (possibly a BX750 model?).? After two like-for-like warranty
>> replacements, APC supplied a Pro 1200, which worked for several years
>> before failing about three months ago.
>>
>> As luck would have it, my warranty exchange BX950MI was delivered just
>> an hour ago - apparently a brand new unit.? The previous unit
wouldn't
>> run for more than five minutes without throwing a 'wobbly', but
this
>> replacement has been running without issue for the last hour.? I am
>> tentatively optimistic that this unit is not exhibiting the erratic
>> behaviour, but I will continue to monitor it for a while.
>> The firmware version is identified as "295202G -302202G".
> Wow, that is really a lot of trouble and causes me concern about getting
> anything new from APC!
Indeed - my newest UPS purchase has been a CyberPower!? The best APC 
units have been my three CS650 units which, as far as I can discover, 
are no longer available.
>> If this replacement unit really is working correctly, I will no longer
>> be in need of adopting the updated NUT/driver - I will simply await
>> the regular release.
> In general, if running 3 year old software isn't ok -- which for NUT
and
> these especially it isn't (compared to GNU m4 where it is :-), then you
> will have to either use a packaging system that stays up to date, or
> build it yourself.  Debian, while my choice when runing GNU/Linux, does
> not keep things up to date.
>
> People running old versions is a recurring problem for an (unrelated)
> project that I maintain, and I've adopted a policy that bug reports may
> only be filed against the latest formal release or the current git
> master beyond the release.   I think ups-nut sort of has that in the
> issue tracker, but like my other project it's ok to ask for help on the
> list.  Still, the first answer is almost always "update to the latest
> release, at least".
Let's not get into distro wars - that can run for a long time!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://alioth-lists.debian.net/pipermail/nut-upsuser/attachments/20240820/c62fe88e/attachment.htm>

Peter Bell <peter at bellfamily.org.uk> writes:
> On 20/08/2024 19:18, Greg Troxel wrote:
>> People running old versions is a recurring problem for an (unrelated)
>> project that I maintain, and I've adopted a policy that bug reports
may
>> only be filed against the latest formal release or the current git
>> master beyond the release.   I think ups-nut sort of has that in the
>> issue tracker, but like my other project it's ok to ask for help on
the
>> list.  Still, the first answer is almost always "update to the
latest
>> release, at least".
> Let's not get into distro wars - that can run for a long time!
Sure, but I am saying something much simpler:

  You are welcome to run whatever you want.  But, when people ask for
  help I expect them to either:

    first ensure they are running the latest release, or

    direct their help request to the same people that provided them with
    old software.

I find that some people who choose things like RHEL expect Free Software
projects to

  accomodate their choices, and keep allowing the use of ancient
  dependencies provided with their system.

  provide debugging support for old versions of the open source project

and that's what I'm not ok with.