Request: Can we get Ubuntu as an "official supported os"?

Hi @trentc, We acknowledge that certain devices lack driver or kernel support for Rocky Linux, and that having Ubuntu as an officially supported OS could mitigate these compatibility issues, particularly to avoid warnings during demonstrations. Our decision to standardize on Rocky Linux and the RHEL ecosystem is based on our commitment to providing a stable, reliable, and maintainable platform for enterprise environments. Rocky Linux offers a consistent environment with long-term support, which is essential for ensuring that all components of the UMH stack—such as HiveMQ, Benthos, Redpanda, Grafana, and TimescaleDB—operate seamlessly together. This consistency aids us in maintaining compliance standards, including ISO 27001, which we are currently pursuing. Supporting a defined set of operating system versions allows us to thoroughly test and validate updates, ensuring that upgrades do not introduce unexpected issues. Expanding official support to multiple operating systems increases the complexity of our testing and support efforts. Given the inherent complexity of the UMH, and considering that many manufacturing companies find the architecture challenging to build themselves, one of our main advantages is that manufacturers do not need to manage the infrastructure and only need to update the UMH. Each additional OS variant multiplies the combinations we need to validate, potentially stretching our resources thin and impacting the quality of support we provide. Regarding the warnings in the console during demonstrations, we understand that they can be distracting. We can explore options to suppress these warnings in non-production environments to improve the demonstration experience without officially adding Ubuntu to our supported OS list. Implementing a “development mode” that categorizes an instance differently and reduces emphasis on compliance checks, such as the operating system, is one possibility. What are your thoughts?

Yep i get it. The warning is also present on rocky, but in docker…. Because even though it recognizes the kernel, and it matches, it reports the os as unknown. How about offering a way to ignore the message, just put a button, or something in the information bubble next to it?

we already had a long discussion internally about ignoring messages, and we decided not to do it. But it will be difficult : who is responsible if someone ignores an error, which then leads to production outage. of course you could now blame the user, but in the end what management will hear is just "UMH broke" --> "UMH doesn't work reliably" I am thinking more about having a "development mode", which is not so struct about warnings, and a "production mode", which is tuned for reliability. for the docker issue I create a linear issue, this should be fixed

@Jermuk I respect the decision to not use an "ignore" function.... In this case, I believe it to be imperative to figure out how to handle nuisance messages like the k3s errors that pop up occasionally...this leads human behavior to just plain ignore the messages. My request for ignoring messages was so that If I acknowledge something as simple as an "unsupported os", then the indicator will be green....until there is a "real issue" to pay attention to. As it stands now....when I'm using docker, or those k3s errors come up....I just ignore the orange indicator.....so I wouldn't even pay attention if there was something else that was of "real concern".