Linux Kernel LTS cut from 6 years to 2 years

[kc1di]

The Linux Kernel team announced that it cutting the LTS Kernel support from 6 to 2 years.

Long-term support for Linux kernel to be cut as maintainence remains under strain

The Open Source Summit provides an update on what's new in the Linux kernel and where it's going from here.

www.zdnet.com

 

[Terminal Velocity]

How that affects the end users like me? Debian maintaining team upgrades kernel once in awhile so this doesn't seem to bothering normal users

 

[Brickwizard]

I don't see a problem, with most popular distributions Kernel upgrades are quite painless.

 

[KGIII]

Stable kernels continue to get updates. The whole point of them is that those are non-breaking updates.

The point of LTS is a consistent experience. There are no new features added - and none are changed.

I suspect it's a manpower issue, but I'm not sure that this is a good decision. I'm a pretty big LTS fan.

 

[kc1di]

How this will affect end users at this point is unknow. ubuntu for instance modifies the kernels it uses and have used non LTS kernels in the past and updated them themselves. So time will tell. The immediate problem will be some servers still using 4.14 LTS kernels and other LTS kerenels. They may have to upgrade quicker than they would like.
Look forward to seeing how it all shakes out.

 

[KGIII]

Look forward to seeing how it all shakes out.

They also have the ability to reverse this decision. I suspect we could go through the kernel mailing list to see what the various arguments were in detail. I'll just wait and see what happens.

There's a big difference between applying a few custom changes to the kernel and maintaining it yourself. So, as you say, we'll just have to wait and see.

 

[dos2unix]

Most Linux'ers I know use Rolling releases, so it doesn't affect them. But I do wonder...
if this is partially in response to Redhat no longer making updates freely available.

I suspect Redhat installs have the most old kernels still in use.
I know vendors like Redhat just take the kernel code and re-compile it themselves from time
to time ( with the new bug fixes, and security patches, etc... ) but now this puts the pressure
to do this on the vendors, not the kernel devs.

 

[KGIII]

Most Linux'ers I know use Rolling releases, so it doesn't affect them.

If we go by this forum, I suspect the numbers skew to stable releases (not LTS, but Debian, Mint, Ubuntu, etc...) and not the rolling release stuff.

But I do wonder...
if this is partially in response to Redhat no longer making updates freely available.

I'd like to hope the kernel devs are above tit for tat, but you could be correct. One of us should root through the LKML. I used to subscribe but I stopped that subscription going on a decade ago. (I think...)

 

[kc1di]

This is Linux Jurnel's take on it.
And it pretty much states the same thing it's maintainer's or Lack of them that has caused the problem.

Linux Kernel Faces Reduction in Long-Term Support Due to Maintenance Challenges | Linux Journal

www.linuxjournal.com

I think talk of a tit for tat here is not the problem.

 

[KGIII]

And it pretty much states the same thing it's maintainer's or Lack of them that has caused the problem.

That was what I figured. I didn't think it'd be anything conspiratorial in nature, just a matter of people power.

There's more glory in adding new code to the kernel than there is maintaining old kernels.

 

[wizardfromoz]

The immediate problem will be some servers still using 4.14 LTS kernels and other LTS kerenels. They may have to upgrade quicker than they would like.

4.14 users have until New Year's Day coming, and that marks a little over 6 years in operation, so it is not like they have not got value out of it.

A useful reference for both home users and business can be found here, updated yesterday.

https://endoflife.date/linux

Cheers

Wiz

 

[bob466]

This doesn't bother me at all...as long as everything works...I'm also now using a Nvidia Graphics Card and haven't had problems with new Kernels...anyway if I did there's always Timeshift.

 

[vs2-free-users]

The Linux Kernel team announced that it cutting the LTS Kernel support from 6 to 2 years.

WTF -.- lts and 2 years this is a bad dream and not real or?

 

[dos2unix]

If we go by this forum, I suspect the numbers skew to stable releases (not LTS, but Debian, Mint, Ubuntu, etc...) and not the rolling release stuff.

It's kind of funny what different people consider LTS.

Rolling distro's like Arch and Fedora, yeah they change Kernels every week.
On the other end of the spectrum, we have Redhat and CentOS servers that are
still running 3.x and 4.x kernels from 10 or 12 years ago.

So in the over-all scheme of things, A distro that has a new release every 6 months or so,
seems closer to rolling than LTS. Now of course everyone doesn't always run the latest and
greatest release, but it seems very few people don't upgrade every year or two.

So still, from a certain perspective, they are closer to rolling than LTS.

 

[KGIII]

So still, from a certain perspective, they are closer to rolling than LTS.

Yeah, it's a rather arbitrary choice of verbiage.

My preference is less arbitrary, which is LTS. Albeit there's still the definition of 'long' that could be debated.

These days, you can just upgrade from version to version, without really needing to do a new install. So, the lines are even more blurred.

A good stable release should, for the most part, contain stable software - that is no major upgrades to new point releases - a consistent interface. That instance is then supported for a longer period of time, as opposed to a constantly (or potentially so) changing interface that keeps people on the newest versions of software.

But, it's definitely a blurry line these days.

 

[Alexzee]

After recently beginning to learn some of the basic's to write code, I can appreciate what the kernel maintainers and dev's do.
Burn out is no fun at all.
Very good article, kc1di!-

Like KGIII, the LTS is favorable in my court however; not all Linux users are going to be happy if they have to perform fresh installations every 2 years.
I'm in favor of withdrawing from the decision if applicable.

 

[KGIII]

Like KGIII, the LTS is favorable in my court however; not all Linux users are going to be happy if they have to perform fresh installations every 2 years.

Fortunately, that's not needed these days. Usually...

The SSD that just died recently had at least two LTS versions on it - without a clean install. It probably (I'm not quite sure of the age) could have had 3 LTS versions on it (over time) but the upgrade from Lubuntu 18.04 to 20.04 was a major upgrade that moved to a completely new DE. So, it got a clean install for that.

I could have done the regular upgrade path without a clean install, but that botched one system and I didn't want to deal with it. It was faster to just do a clean install.

Linux has come a long way! Well, the various distros have come a long way!

 

[jpnilson]

For an individual this may be meaningless. If you are a medium to large size business you are adding cost. Its not just about the action of preforming an update. Security vetting , software integrations and hardware planning are all affected by such decisions. In the end all will adapt but it is important to understand such decisions are far from trivial