[Toybox] Canonical Extending Ubuntu 14.04/16.04 LTS Support To Ten Years - Phoronix

[enh]

On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 6:36 AM Rob Landley <rob at landley.net> wrote:

> On 9/21/21 8:18 PM, enh via Toybox wrote:
> > Ironically I couldn't find a canonical source for this, but a couple of
> other
> > sites have a similar story (but different enough to make me think there
> really
> > is a Canonical press release doing the rounds).
>
>
> https://ubuntu.com/blog/ubuntu-14-04-and-16-04-lifecycle-extended-to-ten-years


...in which it's a bit clearer that this only applies to the paid "LTS ESM".


>
> >
> https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Ubuntu-14.04-16.04-Ten-Years&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Phoronix+%28Phoronix%29
> > <
> https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Ubuntu-14.04-16.04-Ten-Years&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Phoronix+%28Phoronix%29
> >
> >
> > TIL: Ubuntu LTS is 10 years, not 3.
>
> It was 5 when I moved off 14.04 (the last non-systemd version going out of
> support), but there was talk of moving it to 7?
>

yeah, i think my "3 years" is actually just a completely personal "it's two
years between LTS major releases, and i usually wait 6 months or so before
taking a major update", or alternatively "3 years is about when you start
to notice that you're missing options/your compiler is old enough to miss
something you've become accustomed to" :-)


> > I guess Ubuntu 14/16 are the new CentOSes...
>
> Chasing taillights. Only took 'em 8 years:
>
> https://access.redhat.com/articles/69646
>
> Sigh. I acknowledge the industry pressure for a big round number based on
> how
> many fingers salespeople have, the problem is if you're trying to gain a
> market
> advantage by advertising a longer support horizon than the competition
> it's not
> likely to STOP there.
>

does anyone that stuck in the mud even take the minor updates anyway?


> Luckily, I"m mostly programming against C99 and trying to implement
> Posix-2008
> so it's not a LARGE impact. Mostly it's things like the openat() system
> calls
> still being fleshed out in places.
>
> Meanwhile, "rust" is held to an entirely different standard:
>
> https://lwn.net/Articles/869557


well, the Linux kernel doesn't support any version for 10 years anyway.
that's what you're paying RedHat/Canonical for.


>
> And they're working hard to make sure you can't build a kernel without it:
>
> https://lwn.net/Articles/869145/
> https://lwn.net/Articles/869317/
> https://lwn.net/Articles/869428/
>
> Grumble grumble perl removal patches...
>
> Rob
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.landley.net/pipermail/toybox-landley.net/attachments/20210922/53a00b68/attachment-0001.htm>