Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

LTS kernels are no longer supported for 6 years because no one used them

lunduke.locals.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 66 posts

Re: LTS kernels are no longer supported for 6 years because no one used them

#51

Post by senectus1 »

gregkh wrote: post #50
28304283409234 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The one does not discount the other. In other words: disregarding the lts misunderstanding it still appears true that the Linux foundation is abandoning Linux kernel development. At least financially. Worth a look I guess. Also: thank you for all your contributions to Linux for all these years!

The amount of resources and other stuff that the LF provides to the Linux kernel community has increased over the years, including last year. Just because new people are brought in with new projects (that the LF member companies want to host) does not mean that somehow less is being given to the kernel community at all. It is not a zero-sum game here at all, that's not how the LF works in any way. Again, this would h…

you cant keep up with the fire-hose of nonsense that is the internet. Don't try, its such a waste of your skills and appreciated efforts.

If it gets enough attention just put a simple refutation or clarification on the foundations front page and move on.

Re: LTS kernels are no longer supported for 6 years because no one used them

#52

Post by figmert »

alex_duf wrote: post #10
figmert wrote: post #8

This is weird. LF has spent less on Linux than everything else . LF has to deal with lots more than LF. Even based on the numbers this article mentions, LF spends close to a million a year on Linux. I don't understand what the aim is here.

a million is what, 10 engineers full time?

How many engineers do you think are actually managed by LF? From my understanding, the majority of engineers contributing to Linux are on the payroll of other companies like Google.

Re: LTS kernels are no longer supported for 6 years because no one used them

#53

Post by kakwa_ »

gregkh wrote: post #31

Did anyone think to actually ask the developer who is maintaining the LTS kernel versions why he made that change (back in February?), i.e. me? {sigh} No, I guess that would take too much effort, and wouldn't result in such a click-bait headline "LTS kernels are no longer supported for 6 years because it turns out no one used them." doesn't have that same fun sound...

> LTS kernels are no longer supported for 6 years because it turns out no one used them.

Looking quickly at Debian, old old stable (10) uses 4.19, old stable (11) 5.10, and stable (12) 6.1. All these versions are LTS kernels.

I don't think Debian uses LTS kernel branches as is, instead cherry picking patches, but it seems they do leverage LTS branches, at least to ease the back-porting I presume.

I'm probably missing something, and looking through the Debian mailing lists, I've not seen any discussion about the end of long term LTS kernels, but it seemed they did rely on it to a degree.

Maybe it was more of a nice to have, but from the outside (I'm neither a kernel or Debian maintainer), it leaves me a bit confused.

Re: LTS kernels are no longer supported for 6 years because no one used them

#54

Post by olodus »

nobodyandproud wrote: post #33
brnt wrote: post #5

Lunduke has been picking so many fights, I'm a bit lost as to whether I should pay attention or not. Sure, it doesn't seem great, but the Linux foundation putting money in other areas of the ecosystem is hardly a good point. Show us a real breakdown, instead of a gratuitous Linux kernel expenditure vs not-Linux kernel expenditure.

I approve of this fight-picking. It’s what journalists are meant to do. The Linux Foundatiom should an engineers-first organization. The leadership team breakdown shows me it’s full of MBAs specializing in “on a computer”.

I agree, Journalists should pick fights, but I would prefer if they built up their arguments a bit better than this.

I am one who is not familiar with the author previously, and from what he brings up I am highly inclined to agree with him, but I have to agree I became more sceptical to his arguments when all he brings up to support it is one very sparing data point (that graph feels very misleading). Give me data on how the kernel support has changed over time. Give me data on how the foundations income has changed over time. Not showing me any of this makes me very sceptical. Would showing this data not support the authors point?

Re: LTS kernels are no longer supported for 6 years because no one used them

#55

Post by oliwarner »

It's a real shame that Bryan so frequently leans on pissing people off to make a point. He has a wonderful voice, a keen, obvious and sustained interest in the community, but interacts with it like a shock-jock.

I guess it's working for him in the way he needs it to, but it feels like way too much drama.

Re: LTS kernels are no longer supported for 6 years because no one used them

#56

Post by akaij »

GTP wrote: post #46
gregkh wrote: post #31

Did anyone think to actually ask the developer who is maintaining the LTS kernel versions why he made that change (back in February?), i.e. me? {sigh} No, I guess that would take too much effort, and wouldn't result in such a click-bait headline "LTS kernels are no longer supported for 6 years because it turns out no one used them." doesn't have that same fun sound...

> LTS kernels are no longer supported for 6 years because it turns out no one used them I assumed companies use a lot of LTS software for servers to avoid frequent upgrades that always carry some chance of breaking stuff. Could you please elaborate more or link me to some place where I can read more about this?

If for-profit companies need to use older kernels, they can hire engineers using the profits?

Re: LTS kernels are no longer supported for 6 years because no one used them

#57

Post by GTP »

akaij wrote: post #56
GTP wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> LTS kernels are no longer supported for 6 years because it turns out no one used them I assumed companies use a lot of LTS software for servers to avoid frequent upgrades that always carry some chance of breaking stuff. Could you please elaborate more or link me to some place where I can read more about this?

If for-profit companies need to use older kernels, they can hire engineers using the profits?

Yes, they can. But it's different from saying that no-one uses them.

Re: LTS kernels are no longer supported for 6 years because no one used them

#58

Post by nobodyandproud »

dagw wrote: post #45
nobodyandproud wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I approve of this fight-picking. It’s what journalists are meant to do. The Linux Foundatiom should an engineers-first organization. The leadership team breakdown shows me it’s full of MBAs specializing in “on a computer”.

Do you see any value in MBAs that are able to 'sell' other MBAs on the importance and value of Linux and OSS?

Are you saying MBAs and sales only provide value if they’re in the position of leadership?

Re: LTS kernels are no longer supported for 6 years because no one used them

#59

Post by akaij »

GTP wrote: post #57
akaij wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If for-profit companies need to use older kernels, they can hire engineers using the profits?

Yes, they can. But it's different from saying that no-one uses them.

I'm sure the nuance is not lost on the people that made the decision.

Re: LTS kernels are no longer supported for 6 years because no one used them

#60

Post by M95D »

fotcorn wrote: post #12

I think this is really just a naming problem. The Apache Software Foundation was founded for the Apache webserver, but today they have hundreds of projects unrelated to that. The same is true for the Linux Foundation.

I would call this "foundation bloat".
Post reply on HN