On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 6:36 AM Rob Landley <[email protected]> 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 >
_______________________________________________ Toybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.landley.net/listinfo.cgi/toybox-landley.net
