Nice
Ni.ce
no.ice.
EoL
released 10 weeks ago
Linux kernel any%
As there are LTS branches, currently 6.6 and 6.1, I don’t see the problem.
And the older they are the less secure they are. LTS are not as great as people think. https://ciq.com/blog/why-a-frozen-linux-kernel-isnt-the-safest-choice-for-security/
The article is about frozen vendor kernels, not about.LTS
Two different things. LTS kernels get security patches until their support is dropped.
Yeah that’s the whole point of LTS, so it stays compatible with that kernel version but still gets important updates, but no feature updates
These messages are damn useless
Distros take care of the kernel, either ship LTS releases or do the backports themselves. Only rolling release people run that kernel.
So this post is literally only useful for the 4 LFS users that now need to recompile their kernels.
You never have to update if you never connect to the internet.
Stuxnet would like a chat with you
Weren’t are nukes controlled by IBM series/1 systems and floppy discs until 2019. They said they upgraded to a highly secure solid state system. They might be still using those computers for some parts of the system because “You can’t hack something that doesn’t have an IP address. It’s a very unique system — it is old and it is very good.”
Arch people (and people using Arch derivatives) may also be stuck on 6.8. I believe some GPUs have issues with 6.9, so those users need to downgrade to the last LTS (6.6 I believe?) or risk instability.
Most Linux users aren’t affected, but plenty of people still are. Then again, they probably already knew.
Feels like Linux 4.20 wasn’t that long ago and we’re already at Linux 6.9? At this rate Sex 2 will release and it won’t even be exciting
It does feel that way, but…
“Linux 4.20 was released on Sun, 23 Dec 2018”
About 5.5 years.
(6.9-4.2)/(2024-2018) = 0.45 “version increments” per year.
4.2/(2018-1991) = 0.15 “version increments” per year.
So, the pace of version increases in the past 6 years has been around triple the average from the previous 27 years, since Linux’ first release.
I guess I can see why 6.9 would seem pretty dramatic for long-time Linux users.
I wonder whether development has actually accelerated, or if this is just a change in the approach to the release/versioning process.
I wonder if development has actually accelerated, or if this is just a change in the approach to the release/versioning process
Both.
Development has increased, but you should use your comparison from the last 2.6 release.
It stayed on 2.6.y for 8 years - that was where it got stable enough that there wasn’t some major milestone to use as a new marker for its update number
There are cool new features, but if it followed the old versioning scheme, we’d still be on 2.6 because it hasn’t (intentionally) broken the API between the kernel and userspace
Since version 4.0 the version numbers have nothing to do with changes and are strictly time based. Linux 5.0 happened after Linux 4.20 because Linus “ran out of hands and toes to count on”, same thing with 6.0 after 5.19
Wait. He lost a finger or toe???
Edit: more seriously it’s been since 3.0 after being on 2.6 forever
there are no special landmark features or incompatibilities related to the version number change, it’s simply a way to drop an inconvenient numbering system
It used to only get bumped after a major new feature update, but it was stable enough at 2.6 that it got stuck there for 8 years, so he switched to a different update number
We run production loads on 2.6 kernel. Please don’t ask questions.
Meanwhile Ubuntu:
Is there any particular reason this is news? I thought that’s how most kernel updates went for the non-LTS releases. Or has something changed? What’s different compared to all other kernel updates in rolling releases?
Are Linux kernel lifespans usually that short?
Yes, usual releases are supported ~ 3 months, LTS versions get support for a much longer period e.g. 6.6 for 3 y, 6.1 for 4 y, 5.15 for 5 y or 5.10 for 6 y.
