Ubuntu 20.04 LTS Likely To Ship With Linux 5.4 As Opposed To 5.5

[schmidtbag]

That being regular releases they have much more leeway in how much testing components need before they can be freely used. LTS releases are what you go for when you want the absolute minimum amount of problems and moving to Linux is already as intimidating as it is for newcomers so a friendly minimum problem release absolutely has a use case.

I don't think you understood what I was asking but this argument is already getting futile enough as it is.

Here in Finland we have an expression "Sanoa kaiken mikä sylki suuhun tuo" which applies pretty well to you. The literal translation is "Say everything that your spit brings into your mouth" and means someone who says everything that springs to their mind, no matter how badly thought out, expressed or stupid it is.

How ironic, considering how little you seem to understand what we're talking about here. It's really not a hard concept to grasp yet you just keep parroting the same crap over and over and diverging the discussion to something off-topic.
I don't know how many times I have to tell you that I agree with you about what an LTS repo should be. Yet somehow, you keep thinking what I want is to meddle with it by using cutting-edge packages. It's as though the concept of multiple repos in parallel can't exist to you, and I find that mind boggling.

How many times do I have to tell you that it's a stupid idea as it inevitably undermines the point of an LTS release? Just the existence of this repo will draw in inexperienced users who shouldn't mix orange juice and laundry detergent like this and cause problems for them. Those people who have the necessary knowledge to be able to safely mix and match stuff can do so without that official repo.

You are so dense. How many times do I have to tell you it isn't supposed to undermine anything? I'm talking of an alternative repo maintained in parallel with the LTS one. Others here seem to understand this concept no problem. I don't know how to make it any clearer that the idea is one repo for LTS, and one "normal release" repo. This has been done by other distros. It's really not an unusual idea.

Thus not only would it cause completely unnecessary issues for beginners over-estimating their skills, it's pointless for those who have the skills to safely mix and match components that haven't been properly integration-tested like what's done with LTS releases.

Not when you have the user asked what they want to use during the installer, just like how people are asked if they want to enable repos for non-free software or backports.

You do realize that you don't have to drop every release as soon as the next one comes out? You can absolutely skip a release

Have you not been paying any attention at all? The whole reason we're having this discussion is because this Ubuntu 20.04 is effectively skipping a cutting-edge release, which is causing a problem for people who depend on newer kernels (and to remind you: I'm not the only one).
So no, not everyone "can absolutely skip a release".

The same user is also not prepared to just start pulling in non-standard versions of components like the kernel. There's just no overlap between the kind of people who should be pulling in cutting edge components and those for whom adding a PPA is too difficult. If it's too difficult to add a PPA then you just shouldn't be messing with the OS and pulling in cutting edge components that haven't been as heavily debugged as the ones that LTS releases ship with.

You're right - there is no overlap. That's my whole damn point that you somehow aren't grasping. There are people who depend on newer kernels but don't understand enough about how to get things going. The "short term" releases are stable enough for the average person and are easy to use. They offer recent firmware and drivers without the need of doing anything else. They're convenient and decently popular. So, for Ubuntu 20.04 to hold back on in-demand features with no simple alternative is a problem such such people, hence this entire discussion.

Yes and I don't understand how you can't seem to be able to realize that's not appropriate for an LTS release the generally low skill level of the average user of them.

Because, for the 100th time, that isn't what I'm saying. How are you not understanding that?

Yet you still keep replying and defending something that's just patently a stupid idea. LTS releases have specific intended use cases where cutting edge components just fit in, so to use them or make it easy for unskilled users to add them is going to undermine those use cases. The fact that you have to skip 1 out 4 releases because Canonical has a use case different to yours for that one release is hardly anything to complain about when the last version doesn't just magically go up in smoke or stop being supported as soon as the next release comes out.

Says the person who can't grasp the most simple of concepts... It's like I'm arguing with a parrot.

[L_A_G]

I don't know how many times I have to tell you that I agree with you about what an LTS repo should be. Yet somehow, you keep thinking what I want is to meddle with it by using cutting-edge packages. It's as though the concept of multiple repos in parallel can't exist to you, and I find that mind boggling.

How many times do I have to tell you that an LTS release should absolutely not have official repos that go directly against what an LTS release is for? There may be people like you and me who misuse LTS releases by doing this, but we do it at our own peril and are more skilled than the average user of LTS releases.

You are so dense. How many times do I have to tell you it isn't supposed to undermine anything? I'm talking of an alternative repo maintained in parallel with the LTS one. Others here seem to understand this concept no problem. I don't know how to make it any clearer that the idea is one repo for LTS, and one "normal release" repo. This has been done by other distros. It's really not an unusual idea.

Repeating something that's wrong over and over doesn't actually make it true. LTS releases have specific use cases and making it too easy for novice users, which are one of the primary users of LTS releases, to completely muck that up undeniably undermines that. If you want to use cutting edge components, then use the last non-LTS release which in this case is 19.10 which is less than 3 months old.

Not when you have the user asked what they want to use during the installer, just like how people are asked if they want to enable repos for non-free software or backports.

The problem with this is that assuming you're not an idiot or intentionally misusing an LTS release you made that choice before you ran the installer. What an LTS release is meant for is simply incompatible with the sort of releases of components you think Canonical should offer users of LTS releases.

Have you not been paying any attention at all? The whole reason we're having this discussion is because this Ubuntu 20.04 is effectively skipping a cutting-edge release, which is causing a problem for people who depend on newer kernels (and to remind you: I'm not the only one).

You do know that Canonical has used this release model for well over a decade? They're not skipping anything, it's their scheduled bi-yearly LTS release and for the next three it's back to non-LTS releases like the ones you like.

So no, not everyone "can absolutely skip a release".

You haven't made an argument as to why you can't just stick on 19.10 as it's still actively maintained and will continue to be maintained until 20.10 comes out.

You're right - there is no overlap. That's my whole damn point that you somehow aren't grasping. There are people who depend on newer kernels but don't understand enough about how to get things going. The "short term" releases are stable enough for the average person and are easy to use. They offer recent firmware and drivers without the need of doing anything else. They're convenient and decently popular. So, for Ubuntu 20.04 to hold back on in-demand features with no simple alternative is a problem such such people, hence this entire discussion.

If you know what you're doing and absolutely depend on newer kernels (i.e something that isn't backported into LTS by Canonical) you don't install an LTS release. You go for the latest non-LTS release, in this case 19.10, even if it's not absolutely the latest release as it's obviously going to provide the best support for whatever hardware you have that is too new or exotic to be included in an LTS release.

Says the person who can't grasp the most simple of concepts... It's like I'm arguing with a parrot.

Well look who's talking... I keep pointing out that LTS releases are meant for use cases that are simply incompatible with "cutting edge" repos and you keep trying to insist that they should maintain official repos that go directly against what an LTS release is for.

[schmidtbag]

How many times do I have to tell you that an LTS release should absolutely not have official repos that go directly against what an LTS release is for? There may be people like you and me who misuse LTS releases by doing this, but we do it at our own peril and are more skilled than the average user of LTS releases.

I'm not reading the rest of your post. Seriously, you easily have the worst reading comprehension of any user on Phoronix. No matter how many times I tell you I agree LTS shouldn't have repos going against the LTS one, you still somehow don't get it. Again: nobody else here is struggling with this concept, it's just you. This whole conversation could be seen like:
Me: This product normally comes in black, but this time it only comes in white. Why can't there be a black and a white model?
You: That would make it gray. People don't want gray.
Me: I didn't say make a gray model, I asked why there can't be 2 separate models.
You: Nobody wants gray models.

I don't know if there's some sort of language barrier for you, but if you honestly can't see how that analogy compared to our discussion, you're wasting my time.

[L_A_G]

...

How many times do I have to tell you that the non-LTS releases don't just go up in smoke when the next release comes out? 19.10 will still continue to be maintained until 20.10 comes out so you're still going to be covered even as they make that one release every two years that doesn't fit your use case. I also thought it was obvious that Canonical doesn't have the resources to do two releases at the same time, but apparently not.

Our argument here is more like this:

Canonical: [Announces the details on it's scheduled bi-yearly LTS release]
You: This doesn't fit my use when it totally should! They should make a non-LTS release too or allow you to de-LTS it with cutting edge packages!
Me: It doesn't fit your use case because it's not supposed to. The previous one, which will continue to be maintained, and the three ones after that will thou so no point complaining
You: But it doesn't fit my use case so it should be easy to change it so that it does!
Me: Changing it to fit your use will go against it's intended use. The previous one that does fit your use is still going to be maintained until the next one
You: But it's skipping a release that fits my use case and they shouldn't do it!
Me: Again, they're going still maintain the last version that fits your use case so you don't have to move to it
You: But it's not the latest release! I should always have the latest release!
Me: [Sighs]

Seriously, how the hell can you be this entitled? Are you an only child or something because you're sure acting like one.

[schmidtbag]

How many times do I have to tell you that the non-LTS releases don't just go up in smoke when the next release comes out? 19.10 will still continue to be maintained until 20.10 comes out so you're still going to be covered even as they make that one release every two years that doesn't fit your use case. I also thought it was obvious that Canonical doesn't have the resources to do two releases at the same time, but apparently not.

19.10 will still continue to be maintained but I highly doubt it will contain the packages that we would expect 20.04 to have if it weren't LTS.

Me: It doesn't fit your use case because it's not supposed to. The previous one, which will continue to be maintained, and the three ones after that will thou so no point complaining

Again: how are you not understanding this? What part of "one repo for LTS, one repo for cutting-edge" do you not understand? It's one model that comes in black, one model that comes in white. It's so goddamn simple yet you keep thinking there MUST be one version.

Me: Changing it to fit your use will go against it's intended use. The previous one that does fit your use is still going to be maintained until the next one

Nothing is being changed!!!! Holy crap, how are you this dense?
I am literally suggesting the LTS repo work as-is. Un-tampered with. Un-touched. Left as intended. No changes. Focused on stability. Get this concept through your black hole of a head.
There is no reason why an unrelated repo released in parallel can't be done.
There is no reason why you can't have both a black and a white model.

[L_A_G]

19.10 will still continue to be maintained but I highly doubt it will contain the packages that we would expect 20.04 to have if it weren't LTS.

It may not have the absolute cutting edge packages, but it'll be current enough that if you genuinely need packages that new you're much better served by distros like Arch. It's not going away and it'll continue to get new versions particularly of kernels, which is the one component you mentioned that you couldn't deal with being a few months old.

Again: how are you not understanding this? What part of "one repo for LTS, one repo for cutting-edge" do you not understand? It's one model that comes in black, one model that comes in white. It's so goddamn simple yet you keep thinking there MUST be one version.

How many times do I have to tell you that putting that there and making it too easy to access will cause people who shouldn't toy with it to do just that. It's not even like you absolutely need two releases when the previous one from last October is still being actively maintained will continue to do so until the next non-LTS release.

Nothing is being changed!!!! Holy crap, how are you this dense?

When you add things you are by definition changing things and in this instance that addition goes against the very purpose of the thing you want to add it to.

There is no reason why an unrelated repo released in parallel can't be done.
There is no reason why you can't have both a black and a white model.

You do know that releases don't just magically come into existence and maintenance doesn't take care of itself? You don't just push whatever the latest version of a component into the official repo willy-nilly. Particularly with LTS releases you have to do proper integration testing to find any issues that new version and other components may run into. The release model Canonical has followed for over a decade has made it abundantly clear that they don't have the resources to put together and test two upcoming releases with very different intended use cases at the same time.

All you're doing is moaning that the latest version isn't being maintained for your particular use case while the previous version, suited for your particular use case, is both up-to-date and being maintained until the next release, which again will be one suited for your use case. The fact that something doesn't have the latest version number on it doesn't mean that it's horribly out of date. Your insistence on having the release with the latest version number on it regardless of what it's meant just reeks of entitlement.

In other words you're demanding Canonical put a whole lot of work into something which is objectively a waste of time. All because you want to run the latest release as the previous one isn't good enough even if it does everything you need it to do. If this isn't entitled behavior then I don't know what is. Rejecting something that does everything you need because the version number isn't the latest and complaining that the one with the latest version number doesn't do what you want it to do out of the box.

[schmidtbag]

It may not have the absolute cutting edge packages, but it'll be current enough that if you genuinely need packages that new you're much better served by distros like Arch. It's not going away and it'll continue to get new versions particularly of kernels, which is the one component you mentioned that you couldn't deal with being a few months old.

Not for everyone, hence why people (again, not just me) are concerned.

How many times do I have to tell you that putting that there and making it too easy to access will cause people who shouldn't toy with it to do just that. It's not even like you absolutely need two releases when the previous one from last October is still being actively maintained will continue to do so until the next non-LTS release.

It's never been a problem for other distros that do this sort of thing.

When you add things you are by definition changing things and in this instance that addition goes against the very purpose of the thing you want to add it to.

Y'know, you'd be a lot less argumentative if you stopped inventing things that were never said. I said ALTERNATE repo. It's another repo, but functions separately and independently of the LTS one. It is maintained separately and independently of the LTS one. Basically, think of it as a separate distro but they're both called Ubuntu. One is LTS, one isn't. It's mind boggling how much I have to spell this out to you, and yet you still somehow don't get it. I don't know if you're just inept or so arrogant that you can't accept that black and white are 2 completely different things.

You do know that releases don't just magically come into existence and maintenance doesn't take care of itself?

You do know that Canonical has the resources for it, right? When Ubuntu 20.10 is released, that will be maintained in-parallel with 20.04. Your point is moot.

Your insistence on having the release with the latest version number on it regardless of what it's meant just reeks of entitlement.

As I said before, I don't care anywhere near as much as you think I do. The only reason we're still discussing this is because you're too dense to understand that 2 products can exist simultaneously to satisfy everyone's needs.

In other words you're demanding Canonical put a whole lot of work into something which is objectively a waste of time.

Objectivity requires empirical data. You have none. It's in your opinion that it is a waste of time, merely because it doesn't affect you. And you accuse me of being entitled, when there are other people in this very thread who want the same thing?

Rejecting something that does everything you need because the version number isn't the latest and complaining that the one with the latest version number doesn't do what you want it to do out of the box.

Such a thing doesn't actually exist. If it did, 19.10 would be sufficient. For some people, it is not.

[k1e0x]

Good grief.. 5.4 is three months old.

LTS is for servers and stability to compare it's competitor RHEL 8.1 ships with 4.18. Get a grip.. this is blind faith in featuritis, 5.4 will run 99% of your hardware just fine and I for one and happy they are shipping such a NEW kernel.

Sometimes you got to wonder how some of you use Linux but settle down, you want LTS to be stable and 5.4 if anything is too new but... I guess they think it qualifies so ok.

[starshipeleven]

LTS is for servers and stability to compare it's competitor RHEL 8.1 ships with 4.18.

The amount of backports on top of any RHEL kernel is kind of ridicolous. It's not really "4.18" anymore.