Canonical Extending Ubuntu 14.04/16.04 LTS Support To Ten Years

[sophisticles]

Like most things Linux related, this decision, and the Linux apologists that have advocated for this in this thread, doesn't make any sense.

Then again Ubuntu's release model has never made sense to me, and I used Ubuntu as my primary OS for years but there was always something nonsensical about the releases.

Just comparing LTS to LTS and non-LTS to non-LTS, there is very little difference between one release and the next, other than updated software. Because of this I never understood the point of LTS and non-LTS.

I also read some of the excused given in this thread about systems that are old and never upgraded and in some cases not even internet facing but if a system is not connected to the internet it's not vulnerable and doesn't need updating and any case it can't be updated since it's not connected to the internet.

Clearly Canonical needs to change how they do things, as Michael reported in the below article, in 2019 Canonical took in 119 million dollars but there operating loses were 2 million dollars, meaning they spent 2 million more than they took in:

https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Canonical-Report-FY2019

They need to change how they do things, their "business" model is absurd.

[Sesivany]

Canonical, Red Hat (IBM), Orable, SUSE are only backporting a subset of security fixes for a small subset of core Ubuntu / RHEL / OEL / SLE(S|D) packages.

This is not true at least for Red Hat. Red Hat backport security fixes from moderate impact up in all packages for entire 10 years. Only in the extended support (additional 3 years) it's limited to just a subset of packages and important/critical CVEs.

[Sonadow]

Like most things Linux related, this decision, and the Linux apologists that have advocated for this in this thread, doesn't make any sense.

Then again Ubuntu's release model has never made sense to me, and I used Ubuntu as my primary OS for years but there was always something nonsensical about the releases.

Just comparing LTS to LTS and non-LTS to non-LTS, there is very little difference between one release and the next, other than updated software. Because of this I never understood the point of LTS and non-LTS.

The same can be said of any distribution that releases on a 6-month schedule.

There is nothing to stop anybody from declaring Fedora 34 as an LTS and using it for five years, skipping everything until Fedora 44 and then declaring that as the next LTS.

[sophisticles]

You're right, that's why Red Hat is almost bankrupt now with their 10-year support policy………

Do you know how Red Hat makes money? IBM owns them:

https://www.softwareone.com/en/blog/all-articles/2020/11/04/ibm-acquires-red-hat

https://techcrunch.com/2018/10/28/ibm-to-buy-red-hat-for-34b-in-cash-and-debt-taking-a-bigger-leap-into-hybrid-cloud/

https://www.linuxandubuntu.com/home/red-hat-an-open-source-software-company-sold

https://www.redhat.com/en/partners/microsoft

Before IBM bought them Microsoft and Red Hat had "partnered" together for cloud computing.

And about 20 years ago, when Microsoft was fighting and anti-trust lawsuit from the Department of Justice, they gave Red Hat a billion dollars:

https://www.crn.com/news/channel-programs/18818849/microsoft-grills-red-hat-exec-in-antitrust-case.htm

Red Hat also copied Microsoft's certification program, just like MS was offering MCSE certs 20+ years ago and today offers a bunch more:

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/learn/certifications/

Red Hat copied them in the early 2000's, when they spun off Fedora and started offering Red Hat certs:

https://www.redhat.com/en/services/certifications

Red Hat owes its income stream to Microsoft, big time.

[sophisticles]

The same thing can be said of any distribution that releases on a 6-month schedule.

I can declare Fedora 34 as my own LTS and use it for five years, skipping everything until Fedora 44 and then declaring it as my next LTS.

You're right, i never understood the point of any 6 month release schedule other than to make it look like the developers are actually doing something.

[hwertz]

Just comparing LTS to LTS and non-LTS to non-LTS, there is very little difference between one release and the next, other than updated software. Because of this I never understood the point of LTS and non-LTS.

This is the point, supporting LTS releases they are supporting (now that 14.04/16.04 are extended) 4 versions; they have released 16 releases in that time (more or less, it's one every 6 months instead of 2 years, I didn't actually count so I may be off by 1 or 2.) In general, I've found the LTS releases to be quite stable; the non-LTS is *usually* quite stable, but the non-LTS is when they'll decide to big internal changes (changing from init to upstart to ..ugh.. systemd, switch to wayland would be done during non-LTS, if there's some package where they made a breaking change that'll be changed during non-LTS, and so on.) They do make rolling release distros if you just want to continuously update.

That said... *shrug*. If you have a machine that's basically running as an appliance, I think it's totally reasonable to keep running the same software on it, and (if you're a company with the cash for it) pay for extended support for it. Old Linux is not like old Windows, it's not going to have a bunch of unncessary ports open, respond oddly to broadcast messages etc., like some old XP system. And I think it's reasonable for Canonical to backport security fixes to the older versions of the base packages. I'm quite sure this is a case where the cost of backporting is low, and if they have any significant number of customers on extended support it could easily be profitable.

Don't get me wrong, they *should* just go ahead and move their software to 20.04, depending on what it is it may well just run out of the box anyway. And, if they've got some spaghetti-monster running on 14.04, it's REALLY time to find out if it really requires obsolete PHP, Python, PostgreSQL, MySQL, etc., and if so figure out how to bring it up to date. But this gives them breathing room while they do so.

[skeevy420]

I also read some of the excused given in this thread about systems that are old and never upgraded and in some cases not even internet facing but if a system is not connected to the internet it's not vulnerable and doesn't need updating and any case it can't be updated since it's not connected to the internet.

Updating is to cover their assess legally. If they're running up-to-date software and something bad happens, well, they tried and trying is all the courts want. If they're running the same software from day one it shows that they're not even trying and it makes them more blameable if something does goes wrong like being hacked. LTS allows them to run the same software from day one while still being up-to-date in regards to security.

In a business setting you don't necessarily need the latest and greatest to do your job. You just need what you use for work to work reliably without the random downtime that consumer orientated operating systems like Windows, Arch Linux, or macOS may bring. On a good (paid) Red Hat or Ubuntu LTS install you don't even need to reboot to update the kernel for security concerns...you just keep on keepin on with next to no downtime.

Always running in a legally compliant manner is peace-of-mind for businesses. What Ubuntu needs to do is combine Zsys with online upgrades and downgrades. Figure out how to take a ZFS snapshot, update that, migrate all running services to the updated snapshot, and then figure out an undo button...a way to switch to the previously running snapshot without going off-line. Always online, legally compliant, ability to rollback in case some shit happens, and all on an industry leading file system.

[Sonadow]

This is the point, supporting LTS releases they are supporting (now that 14.04/16.04 are extended) 4 versions; they have released 16 releases in that time (more or less, it's one every 6 months instead of 2 years, I didn't actually count so I may be off by 1 or 2.) In general, I've found the LTS releases to be quite stable; the non-LTS is *usually* quite stable, but the non-LTS is when they'll decide to big internal changes (changing from init to upstart to ..ugh.. systemd, switch to wayland would be done during non-LTS, if there's some package where they made a breaking change that'll be changed during non-LTS, and so on.) They do make rolling release distros if you just want to continuously update.

That said... *shrug*. If you have a machine that's basically running as an appliance, I think it's totally reasonable to keep running the same software on it, and (if you're a company with the cash for it) pay for extended support for it. Old Linux is not like old Windows, it's not going to have a bunch of unncessary ports open, respond oddly to broadcast messages etc., like some old XP system. And I think it's reasonable for Canonical to backport security fixes to the older versions of the base packages. I'm quite sure this is a case where the cost of backporting is low, and if they have any significant number of customers on extended support it could easily be profitable.

Don't get me wrong, they *should* just go ahead and move their software to 20.04, depending on what it is it may well just run out of the box anyway. And, if they've got some spaghetti-monster running on 14.04, it's REALLY time to find out if it really requires obsolete PHP, Python, PostgreSQL, MySQL, etc., and if so figure out how to bring it up to date. But this gives them breathing room while they do so.

Updating is to cover their assess legally. If they're running up-to-date software and something bad happens, well, they tried and trying is all the courts want. If they're running the same software from day one it shows that they're not even trying and it makes them more blameable if something does goes wrong like being hacked. LTS allows them to run the same software from day one while still being up-to-date in regards to security.

In a business setting you don't necessarily need the latest and greatest to do your job. You just need what you use for work to work reliably without the random downtime that consumer orientated operating systems like Windows, Arch Linux, or macOS may bring. On a good (paid) Red Hat or Ubuntu LTS install you don't even need to reboot to update the kernel for security concerns...you just keep on keepin on with next to no downtime.

Always running in a legally compliant manner is peace-of-mind for businesses. What Ubuntu needs to do is combine Zsys with online upgrades and downgrades. Figure out how to take a ZFS snapshot, update that, migrate all running services to the updated snapshot, and then figure out an undo button...a way to switch to the previously running snapshot without going off-line. Always online, legally compliant, ability to rollback in case some shit happens, and all on an industry leading file system.

And why the hell would a computer completely disconnected from the network ever need to be updated?

[skeevy420]

This is the point, supporting LTS releases they are supporting (now that 14.04/16.04 are extended) 4 versions; they have released 16 releases in that time (more or less, it's one every 6 months instead of 2 years, I didn't actually count so I may be off by 1 or 2.) In general, I've found the LTS releases to be quite stable; the non-LTS is *usually* quite stable, but the non-LTS is when they'll decide to big internal changes (changing from init to upstart to ..ugh.. systemd, switch to wayland would be done during non-LTS, if there's some package where they made a breaking change that'll be changed during non-LTS, and so on.) They do make rolling release distros if you just want to continuously update.

That said... *shrug*. If you have a machine that's basically running as an appliance, I think it's totally reasonable to keep running the same software on it, and (if you're a company with the cash for it) pay for extended support for it. Old Linux is not like old Windows, it's not going to have a bunch of unncessary ports open, respond oddly to broadcast messages etc., like some old XP system. And I think it's reasonable for Canonical to backport security fixes to the older versions of the base packages. I'm quite sure this is a case where the cost of backporting is low, and if they have any significant number of customers on extended support it could easily be profitable.

Don't get me wrong, they *should* just go ahead and move their software to 20.04, depending on what it is it may well just run out of the box anyway. And, if they've got some spaghetti-monster running on 14.04, it's REALLY time to find out if it really requires obsolete PHP, Python, PostgreSQL, MySQL, etc., and if so figure out how to bring it up to date. But this gives them breathing room while they do so.

That assumes that software speed is proportional to factory output. If they're running something at a continuous rate (automated welding, 3d printing, etc), updating the software or computer won't magically make the hydraulics lift more weight or allow the wire welder to run 30% faster. That's where "cover my ass legally" LTS comes into play.

[cynic]

Exactly. This literally means they have to backport security fixes for it. Sure they won't get new software or features, but it is specifically for security patches. Not sure why the other guys aren't getting that :P

I believe that those who don't undertand the value of LTS are too young to ever have worked in the industry!