Canonical Moves To Shipping Very Latest Upstream Kernel Code For Ubuntu Releases

[phoronix]

Phoronix: Canonical Moves To Shipping Very Latest Upstream Kernel Code For Ubuntu Releases

Following decisions like exploring -O3 package builds for Ubuntu Linux, another newly-announced change by Canonical I must applaud is their decision to commit to shipping the very latest upstream kernel code at release time...

https://www.phoronix.com/news/Ubuntu-Releases-Fresher-Kernels

[Ironmask]

It's almost like "stable" is an outright lie and really means "you're using old, outdated, insecure, buggy, unpatched code because we're too lazy to check if the latest version isn't more broken than this version".
Sanest thing Canonical has done ever since they killed Mir (display server, not the rebranded wayland compositor).

[timrichardson]

It also means that the promotion of the 24.10 kernel to 24.04.2 means 6.11 not 6.10, yay.

[TheMightyBuzzard]

It's almost like "stable" is an outright lie and really means "you're using old, outdated, insecure, buggy, unpatched code because we're too lazy to check if the latest version isn't more broken than this version".
Sanest thing Canonical has done ever since they killed Mir (display server, not the rebranded wayland compositor).

You do know they backport security fixes, yes? You're not less secure running an older LTS kernel, you're more secure and have a whole lot less shiny, new, undiscovered bugs to boot.

This is simply yet another reason to never, ever use anything put out by Canonical. Any sysadmin using Ubuntu going forward should be summarily fired and blackballed from the industry for life.

[tildearrow]

I personally wouldn't applaud such a move. Latest kernel is useful for testing, but often the first point releases of a minor version have more bugs and regressions.

[pWe00Iri3e7Z9lHOX2Qx]

This seems like it could end up with interesting results at times for their ZFS support. They could cherry pick compat changes before a new kernel version was officially supported by OpenZFS, but that doesn't seem ideal, especially when it's the default storage backend for LXD.

[johnny]

I personally wouldn't applaud such a move. Latest kernel is useful for testing, but often the first point releases of a major version have more bugs and regressions.

kernel major versions are bumped when linus thinks the number is getting too big, not because of any specific changes, so that is not the case.

[Sonadow]

You do know they backport security fixes, yes? You're not less secure running an older LTS kernel, you're more secure and have a whole lot less shiny, new, undiscovered bugs to boot.

This is simply yet another reason to never, ever use anything put out by Canonical. Any sysadmin using Ubuntu going forward should be summarily fired and blackballed from the industry for life.

That's not the sysadmin's problem, that's Canonical's problem. And if the company has an Ubuntu Pro subscription, the problem becomes 100% Canonical's. The sysadmin only needs to bitch to Canonical and wait for a resolution or workaround from them.

If anything, this will make Ubuntu more appealing for hardware vendors and OEMs, which in turn makes Ubuntu worth some consideration for companies when it's time to buy new work desktop computers, laptop computers or high-performance desktop workstations.

[tildearrow]

kernel major versions are bumped when linus thinks the number is getting too big, not because of any specific changes, so that is not the case.

I fixed my post.

[Gabbb]

You're not less secure running an older LTS kernel, you're more secure and have a whole lot less shiny

That is a rather controversial statement, I would argue that you are about equally secure, but it varies.