Linux 5.6 Is The Most Exciting Kernel In Years With So Many New Features

[andrewjoy]

The question is not "why no 5.6 in Ubuntu 20.04" the question is " why outside of server and special purpose appliances would anyone want to run LTS with a kernel that will be 2 years old by the time the next LTS comes out".

I am all for making sure software is tested and stable before its released to a product but LTS is too slow IMO.

[royce]

Yeah yeah. Explain to us, please, what is the benefit of using an LTS release if you resort to PPAs? You do realise, i think you are a smart guy, that this defeats the purpose of an LTS release, right?

Well, in the case of kernel upgrades, canonical do offer mainline kernels you can install, so it's not like these are coming from a dodgy source. They're raw though, without any of their patches or testing whatsoever. hwe will upgrade your kernel eventually to whatever the current non-lts version is.

[Weasel]

Yeah yeah. Explain to us, please, what is the benefit of using an LTS release if you resort to PPAs? You do realise, i think you are a smart guy, that this defeats the purpose of an LTS release, right?

Maybe because you can pick and choose PPAs only for the things you want updated like the kernel.

If I want to update just kernel or some drivers I don't fucking want other crap updated, broken, or have its UI changed or whatever. Just because of dependencies and shitty conflicts. Fuck rolling release.

[doublez13]

Yeah yeah. Explain to us, please, what is the benefit of using an LTS release if you resort to PPAs? You do realise, i think you are a smart guy, that this defeats the purpose of an LTS release, right?

It all depends on why they want/need to use an LTS release. As Danny3 said, he's using some software that requires an LTS version.

[bug77]

Maybe because you can pick and choose PPAs only for the things you want updated like the kernel.

If I want to update just kernel or some drivers I don't fucking want other crap updated, broken, or have its UI changed or whatever. Just because of dependencies and shitty conflicts. Fuck rolling release.

You're using an LTS release because it's been tested and it's guaranteed to be virtually hassle-free. The moment you add one PPA to the mix, that promise flies off the window. It does not mean things will stop working, but it means troubleshooting is now mostly on you. So yes, it does defeat the purpose.
On the bright side, between enterprise releases, LTS, regular and rolling distros, Linux covers just about anyone. You just have to pick the right distro for the job.

[Weasel]

You're using an LTS release because it's been tested and it's guaranteed to be virtually hassle-free.

No. I'm using a LTS release because I don't want to be forced to update one package (for security or whatever) and have a million dependencies be updated, screwing up the rest of the system (either functionally or aesthetically) when I want to keep all of it the same, except just that one thing I'm updating.

The moment you add one PPA to the mix, that promise flies off the window. It does not mean things will stop working, but it means troubleshooting is now mostly on you. So yes, it does defeat the purpose.

Well actually no since I couldn't care less about that promise in the first place.

Please read the first paragraph/sentence in the post you quoted for reference. That's really the only reason.

[bug77]

No. I'm using a LTS release because I don't want to be forced to update one package (for security or whatever) and have a million dependencies be updated, screwing up the rest of the system (either functionally or aesthetically) when I want to keep all of it the same, except just that one thing I'm updating.

Well actually no since I couldn't care less about that promise in the first place.

Please read the first paragraph/sentence in the post you quoted for reference. That's really the only reason.

Well, then you're doing it wrong.