I think this is part of the intent. Letting software get painfully out of date is something that wrecks code bases and companies, yet that's the way they natura

I think this is part of the intent. Letting software get painfully out of date is something that wrecks code bases and companies, yet that's the way they naturally want to operate. Since they've always operated that way they're not use to budgeting for the resource to continually stay up to date. I prefer to upgrade on a regular cadence and even think LTS is an anti-pattern. The regular cadence means upgrades are as small as possible when they do happen, and people experienced with upgrading are more present in the engineering team. The alternative is shit gets 5 years out of date and then 10 years out of date.