7 ms·

Linux 6.1 Officially Promoted to Being an LTS Kernel

167 points by 0xDEF 4y ago

AstixAndBelix 4y ago
Why don't Linux devs give different labels to the LTS releases? Somehow a kernel version that gets supported for 7 years is the same kind of LTS as one that gets supported for 3.
- capableweb 4y ago
  They do, they label it LTS :) It seems they don't know beforehand which releases will be labeled LTS though, it happens after the release itself. > eg KH was planning on Linux 6.1 being LTS given its December debut. But he was waiting on feedback from kernel stakeholders over their test results with Linux 6.1 and plans around using Linux 6.1 for the long-term. He's finally collected enough positive responses -- along with co-maintainer Sasha Levin -- that there is confidence in maintaining Linux 6.1 as an LTS series.
  - AstixAndBelix 4y ago
    That's not what I'm saying. There is a huge difference between a release that gets updates for basically a decade and one that gets updates for less than an Android phone's cycle. Why can't they call them Really Long Term Release or somethinf like that?
    - orangepurple 4y ago
      Because it sounds like the designation is negotiated with many parties simultaneously and there is a lot of uncertainty in the process. It seems that once a critical mass of supporters pledge to maintain the branch for a while it becomes designated LTS. You can't force anyone to maintain it for a really long time so they won't commit to a timeline. I am speculating this is why.
    - nazgulsenpai 4y ago
      Linux kernel actually does have a SLTS designation for super long term release. https://wiki.linuxfoundation.org/civilinfrastructureplatform/cipkernelmaintenance https://wiki.linuxfoundation.org/civilinfrastructureplatform...
    - pavon 4y ago
      When it comes down to it, it is the distros (including Android) that decide which kernel versions they are going to use and for how long. Upstream doesn't always know this in advance, and only have limited influence in nudging distros to use certain kernels, since the big distros do their own patching and backporting anyway. There is no point for upstream to continue to support a kernel for 10 years if no one is actually using it 3 years later. So instead they give an initial support window, and extend it if the kernel becomes popular and no serious maintenance issues are discovered.
  - jmclnx 4y ago
    > It seems they don't know beforehand which releases will be labeled LTS though, it happens after the release itself. This I do not understand. I think for commercial reasons it would be good to know: * The next LTS * Its actual real "Life Time" well before its release. I think this will help commercial entities and some distros in their planning (maybe even the distro I prefer). Right now it seems rather random. But with that said, years ago, I heard some kernel developers would like to stop having LTS kernels. I wonder if these somewhat unplanned LTS announcements is one of the reasons for that thought. To me, if they cannot have a formal planning process, maybe better not to have any LTS kernels.
    - LoganDark 4y ago
      LTS has never meant "life time support", it means "long term support". "long term" means more than usual. LTS versions stay supported for some years when other versions are only supported until the next version comes out.
capableweb 4y ago
Because everyone loooves Rust, you'd be glad to know that this is the first Linux release with initial Rust support, so Rust is officially in the kernel now and will run on bunch of computers shortly, no matter if you want it to or not (granted you run a Linux kernel of course). > Among the key highlights for Linux 6.1 are the initial Rust infrastructure has been merged https://www.phoronix.com/review/linux-61-features https://www.phoronix.com/review/linux-61-features
- nequo 4y ago
  > Rust is officially in the kernel now and will run on bunch of computers shortly, no matter if you want it to or not To me as a user, what difference does it make if the binary that I run was compiled from Rust, not from C? It is machine code.
  - biorach 4y ago
    As a user of the kernel, none, right now. Long term there should be some improvement in reliability and security, if things work out as planned.
    - jjnoakes 4y ago
      I also think it will bring faster development and easier testing.
      - howinteresting 4y ago
        And a new generation of developers who have found C too intimidating to write code in.
        jacobr1 4y ago
        I don't think that is the problem. Rather it turns out everybody has been naive in thinking you can actually successfully manage memory, or other shared resourced in C without footgunning yourself.
AlexAltea 4y ago
Silly question: if Linux kernel interfaces e.g. syscalls are stable, why is there a need to create an LTS release? How can non-LTS updates affect differently than updates within the LTS branch?
- jxy 4y ago
  LTS is a promise that the devs will break less things.
- megous 4y ago
  There's no such need for regular users. I upgrade to linus/master branch regularly since ~4.4, and there's no API breakage, aside from regressions (expected for -rc* kernels, I think) or very obscure stuff like media pipelines changing shape and whatnot.
  - mort96 4y ago
    Are you kidding? If you're on slightly unusual or esoteric hardware, the chance that something about your system breaks after a kernel upgrade is not insignificant. The chance is much lower when upgrading from one LTS point release to another.
    - megous 4y ago
      Why would I be kidding? Userspace ABI doesn't break much at all. Unbootalbe system is also quite rare. Obscure drivers may break, but I just fix them or wait a bit if I don't have time, that's why I run rc kernels, afterall. But that's not an ABI break.
      - mort96 4y ago
        I wasn't disputing your userspace ABI thing. But you said "There's no ... need [to run an LTS kernel] for regular users". Regular users like their hardware not to break, which means LTS kernels are useful. If everything is working for you, and you don't need any features or enhancements from a newer kernel, it's totally reasonable for a normal user to not want to risk frequent kernel upgrades.
RDaneel0livaw 4y ago
I'm running an up to date Manjaro system, and although I have kernel 6.1.9-1 available as an option, it's not installed and it's not listed as LTS nor is it "recommended". Does this mean that'll change soon with an update, and I should start running this kernel?
- Shared404 4y ago
  You may want to move away from Manjaro in general[0], but I would advise against doing anything that the OS doesn't expect you to do - so I'd wait for an update. [0] https://github.com/arindas/manjarno https://github.com/arindas/manjarno . EndeavorOS seems like a pretty good "Arch but easy" distro these days, and maybe Manjaro's improved since the last time I ran it (a few years ago now)
  - RDaneel0livaw 4y ago
    Thanks for the info, and the link. I will read it over. I'm thinking I'll probably move back to PopOS when they release their DE Cosmic. I used to run pop and loved it, but really wanted to try an arch distro. Endeavor looks great, but I'm not interested in anything "terminal centric" which is the first sentence on their site. But thanks for the suggestion!
    - phillnom 4y ago
      Manjaro w/ KDE was my daily driver OS for several years before I switched to EndeavourOS w/ KDE a few months ago. The only major difference between the two that makes EndeavourOS more "terminal centric" is that you have to use the CLIs pacman and yay for installing packages, as Pamac the GUI package manager is something Manjaro provides. That said, I highly recommend making the switch and think with some small adjustments, you'll feel right at home.
      - beebeepka 4y ago
        CLI-centric does not sound great for an HTPC, though. I think Manjaro is not bad choice for hassle free TV computers with modern hardware. It has much better hardware support than Ubuntu out of the box. Updates rarely break something other than Gnome (I find anything else incredibly hard to use on a TV) extensions. It does not get in the way and it rarely needs my attention. Yeah, it's a easy use. That's a major plus in my book. I really don't want to babysit my appliances.
e12e 4y ago
Anyone know if there are implications for Asahi Linux, especially on m2 macbook air? Judging from https://github.com/AsahiLinux/docs/wiki/Feature-Support https://github.com/AsahiLinux/docs/wiki/Feature-Support it looks like a lot of m1 stuff needs 6.2, and most of m2 is "edge" (which I suppose means might be mainline 6.3 at the earliest..)?
- NoahKAndrews 4y ago
  I don't think Asahi Linux will ever limit themselves to an LTS kernel. The whole point of it is specialized drivers that take time to get into a mainline release, nevermind the ongoing improvements and march of new hardware. I could see them eventually settling on stable kernels though.
e12e 4y ago
Any recent lists/posts on "top changes" between previous lts and 6.1?
billfruit 4y ago
Is the PremptRT path merged in to the Kernel mainline as of this version?

167 points by 0xDEF 4y ago

Why don't Linux devs give different labels to the LTS releases? Somehow a kernel version that gets supported for 7 years is the same kind of LTS as one that gets supported for 3.

capableweb 4y ago
They do, they label it LTS :) It seems they don't know beforehand which releases will be labeled LTS though, it happens after the release itself. > eg KH was planning on Linux 6.1 being LTS given its December debut. But he was waiting on feedback from kernel stakeholders over their test results with Linux 6.1 and plans around using Linux 6.1 for the long-term. He's finally collected enough positive responses -- along with co-maintainer Sasha Levin -- that there is confidence in maintaining Linux 6.1 as an LTS series.
- AstixAndBelix 4y ago
  That's not what I'm saying. There is a huge difference between a release that gets updates for basically a decade and one that gets updates for less than an Android phone's cycle. Why can't they call them Really Long Term Release or somethinf like that?
  - orangepurple 4y ago
    Because it sounds like the designation is negotiated with many parties simultaneously and there is a lot of uncertainty in the process. It seems that once a critical mass of supporters pledge to maintain the branch for a while it becomes designated LTS. You can't force anyone to maintain it for a really long time so they won't commit to a timeline. I am speculating this is why.
  - nazgulsenpai 4y ago
    Linux kernel actually does have a SLTS designation for super long term release. https://wiki.linuxfoundation.org/civilinfrastructureplatform/cipkernelmaintenance https://wiki.linuxfoundation.org/civilinfrastructureplatform...
  - pavon 4y ago
    When it comes down to it, it is the distros (including Android) that decide which kernel versions they are going to use and for how long. Upstream doesn't always know this in advance, and only have limited influence in nudging distros to use certain kernels, since the big distros do their own patching and backporting anyway. There is no point for upstream to continue to support a kernel for 10 years if no one is actually using it 3 years later. So instead they give an initial support window, and extend it if the kernel becomes popular and no serious maintenance issues are discovered.
- jmclnx 4y ago
  > It seems they don't know beforehand which releases will be labeled LTS though, it happens after the release itself. This I do not understand. I think for commercial reasons it would be good to know: * The next LTS * Its actual real "Life Time" well before its release. I think this will help commercial entities and some distros in their planning (maybe even the distro I prefer). Right now it seems rather random. But with that said, years ago, I heard some kernel developers would like to stop having LTS kernels. I wonder if these somewhat unplanned LTS announcements is one of the reasons for that thought. To me, if they cannot have a formal planning process, maybe better not to have any LTS kernels.
  - LoganDark 4y ago
    LTS has never meant "life time support", it means "long term support". "long term" means more than usual. LTS versions stay supported for some years when other versions are only supported until the next version comes out.

capableweb 4y ago

Because everyone loooves Rust, you'd be glad to know that this is the first Linux release with initial Rust support, so Rust is officially in the kernel now and will run on bunch of computers shortly, no matter if you want it to or not (granted you run a Linux kernel of course). > Among the key highlights for Linux 6.1 are the initial Rust infrastructure has been merged https://www.phoronix.com/review/linux-61-features https://www.phoronix.com/review/linux-61-features

nequo 4y ago
> Rust is officially in the kernel now and will run on bunch of computers shortly, no matter if you want it to or not To me as a user, what difference does it make if the binary that I run was compiled from Rust, not from C? It is machine code.
- biorach 4y ago
  As a user of the kernel, none, right now. Long term there should be some improvement in reliability and security, if things work out as planned.
  - jjnoakes 4y ago
    I also think it will bring faster development and easier testing.
    - howinteresting 4y ago
      And a new generation of developers who have found C too intimidating to write code in.
      - jacobr1 4y ago
        I don't think that is the problem. Rather it turns out everybody has been naive in thinking you can actually successfully manage memory, or other shared resourced in C without footgunning yourself.

AlexAltea 4y ago

Silly question: if Linux kernel interfaces e.g. syscalls are stable, why is there a need to create an LTS release? How can non-LTS updates affect differently than updates within the LTS branch?

jxy 4y ago
LTS is a promise that the devs will break less things.
megous 4y ago
There's no such need for regular users. I upgrade to linus/master branch regularly since ~4.4, and there's no API breakage, aside from regressions (expected for -rc* kernels, I think) or very obscure stuff like media pipelines changing shape and whatnot.
- mort96 4y ago
  Are you kidding? If you're on slightly unusual or esoteric hardware, the chance that something about your system breaks after a kernel upgrade is not insignificant. The chance is much lower when upgrading from one LTS point release to another.
  - megous 4y ago
    Why would I be kidding? Userspace ABI doesn't break much at all. Unbootalbe system is also quite rare. Obscure drivers may break, but I just fix them or wait a bit if I don't have time, that's why I run rc kernels, afterall. But that's not an ABI break.
    - mort96 4y ago
      I wasn't disputing your userspace ABI thing. But you said "There's no ... need [to run an LTS kernel] for regular users". Regular users like their hardware not to break, which means LTS kernels are useful. If everything is working for you, and you don't need any features or enhancements from a newer kernel, it's totally reasonable for a normal user to not want to risk frequent kernel upgrades.

RDaneel0livaw 4y ago

I'm running an up to date Manjaro system, and although I have kernel 6.1.9-1 available as an option, it's not installed and it's not listed as LTS nor is it "recommended". Does this mean that'll change soon with an update, and I should start running this kernel?

Shared404 4y ago
You may want to move away from Manjaro in general[0], but I would advise against doing anything that the OS doesn't expect you to do - so I'd wait for an update. [0] https://github.com/arindas/manjarno https://github.com/arindas/manjarno . EndeavorOS seems like a pretty good "Arch but easy" distro these days, and maybe Manjaro's improved since the last time I ran it (a few years ago now)
- RDaneel0livaw 4y ago
  Thanks for the info, and the link. I will read it over. I'm thinking I'll probably move back to PopOS when they release their DE Cosmic. I used to run pop and loved it, but really wanted to try an arch distro. Endeavor looks great, but I'm not interested in anything "terminal centric" which is the first sentence on their site. But thanks for the suggestion!
  - phillnom 4y ago
    Manjaro w/ KDE was my daily driver OS for several years before I switched to EndeavourOS w/ KDE a few months ago. The only major difference between the two that makes EndeavourOS more "terminal centric" is that you have to use the CLIs pacman and yay for installing packages, as Pamac the GUI package manager is something Manjaro provides. That said, I highly recommend making the switch and think with some small adjustments, you'll feel right at home.
    - beebeepka 4y ago
      CLI-centric does not sound great for an HTPC, though. I think Manjaro is not bad choice for hassle free TV computers with modern hardware. It has much better hardware support than Ubuntu out of the box. Updates rarely break something other than Gnome (I find anything else incredibly hard to use on a TV) extensions. It does not get in the way and it rarely needs my attention. Yeah, it's a easy use. That's a major plus in my book. I really don't want to babysit my appliances.

e12e 4y ago

Anyone know if there are implications for Asahi Linux, especially on m2 macbook air? Judging from https://github.com/AsahiLinux/docs/wiki/Feature-Support https://github.com/AsahiLinux/docs/wiki/Feature-Support it looks like a lot of m1 stuff needs 6.2, and most of m2 is "edge" (which I suppose means might be mainline 6.3 at the earliest..)?

NoahKAndrews 4y ago
I don't think Asahi Linux will ever limit themselves to an LTS kernel. The whole point of it is specialized drivers that take time to get into a mainline release, nevermind the ongoing improvements and march of new hardware. I could see them eventually settling on stable kernels though.

e12e 4y ago

Any recent lists/posts on "top changes" between previous lts and 6.1?

billfruit 4y ago

Is the PremptRT path merged in to the Kernel mainline as of this version?