> So I suggest it is worth building the next version 5% slower and use the free 5% of resources to fix security issues in the last one. And by this, extending s

> So I suggest it is worth building the next version 5% slower and use the free 5% of resources to fix security issues in the last one. And by this, extending security fixes for the last version to 50 years. If we want to bring math into the conversation, then I don't think that would cut it, since supporting old releases is basically quadratic in terms of human effort. It's why distros ship LTS releases at a different cadence, which makes the problem less bad. But the costliness explodes if they do it for any longer than a few releases. It'd be fine if all the sticks in the mud could agree to use one specific old version, like RHEL5 and only RHEL5. But that's basically what projects like the BSDs are already doing, and they're awesome. I wish people who desire Linux to not change so rapidly were supporting the BSD folks instead, because they actually live up to preserving UNIX in a very authentic form.