8 ms·

LTS kernels are no longer supported for 6 years because no one used them

86 points by josteink 3y ago

tempaway52641 3y ago
Alas, that is the state of things. It's not even really up for debate. It just is what it is. Its not up for debate apparently
mintaka5 3y ago
is this for real? very concerning, and i'm curious as to why all these years they've decided to abandon it.
- dagw 3y ago
  The generous reading is that they see more value in focusing on projects that spreads and popularises Linux and makes it more ubiquitous in more areas, rather than on core Linux kernel development.
pjmlp 3y ago
I always find a kind of ironic that Linux Foundation is the home of Zephyr, an embedded OS that has nothing to do with Linux, other than being competition against Linux distributions for the embedded market. It isn't only Zephyr, also being the home of several other projects completly unrelated to the Linux kernel.
- duskwuff 3y ago
  > Zephyr, an embedded OS that has nothing to do with Linux, other than being competition against Linux distributions for the embedded market. Zephr isn't "competition against Linux". It primarily targets microcontrollers that Linux would have no hope of running on (e.g. parts with <1MB of memory).
  - pjmlp 3y ago
    It certainly is, given that it isn't the only target, if you bother to actually watch their talks, specially its license makes it much more appeling to OEMs than a GPL tainted kernel (from their point of view).
brnt 3y ago
Lunduke has been picking so many fights, I'm a bit lost as to whether I should pay attention or not. Sure, it doesn't seem great, but the Linux foundation putting money in other areas of the ecosystem is hardly a good point. Show us a real breakdown, instead of a gratuitous Linux kernel expenditure vs not-Linux kernel expenditure.
- errnoh 3y ago
  I'm not familiar with the author, but seems like they have quite identical post from 2021 as well: https://lunduke.substack.com/p/linux-foundation-spends-just-34-of https://lunduke.substack.com/p/linux-foundation-spends-just-...
- rvz 3y ago
  But the author and many others aren't wrong in highlighting this and have covered the LF issues for years. Given that is from a guy that cares a lot about how the Linux Kernel project is funded, that is very concerning. The first step in solving a problem is to identify that there is an inherent issue, which the author has done, but goes ignored by those who do not wish to care about the project.
- glandium 3y ago
  Last time I saw a post of his linked here, someone posted this link: https://old.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/muc18q/whats_the_deal_with_bryan_lunduke/ https://old.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/muc18q/whats_the_dea...
- nobodyandproud 3y ago
  I approve of this fight-picking. It’s what journalists are meant to do. The Linux Foundatiom should an engineers-first organization. The leadership team breakdown shows me it’s full of MBAs specializing in “on a computer”.
  - bananapub 3y ago
    > The Linux Foundatiom should an engineers-first organization. why? what do you feel it's purpose is? do you think the people who give it gobs of money agree with you?
brucethemoose2 3y ago
The 2022 report (which was not linke even though it was the source of this article) doesn't look so dramatic. The listed grievances look like small contributions alongside their main projects: https://project.linuxfoundation.org/hubfs/LF%20Research/2022%20Linux%20Foundation%20Annual%20Report.pdf?hsLang=en https://project.linuxfoundation.org/hubfs/LF%20Research/2022...
nolist_policy 3y ago
Sigh. Nobody cares about the upstream LTS kernel. All the LTS distros maintain their own downstream LTS kernel. Android too. There is no reason to duplicate that work upstream and then nobody uses it anyways. And by the way, LF founs the Civil infrastructure project which mantains LTS kernels for 10 years.[1] [1] https://wiki.linuxfoundation.org/civilinfrastructureplatform/start https://wiki.linuxfoundation.org/civilinfrastructureplatform...
- planede 3y ago
  > All the LTS distros maintain their own downstream LTS kernel. Debian definitely uses the upstream LTS for their base for their kernel on stable. They do add their own patches, but I don't think it's fair to say that they duplicate work here.
figmert 3y ago
This is weird. LF has spent less on Linux than everything else. LF has to deal with lots more than LF. Even based on the numbers this article mentions, LF spends close to a million a year on Linux. I don't understand what the aim is here.
- nolist_policy 3y ago
  Right? Linux is much more than just the kernel.
- alex_duf 3y ago
  a million is what, 10 engineers full time?
  - aviramha 3y ago
    more like 3-5 given people who can manage this kind of code base are of high value.
  - AndyJames 3y ago
    I would say even less because you have to take into account all the costs of hosting, dev machines, laptops, testing, travel etc. $1 million for such huge project is peanuts this days.
  - figmert 3y ago
    How many engineers do you think are actually managed by LF? From my understanding, the majority of engineers contributing to Linux are on the payroll of other companies like Google.
- glandium 3y ago
  On the other hand, many companies have people on their payroll to work on Linux. I would argue Linux barely needs anything from the LF.
  - M95D 3y ago
    > many companies have people on their payroll to work on Linux ... for that company's own interest. > I would argue Linux barely needs anything from the LF. Linux? No. It's a computer program. Computer programs have no needs (yet). Users, real natural persons, YES! Remeber when Linux couldn't play audio without hiccups? Remember Con Lolivas patches? Have a look at linux kernel maintainers. How may systems in there are "supported" vs. just "maintained".
fotcorn 3y ago
I think this is really just a naming problem. The Apache Software Foundation was founded for the Apache webserver, but today they have hundreds of projects unrelated to that. The same is true for the Linux Foundation.
- high_5 3y ago
  Good point. In a sense, foundations have to appear much more interesting than they are nowadays. Developing an OS kernel or a web server isn't appealing to newcomers, so I guess there should be alternative pathways to that. There should still be alignment in behaviour to the identity the entity claims to be. Or we just could have the Whatever Foundation. So, are these other projects in any way related to the development of Linux kernel or not?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- M95D 3y ago
  I would call this "foundation bloat".
throwaway290 3y ago
On one hand, LF's website doesn't inspire confidence with its "Decentralized innovation" buzzword pitch. On the other hand, a bunch of other useful projects like OpenJS are part of LF. I wish there was a breakdown of what they spend on what...
broodbucket 3y ago
LF does fund a decent number of core kernel people and some infrastructure, but they could do so so much more. The organisation is so corporate it's kinda gross, I really wish more of that got reinvested into the kernel
soderfoo 3y ago
Does anyone know if the Linux foundation makes their financial statements available? My cursory glance turned up the slick annual presentation type report, but I am looking for the 3 basics, income statement, cash flow, and balance sheet, audited or unaudited. An aside, I think Linux is a true modern marvel of humanity, it really is people at their best. It's a bummer when in-fighting and drama pop-up, but I guess it comes with the territory and its part of the sausage making.
- raesene9 3y ago
  you can get their 990 which has some details. Latest available is 2021 https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/460503801/202213199349329281/full https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/460...
lifeline82 3y ago
[flagged]
- rvz 3y ago
  > All this started when fascists forced to implement or change Code of Conduct. Debatable. But that was part of the problem as you already know. These code of conducts never solved anything and just created more problems. > Open source is now woke. That's all. Not all of it. But let's not go down that route, please.
- benterix 3y ago
  > All this started when fascists forced to implement or change Code of Conduct. Calling people names won't change much. Although I sympathized with Linus' message in some of his comments, its form was, let's be frank, hard to tolerate. If you had a workmate who was highly competent but would scream at you "what is this brainfucked shit" etc., I guess it wouldn't be a nice place to work. At least I personally avoid such people and in the worst cases just leave. And I'm saing this in spite of the fact I admire Linus and agree with the actual contents of his inflammatory posts. > Open source is now woke. That's all. "Open source" is a wide term. You are right that there are many especially younger developers, and especially from the USA who are emphasizing certain aspects like inclusivity etc. I agree that the effects of their efforts might be debatable but saying "open source is now woke" is an overstatement. Not to mention that many projects are run by old-timers who not necessarily agree with whatever is en vogue now but don't consider it necessary to make all their views public.
- Woeps 3y ago
  Open source has always been about people from all walks of life coming and working together. We just never called it woke back in the 1990/2000's ;)
  - mrAssHat 3y ago
    But there were just 2 genders in 1990/2000.
high_5 3y ago
Then again when did just throwing more money at the problem solve more problems? There could be other bottlenecks that the foundation felt are not solvable by money alone.
tempaway52641 3y ago
Might be worth looking at the Linux Foundation's stated mission and aims before fetching the pitchforks https://www.linuxfoundation.org/about https://www.linuxfoundation.org/about The Linux Foundation Method A proven and repeatable way to scale project communities via a comprehensive portfolio of support programs for aspiring industry leading projects: Neutral home for code and collaboration - We aim to democratize code and scale adoption, for all projects. Ecosystem curation and community building - We strive to create new technology categories by identifying trends, accelerating the growth of nascent technologies, and removing barriers to adoption. Enterprise ready, the OSS way - We provide turnkey technology and support programs for developer enablement, business operations, training & certification, marketing and events, and membership development to help projects scale fast. Project insights and management tools - We help projects streamline operations and boost community engagement with cloud-based, collaborative tooling, contributor and participation analytics, and infrastructure management.
gregkh 3y ago
Did anyone think to actually ask the developer who is maintaining the LTS kernel versions why he made that change (back in February?), i.e. me? {sigh} No, I guess that would take too much effort, and wouldn't result in such a click-bait headline "LTS kernels are no longer supported for 6 years because it turns out no one used them." doesn't have that same fun sound...
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- ognarb 3y ago
  It's an article from Bryan Lunduke. What can be expected other than controversial and click bait articles?
- squigz 3y ago
  It was extremely frustrating to see several articles saying that make the rounds on HN...
- GTP 3y ago
  > LTS kernels are no longer supported for 6 years because it turns out no one used them I assumed companies use a lot of LTS software for servers to avoid frequent upgrades that always carry some chance of breaking stuff. Could you please elaborate more or link me to some place where I can read more about this?
  - akaij 3y ago
    If for-profit companies need to use older kernels, they can hire engineers using the profits?
    - GTP 3y ago
      Yes, they can. But it's different from saying that no-one uses them.
      - 3y ago
tannhaeuser 3y ago
I guess IBM was a major driver and sponsor for the Linux Foundation and had reason to push standardization and enterprise things such as LSB (alignment and extension effort for POSIX/SUS) but now owning RH has of course totally shifted the perspective. Also, commercial Linux seems more about a few cloud providers and tool vendors - standardization has no standing in that environment.
pentagrama 3y ago
This article just complains about The Linux Foundaiton decision of reducing the LTS releases from 6 to 2 years but doesn't cite or analyse their reasoning. Why they did that? It may be worth complaining but the author should do better.
oliwarner 3y ago
It's a real shame that Bryan so frequently leans on pissing people off to make a point. He has a wonderful voice, a keen, obvious and sustained interest in the community, but interacts with it like a shock-jock. I guess it's working for him in the way he needs it to, but it feels like way too much drama.

86 points by josteink 3y ago

Alas, that is the state of things. It's not even really up for debate. It just is what it is. Its not up for debate apparently

mintaka5 3y ago

is this for real? very concerning, and i'm curious as to why all these years they've decided to abandon it.

dagw 3y ago
The generous reading is that they see more value in focusing on projects that spreads and popularises Linux and makes it more ubiquitous in more areas, rather than on core Linux kernel development.

pjmlp 3y ago

I always find a kind of ironic that Linux Foundation is the home of Zephyr, an embedded OS that has nothing to do with Linux, other than being competition against Linux distributions for the embedded market. It isn't only Zephyr, also being the home of several other projects completly unrelated to the Linux kernel.

duskwuff 3y ago
> Zephyr, an embedded OS that has nothing to do with Linux, other than being competition against Linux distributions for the embedded market. Zephr isn't "competition against Linux". It primarily targets microcontrollers that Linux would have no hope of running on (e.g. parts with <1MB of memory).
- pjmlp 3y ago
  It certainly is, given that it isn't the only target, if you bother to actually watch their talks, specially its license makes it much more appeling to OEMs than a GPL tainted kernel (from their point of view).

brnt 3y ago

Lunduke has been picking so many fights, I'm a bit lost as to whether I should pay attention or not. Sure, it doesn't seem great, but the Linux foundation putting money in other areas of the ecosystem is hardly a good point. Show us a real breakdown, instead of a gratuitous Linux kernel expenditure vs not-Linux kernel expenditure.

errnoh 3y ago
I'm not familiar with the author, but seems like they have quite identical post from 2021 as well: https://lunduke.substack.com/p/linux-foundation-spends-just-34-of https://lunduke.substack.com/p/linux-foundation-spends-just-...
rvz 3y ago
But the author and many others aren't wrong in highlighting this and have covered the LF issues for years. Given that is from a guy that cares a lot about how the Linux Kernel project is funded, that is very concerning. The first step in solving a problem is to identify that there is an inherent issue, which the author has done, but goes ignored by those who do not wish to care about the project.
glandium 3y ago
Last time I saw a post of his linked here, someone posted this link: https://old.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/muc18q/whats_the_deal_with_bryan_lunduke/ https://old.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/muc18q/whats_the_dea...
nobodyandproud 3y ago
I approve of this fight-picking. It’s what journalists are meant to do. The Linux Foundatiom should an engineers-first organization. The leadership team breakdown shows me it’s full of MBAs specializing in “on a computer”.
- bananapub 3y ago
  > The Linux Foundatiom should an engineers-first organization. why? what do you feel it's purpose is? do you think the people who give it gobs of money agree with you?

brucethemoose2 3y ago

The 2022 report (which was not linke even though it was the source of this article) doesn't look so dramatic. The listed grievances look like small contributions alongside their main projects: https://project.linuxfoundation.org/hubfs/LF%20Research/2022%20Linux%20Foundation%20Annual%20Report.pdf?hsLang=en https://project.linuxfoundation.org/hubfs/LF%20Research/2022...

nolist_policy 3y ago

Sigh. Nobody cares about the upstream LTS kernel. All the LTS distros maintain their own downstream LTS kernel. Android too. There is no reason to duplicate that work upstream and then nobody uses it anyways. And by the way, LF founs the Civil infrastructure project which mantains LTS kernels for 10 years.[1] [1] https://wiki.linuxfoundation.org/civilinfrastructureplatform/start https://wiki.linuxfoundation.org/civilinfrastructureplatform...

planede 3y ago
> All the LTS distros maintain their own downstream LTS kernel. Debian definitely uses the upstream LTS for their base for their kernel on stable. They do add their own patches, but I don't think it's fair to say that they duplicate work here.

figmert 3y ago

This is weird. LF has spent less on Linux than everything else. LF has to deal with lots more than LF. Even based on the numbers this article mentions, LF spends close to a million a year on Linux. I don't understand what the aim is here.

nolist_policy 3y ago
Right? Linux is much more than just the kernel.
alex_duf 3y ago
a million is what, 10 engineers full time?
- aviramha 3y ago
  more like 3-5 given people who can manage this kind of code base are of high value.
- AndyJames 3y ago
  I would say even less because you have to take into account all the costs of hosting, dev machines, laptops, testing, travel etc. $1 million for such huge project is peanuts this days.
- figmert 3y ago
  How many engineers do you think are actually managed by LF? From my understanding, the majority of engineers contributing to Linux are on the payroll of other companies like Google.
glandium 3y ago
On the other hand, many companies have people on their payroll to work on Linux. I would argue Linux barely needs anything from the LF.
- M95D 3y ago
  > many companies have people on their payroll to work on Linux ... for that company's own interest. > I would argue Linux barely needs anything from the LF. Linux? No. It's a computer program. Computer programs have no needs (yet). Users, real natural persons, YES! Remeber when Linux couldn't play audio without hiccups? Remember Con Lolivas patches? Have a look at linux kernel maintainers. How may systems in there are "supported" vs. just "maintained".

fotcorn 3y ago

I think this is really just a naming problem. The Apache Software Foundation was founded for the Apache webserver, but today they have hundreds of projects unrelated to that. The same is true for the Linux Foundation.

high_5 3y ago
Good point. In a sense, foundations have to appear much more interesting than they are nowadays. Developing an OS kernel or a web server isn't appealing to newcomers, so I guess there should be alternative pathways to that. There should still be alignment in behaviour to the identity the entity claims to be. Or we just could have the Whatever Foundation. So, are these other projects in any way related to the development of Linux kernel or not?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
M95D 3y ago
I would call this "foundation bloat".

throwaway290 3y ago

On one hand, LF's website doesn't inspire confidence with its "Decentralized innovation" buzzword pitch. On the other hand, a bunch of other useful projects like OpenJS are part of LF. I wish there was a breakdown of what they spend on what...

broodbucket 3y ago

LF does fund a decent number of core kernel people and some infrastructure, but they could do so so much more. The organisation is so corporate it's kinda gross, I really wish more of that got reinvested into the kernel

soderfoo 3y ago

Does anyone know if the Linux foundation makes their financial statements available? My cursory glance turned up the slick annual presentation type report, but I am looking for the 3 basics, income statement, cash flow, and balance sheet, audited or unaudited. An aside, I think Linux is a true modern marvel of humanity, it really is people at their best. It's a bummer when in-fighting and drama pop-up, but I guess it comes with the territory and its part of the sausage making.

raesene9 3y ago
you can get their 990 which has some details. Latest available is 2021 https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/460503801/202213199349329281/full https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/460...

lifeline82 3y ago

[flagged]

rvz 3y ago
> All this started when fascists forced to implement or change Code of Conduct. Debatable. But that was part of the problem as you already know. These code of conducts never solved anything and just created more problems. > Open source is now woke. That's all. Not all of it. But let's not go down that route, please.
benterix 3y ago
> All this started when fascists forced to implement or change Code of Conduct. Calling people names won't change much. Although I sympathized with Linus' message in some of his comments, its form was, let's be frank, hard to tolerate. If you had a workmate who was highly competent but would scream at you "what is this brainfucked shit" etc., I guess it wouldn't be a nice place to work. At least I personally avoid such people and in the worst cases just leave. And I'm saing this in spite of the fact I admire Linus and agree with the actual contents of his inflammatory posts. > Open source is now woke. That's all. "Open source" is a wide term. You are right that there are many especially younger developers, and especially from the USA who are emphasizing certain aspects like inclusivity etc. I agree that the effects of their efforts might be debatable but saying "open source is now woke" is an overstatement. Not to mention that many projects are run by old-timers who not necessarily agree with whatever is en vogue now but don't consider it necessary to make all their views public.
Woeps 3y ago
Open source has always been about people from all walks of life coming and working together. We just never called it woke back in the 1990/2000's ;)
- mrAssHat 3y ago
  But there were just 2 genders in 1990/2000.

high_5 3y ago

Then again when did just throwing more money at the problem solve more problems? There could be other bottlenecks that the foundation felt are not solvable by money alone.

tempaway52641 3y ago

Might be worth looking at the Linux Foundation's stated mission and aims before fetching the pitchforks https://www.linuxfoundation.org/about https://www.linuxfoundation.org/about The Linux Foundation Method A proven and repeatable way to scale project communities via a comprehensive portfolio of support programs for aspiring industry leading projects: Neutral home for code and collaboration - We aim to democratize code and scale adoption, for all projects. Ecosystem curation and community building - We strive to create new technology categories by identifying trends, accelerating the growth of nascent technologies, and removing barriers to adoption. Enterprise ready, the OSS way - We provide turnkey technology and support programs for developer enablement, business operations, training & certification, marketing and events, and membership development to help projects scale fast. Project insights and management tools - We help projects streamline operations and boost community engagement with cloud-based, collaborative tooling, contributor and participation analytics, and infrastructure management.

gregkh 3y ago

Did anyone think to actually ask the developer who is maintaining the LTS kernel versions why he made that change (back in February?), i.e. me? {sigh} No, I guess that would take too much effort, and wouldn't result in such a click-bait headline "LTS kernels are no longer supported for 6 years because it turns out no one used them." doesn't have that same fun sound...

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
ognarb 3y ago
It's an article from Bryan Lunduke. What can be expected other than controversial and click bait articles?
squigz 3y ago
It was extremely frustrating to see several articles saying that make the rounds on HN...
GTP 3y ago
> LTS kernels are no longer supported for 6 years because it turns out no one used them I assumed companies use a lot of LTS software for servers to avoid frequent upgrades that always carry some chance of breaking stuff. Could you please elaborate more or link me to some place where I can read more about this?
- akaij 3y ago
  If for-profit companies need to use older kernels, they can hire engineers using the profits?
  - GTP 3y ago
    Yes, they can. But it's different from saying that no-one uses them.
    - 3y ago

tannhaeuser 3y ago

I guess IBM was a major driver and sponsor for the Linux Foundation and had reason to push standardization and enterprise things such as LSB (alignment and extension effort for POSIX/SUS) but now owning RH has of course totally shifted the perspective. Also, commercial Linux seems more about a few cloud providers and tool vendors - standardization has no standing in that environment.

pentagrama 3y ago

This article just complains about The Linux Foundaiton decision of reducing the LTS releases from 6 to 2 years but doesn't cite or analyse their reasoning. Why they did that? It may be worth complaining but the author should do better.

oliwarner 3y ago

It's a real shame that Bryan so frequently leans on pissing people off to make a point. He has a wonderful voice, a keen, obvious and sustained interest in the community, but interacts with it like a shock-jock. I guess it's working for him in the way he needs it to, but it feels like way too much drama.