Linux Kernel 6.8 Reaches End of Life, Users Should Upgrade to Linux Kernel 6.9 (9to5linux.com)
from petsoi@discuss.tchncs.de to linux@lemmy.ml on 30 May 19:05
https://discuss.tchncs.de/post/16590585

#linux

threaded - newest

GolfNovemberUniform@lemmy.ml on 30 May 19:05 next collapse

Nice

_spiffy@lemmy.ca on 30 May 20:14 collapse

Ni.ce

pbjamm@beehaw.org on 02 Jun 04:02 collapse

no.ice.

wreckedcarzz@lemmy.world on 30 May 20:10 next collapse

EoL

released 10 weeks ago

Linux kernel any%

Successful_Try543@feddit.de on 30 May 20:27 collapse

As there are LTS branches, currently 5.4, 5.10, 5.15, 6.1 and 6.6 which will get updates until Decembre 2025/2026, I don’t see the problem.

Auli@lemmy.ca on 01 Jun 11:54 collapse

And the older they are the less secure they are. LTS are not as great as people think. ciq.com/…/why-a-frozen-linux-kernel-isnt-the-safe…

jonasw@discuss.tchncs.de on 01 Jun 12:23 collapse

The article is about frozen vendor kernels, not about.LTS

Successful_Try543@feddit.de on 01 Jun 12:31 collapse

Two different things. LTS kernels get security patches until their support is dropped.

jonasw@discuss.tchncs.de on 01 Jun 12:33 collapse

Yeah that’s the whole point of LTS, so it stays compatible with that kernel version but still gets important updates, but no feature updates

boredsquirrel@slrpnk.net on 30 May 20:23 next collapse

These messages are damn useless

Distros take care of the kernel, either ship LTS releases or do the backports themselves. Only rolling release people run that kernel.

So this post is literally only useful for the 4 LFS users that now need to recompile their kernels.

nexussapphire@lemm.ee on 30 May 22:25 next collapse

You never have to update if you never connect to the internet.<img alt="" src="https://media1.tenor.com/m/sTgOfidqULkAAAAd/smart-brain.gif">

petersr@lemmy.world on 01 Jun 06:53 collapse

Stuxnet would like a chat with you

nexussapphire@lemm.ee on 01 Jun 12:06 collapse

Weren’t are nukes controlled by IBM series/1 systems and floppy discs until 2019. They said they upgraded to a highly secure solid state system. They might be still using those computers for some parts of the system because “You can’t hack something that doesn’t have an IP address. It’s a very unique system — it is old and it is very good.”

ryannathans@aussie.zone on 31 May 03:05 next collapse

I like to see what’s in the newer kernels and know to expect an update that might break my dkms modules in the near future

[deleted] on 03 Jun 20:32 collapse

.

ssm@lemmy.sdf.org on 31 May 00:19 next collapse

Feels like Linux 4.20 wasn’t that long ago and we’re already at Linux 6.9? At this rate Sex 2 will release and it won’t even be exciting

davidgro@lemmy.world on 31 May 00:28 collapse

It does feel that way, but…

“Linux 4.20 was released on Sun, 23 Dec 2018”

About 5.5 years.

rho50@lemmy.nz on 31 May 02:13 collapse

(6.9-4.2)/(2024-2018) = 0.45 “version increments” per year.

4.2/(2018-1991) = 0.15 “version increments” per year.

So, the pace of version increases in the past 6 years has been around triple the average from the previous 27 years, since Linux’ first release.

I guess I can see why 6.9 would seem pretty dramatic for long-time Linux users.

I wonder whether development has actually accelerated, or if this is just a change in the approach to the release/versioning process.

piexil@lemmy.world on 31 May 03:06 next collapse

Since version 4.0 the version numbers have nothing to do with changes and are strictly time based. Linux 5.0 happened after Linux 4.20 because Linus “ran out of hands and toes to count on”, same thing with 6.0 after 5.19

ozymandias117@lemmy.world on 31 May 03:11 collapse

Wait. He lost a finger or toe???

Edit: more seriously it’s been since 3.0 after being on 2.6 forever

there are no special landmark features or incompatibilities related to the version number change, it’s simply a way to drop an inconvenient numbering system

It used to only get bumped after a major new feature update, but it was stable enough at 2.6 that it got stuck there for 8 years, so he switched to a different update number

ozymandias117@lemmy.world on 31 May 03:41 collapse

I wonder if development has actually accelerated, or if this is just a change in the approach to the release/versioning process

Both.

Development has increased, but you should use your comparison from the last 2.6 release.

It stayed on 2.6.y for 8 years - that was where it got stable enough that there wasn’t some major milestone to use as a new marker for its update number

There are cool new features, but if it followed the old versioning scheme, we’d still be on 2.6 because it hasn’t (intentionally) broken the API between the kernel and userspace

VeryImportantUser@lemmy.world on 31 May 13:06 next collapse

Meanwhile Ubuntu:

<img alt="" src="https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/f9433f9d-dc30-4cc4-bf85-9dc0847703a8.jpeg">

ouch@lemmy.world on 31 May 13:23 next collapse

We run production loads on 2.6 kernel. Please don’t ask questions.

theshatterstone54@feddit.uk on 01 Jun 06:21 next collapse

Is there any particular reason this is news? I thought that’s how most kernel updates went for the non-LTS releases. Or has something changed? What’s different compared to all other kernel updates in rolling releases?

TheCheddarCheese@lemmy.world on 01 Jun 09:11 collapse

Are Linux kernel lifespans usually that short?

Successful_Try543@feddit.de on 01 Jun 13:35 collapse

Yes, usual releases are supported ~ 3 months, LTS versions get support for a much longer period e.g. 6.6 for 3 y, 6.1 for 4 y, 5.15 for 5 y or 5.10 for 6 y.