Discussion
Greg Kroah-Hartman Stretches Support Periods for Key Linux LTS Kernels
jauntywundrkind: Are we seeing Android phones upgrade their kernels yet? This Samsung S22 is still on 5.10. I thought that part of the idea for Android GKI was that phones would start getting kernel upgrades. But I'm not sure if that's actually happening.I wish there was more pressure for this. Especially as Android Virtualization Framework starts really arriving & being useful, having a more modern kernel could be a very nice help, could offer neat new capabilities.
brideoflinux: Linux kernel maintainer Greg Kroah-Hartman has extended the support lifetimes of several long-term kernels, after consultations with major users and fellow maintainers.
seanhunter: We neither need, nor benefit from this precis, which is longer than the headline but contains no additional information and insight. On hn people are encouraged to read tfa for themselves.
ThePowerOfFuet: I bet you're fun at parties.
kunley: Actually, as the article falls into that "ad begging" category and requires time-consuming disabling of tracking, I can understand why someone posts a summary.
rstat1: Google did it with the Tensor-powered Pixels a while back, from w/e they shipped with to 6.1
yjftsjthsd-h: Okay, but 6.1 is still from December 2022. Like... it's an improvement, but as my desktop sits at 6.19 and 7.0 is impending, I have to question why they lag so much.
almyfha: OP was talking about that they now have and pursue the intention of upgrading the kernel during the lifetime of the device. Instead of device launching with LTS kernel, which is supported for many years upstream, and always using it, instead LTS kernels are supported for 2 years (or extended like here), and the devices keep moving on to the next lts branch during their lifetime (usually not immediately, but after the regressions fixed for next branch, tested well before that in avf VMS etc)
lousken: No 6.1? That's disappointing. Also I am surprised the previous decision wasn't reverted sooner. Linux foundation surely has enough resources to upkeep LTS kernels for longer.
charcircuit: GKI is only stable within the point release. It means that 5.10 Linux can be safely updated to the latest versions 5.10 Linux.
xbar: Glad to see every single one of these decisions. Thanks to the maintainers and the foundation for making this happen.
b112: Why would there be a need to upgrade the kernel? Security updates are often backported, so it can still be 5.10 but patched...
yjftsjthsd-h: So long as they keep up with patches that can be fine, but newer kernels also have useful feature improvements. If nothing else, performance tends to improve over time.
izacus: In practice upgrading kernel can easily cause performance regressions and cause multiple other issues (reduced battery life) so there's a lot of risk for zero reward for an OEM to do that.After all, they're on the hook for not breaking users already working devices and don't get anything by risking lawsuits and recalls.
yjftsjthsd-h: I'll grant that changes leave the possibility of regressions, but that's true for minor patches too, so you already need a lab set up to catch those regressions, and if you've got a lab set up to catch regressions and engineers who can fix them, then you might as well take the bigger upgrades too.
cyberrock: Newest Samsungs are on 6.6 AFAIK
jauntywundrkind: A couple times a year I get the joy of reading kernel newbies release notes for new kernels. And just being so delighted at all the amazing improvements happening. So many won't affect me or won't be big changes. But often there are amazing new capabilities and options too. Improvement is ongoing & continual. https://kernelnewbies.org/Linux_6.17It just takes my breath away, is extenstentially scary, to hear folks be ok with being totally stuck on place. With devices that use open source but which are so fundamentally dead, are shovelware thrown that never improves while time marches on.This would be totally unacceptable for anyone on a computer. But somehow on consumer devices, it's just expected and accepted that everything is
b112: then you might as well take the bigger upgrades too.No? A specific patch for a vulnerability is often tiny, and upstream LTS kernel devs handles much testing.You test for issues, but the scope is tiny. The amount of churn to a new kernel is massive.It's not even close to the same work. And why do it? Whatever for?New isn't a good reason.Frankly, as long as the userland and kernel are getting security updates, who cares? Understand, this is a lot of work alone.
b112: Stable versions of Linux often keep the same linux kernel, with security patches, for half a decade.It's the only way to run a desktop and maintain stability.
jauntywundrkind: That is news to the millions of linux users who upgrade their kernels regularly, and suffer zero consequences.It's cowardice and FUD, in my view, to clutch to such old versions. It's just bad practice and bad engineering, and a crock of scary tales to make people think your bad engineering & absurd insane arcane practices are actually good.
the_biot: It could be, but are vendors actually upgrading kernels along with firmware updates? In my experience it's more like, ship 5+ year old kernel and then forget it forever.
i_think_so: > It could be, but are vendors actually upgrading kernels along with firmware updates?Certainly the big guys like IBM/RedHat are putting effort into maintaining their legacy trees.> In my experience it's more like, ship 5+ year old kernel and then forget it forever.I think that's the case with smaller vendors, like the teams that produce a custom kernel for the newest ARM single board kit. Once most of their inventory is sold they have little incentive to dedicate engineering bandwidth to updates. (And there's always the community effort to pick up the slack.)
alpaca128: Did you actually try Arch? I ran it for three years on a laptop and it was more reliable with fewer issues than most stable distros I used.
Kernel end-of-life dates mean very little for users, even at the enterprise level.
kelnos: I'm having trouble squaring these two statements from the article:> the Linux kernel is catching up with its users’ wants when it comes to longevity.> Kernel end-of-life dates mean very little for users, even at the enterprise level.So... no one cares about longevity? Or they do? I'm confused.
wtallis: Enterprises that care about using a kernel for many years typically put their own resources into providing the level of maintenance they require (or getting it from a distro that maintains their own LTS kernels), rather than depending on upstream to keep the patches coming for that branch. But if the upstream kernel support timelines become more closely aligned with what those downstream users want, they may shift to tracking upstream LTS branches.
killingtime74: It explains further down that it means little because unofficial support was already available
