Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Linux Kernel 4.1 Will Be an LTS Release

Posted by timothy on from the why-back-in-the-day-you'll-be-able-to-say dept.

New submitter prisoninmate writes: The Linux Foundation's LinuxLTSI (Long-Term Support Initiative) group has confirmed on Twitter that the next LTS version of the Linux kernel will be 4.1. The information has also been confirmed by Greg Kroah-Hartman, a renowned kernel developer who is currently maintaining several kernel branches, including a few LTS ones. When Linux kernel 4.1 is released, it will become the LTS version of 2015 and the most advanced long-term support release. This is significant because the LTSI releases are (or will be) everywhere, in a "Linux is everywhere" sense. As the initiative's page puts it, "The LTSI tree is expected to be a usable base for the majority of embedded systems, as well as the base for ecosystem players (e.g., semiconductor vendors, set-vendors, software component vendors, distributors, and system/application framework providers). ... The goal is to reduce the number of private trees currently in use in the CE industry and encourage more collaboration and sharing of development resources."

46 comments

  1. The CE Industry? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Jargon a little harder, asswipes! That's Consumer Electronics for those of us not in manufacturing.

    1. Re:The CE Industry? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ain't that called SE, like in "sheeple electronics"?

    2. Re:The CE Industry? by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Funny

      ITWAE (In Technolgy We Acronym Everything)

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    3. Re:The CE Industry? by Joshua+Fan · · Score: 1

      Welcome to /., where everyone is expected to be a veteran of every industry ever.

    4. Re:The CE Industry? by davester666 · · Score: 1

      No. They were referring to Windows CE, normally shortened to "wince". Which also accurately describes how it makes you feel when you use it.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  2. Here's looking at you, Android by allquixotic · · Score: 2

    "Reduce the number of private trees" --> Yeah, like the ancient (by mainline standards) kernels in most releases of Android... The sooner GOOG learns how to play nice with the rest of the Linux developers and get their customizations contributed upstream, the better off we'll all be. Though, admittedly, AOSP is doing a pretty decent job of that nowadays. The more egregious sinners are the device manufacturers.

    1. Re:Here's looking at you, Android by halivar · · Score: 0

      That quote immediately made me think of this, completely non-obligatory XKCD.

    2. Re:Here's looking at you, Android by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Android will never be on a mainline kernel.
      Linus will never accept what Google has done to the IPC code.

    3. Re:Here's looking at you, Android by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Randall Munroe is a humorless twat.

    4. Re: Here's looking at you, Android by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you talking about Binder which was accepted into 3.19?

    5. Re:Here's looking at you, Android by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're projecting.

    6. Re:Here's looking at you, Android by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You might enjoy goatkcd, which managed to make both XKCD and Goatse funny. Which is no easy task.

      (warning: site contains large amounts of goatse)

  3. Skynet by SirMasterboy · · Score: 4, Funny

    Guess it means this picture makes sense and we are all doomed soon.

    https://lh5.googleusercontent....

    1. Re:Skynet by nickweller · · Score: 1

      T-800 Terminator Runs Linux Kernel 4.1 ..

      And in the latest instalment, a Terminator comes back and persuades NORAD to upgrade it's systems to Windows :)

  4. Er... how old is this message? by snarfies · · Score: 1, Informative

    "When Linux kernel 4.1 is released, it will become the LTS version of 2015 and the most advanced long-term support release."

    But... it HAS been released. I'm using it. Right now. As I type this.

    1. Re:Er... how old is this message? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not quite yet - still on 4.1-rc6, final version not yet released.

      (At least as far as kernel.org is concerned).

    2. Re:Er... how old is this message? by antiperimetaparalogo · · Score: 1

      Not quite yet - still on 4.1-rc6, final version not yet released.

      (At least as far as kernel.org is concerned).

      Correct!

      --
      Antisthenes: "Wisdom begins by examining the words/names." - excuse my English, i am (slightly...) better with my Greek!
    3. Re:Er... how old is this message? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      where are your words? no "Greek" or "Great" today? or did you just slip up on this one? maybe you were distracted?

  5. Release number by sr180 · · Score: 2

    You know what would have been a good candidate for LTS? 4!
    Not necessarily the release itself but the number. The numbers are arbitrary so just make them the lts releases. Rather than 4.1 or 4.13 or 5.9..

    --
    In Soviet Russia the insensitive clod is YOU!
    1. Re:Release number by Bite+The+Pillow · · Score: 1

      No. You don't LTS the new hotness. Add features, patch them, then support that.

      Win 95 rev B, Win 98 SE, latest service pack.. the only difference here is an honest version bump.

    2. Re:Release number by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You know what would have been a good candidate for LTS? 4!

      Factorial four? But that's 24, and I don't think they'd want to skip all of the intervening versions.

    3. Re:Release number by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 1

      There's no "new hotness" about 4.0. Linux moved a long time ago away from the model of using a major version number change to indicate large changes or major new features.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    4. Re:Release number by Lord+Apathy · · Score: 1

      It should move back.

      --

      Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification

    5. Re:Release number by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was actually thinking that they should have made 4.2 the LTS version. You know, the answer to life, the universe, and everything else.

    6. Re:Release number by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 1

      Well, that's a very well-reasoned argument that I'm sure will persuade Linus to change his mind.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    7. Re:Release number by Bengie · · Score: 1

      In the FreeBSD world, *.0 releases are very short lived, lots of new bugs discovered as everyone switches. You don't start seeing a real reduction in fixes or changes until about *.3. There also tends to be a few tweaks along the way as certain architectural design decisions weren't perfect.

    8. Re:Release number by dwywit · · Score: 1

      Perhaps he should seek Kay Sievers' input.

      --
      They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
  6. No matter the version by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    Linux just sucks.

    Google should have gone with Plan 9 which was OS 3.0 and not a bad retread of an ancient 70s OS which was OS 2.0

    At least they didn't go with multics....

    1. Re:No matter the version by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is that?

  7. Making Terminator all the more likely :-) by PenguinJeff · · Score: 1

    As Ken Jenning wrote in the game against Watson: "I for one welcome our new computer overlords."

  8. But 4.0 isn't arbitrary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they used "4.0" then the version number wouldn't be arbitrary, and would therefore be suspicious -- as if you secretly cared about version numbers, like they did back in the old days. As we all learned about 10 years ago, arbitrary version numbers make more sense than meaningful version numbers. If you want to succeed, you follow the crowd, not your own reasoning.

    Remember, it's not enough to tell them you don't give a damn about version numbers; you have to show them you don't give a damn about version numbers. The best way to do that is (obviously) to release a MAJOR new version using a MINOR, preferably random, version number.

  9. 2-3 Years is NOT Long-Term by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    When will the industry realize that for an embedded system long-term is not 2 years but more like 30 years? When these systems are built into buildings, cars, aircraft, etc. they are expected to last for a long time.

    1. Re:2-3 Years is NOT Long-Term by TFlan91 · · Score: 2

      I don't think "buildings, cars, aircraft, etc" would ever put a vanilla version of linux in their systems and expect a third party to 100% maintain them. That's just bad business. Give and take.

    2. Re:2-3 Years is NOT Long-Term by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thankfully, embedded systems don't really require hand-holding like non-embedded since they are easily bolted down and protected on a logical standpoint.
      You don't go around updating your kernel on your car/building/aircraft because of a divide by zero vulnerability (as a stupid example), you engineer it so that's not even in the picture.

    3. Re:2-3 Years is NOT Long-Term by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      The problem comes when features start getting added to those systems that expose them to the outside world. For example someone wants to monitor and control their building remotely (or just to control it from their smartphone when they are in the building). So you start to get interconnections between the building management network and the internet and/or office wifi.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    4. Re:2-3 Years is NOT Long-Term by Kjella · · Score: 1

      The kernel team will take an LTS release 2-3 years out, but most enterprise-class distros will provide least 5 years of support. RHEL 5 was released in March 2007 and with Extended Lifecycle Support it'll last to November 2020 so that's 13.5 years. And at that point I'd just sign up for the CVE list and see if there's any critical and relevant bugs for the most recently supported kernel that needs backporting, my guess is that it'd be once a leap year from there on out. It seems rather unlikely that hackers would target a 10+ year old kernel to find exploits that'd go under the radar because they're unsupported.

      And that's of course on top of the usual good practices of hardening, firewalls, virtualized sandboxes and so on to limit exposure and damage. If that's not enough, you just need to add the cost of upgrading the kernel into your product. It's not like companies don't fuck up in other ways, being forced to bring all your cars in for a firmware upgrade seems better than a recall.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    5. Re:2-3 Years is NOT Long-Term by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      For CEs that belong in a landfill nearly the day they are built, 2 years is an excellent plan. We have some of the constraints that you find in the rest of embedded, but we tend to be in a constant race to hit certain market dates with various features and price points. And we depend on your average user to be willing to discard their old widget and buy a new widget. (and hopefully that's your widget and not your competitor's)

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    6. Re:2-3 Years is NOT Long-Term by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No one is going to update the software on my car in 3 years. I don't think it matters.

      For example, I have a Mustang with Sync. Ford changed from Microsoft to another vendor for the new model year. I'm not going to get patches for my car in a few years because it's not cost effective for Ford to do so.

      You are certainly correct with aircraft. There's just as much risk patching the system as there is leaving it. Imagine the testing time for an update to a critical control system on an airplane.

  10. Will be A long term service release. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'a' is the correct article.

    1. Re:Will be A long term service release. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I pronounce L as "ell" not whatever you're imagining.

  11. Old News by elusive_one · · Score: 1

    Knew about it 3 months ago, release name Skynet: http://www.reddit.com/r/linux/...