Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Ubuntu 14.04.4 LTS Officially Released

Posted by yaelk on from the updates dept.

prisoninmate writes: Ubuntu 14.04.4 LTS (Long-Term Support) builds are available for download in the form of Live and Installable ISO images for Desktop, Server, Cloud, and Core products, on both 64-bit and 32-bit platforms, and that existing Ubuntu 14.04.3 LTS users can now update their systems. But not only Ubuntu 14.04 LTS (Trusty Tahr) users can update, as all the official flavors have been updated as well, so users of Kubuntu 14.04 LTS, Edubuntu 14.04 LTS, Xubuntu 14.04 LTS, Lubuntu 14.04 LTS, Ubuntu Studio 14.04 LTS, Mythbuntu 14.04 LTS, Ubuntu GNOME 14.04 LTS, and Ubuntu Kylin 14.04 LTS can also update their systems today or grab the new ISOs.

61 comments

  1. Broken FTP Mirrors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does anyone know why the previous releases of ubuntu 14.04 have gone missing from the mirrors?

    For example, at the MIT mirror where ubunut 14.04.1 should be, the images are all 14.04.3 http://mirrors.mit.edu/ubuntu-cdimage/ubuntu/releases/14.04.1/release/

    This seems to be true on at least half of the mirrors out there, judging by google caches this change happened about a year ago.

    Makes it really hard to avoid the 'Hardware Enablement Stack' which was introduced in 14.04.3 and its associated bugs

    1. Re:Broken FTP Mirrors by Phreakiture · · Score: 1

      No idea why they're off the mirrors, but if you really want it, you can torrent it. I know there's at least one seeder out there.

      --
      www.wavefront-av.com
    2. Re:Broken FTP Mirrors by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I have pretty much all of the official flavors, going back a long time, seeded - I also do the same thing for a few other distros or those that I encounter and might like to try in a VM. It's not the fattest pipes but they're on their own, disparate, connection and they're stable. The LTS builds go back as far as '07 as I recall. I can look if it's really needed but KAT should have them all linked.

      Why? Why not? I've got the hardware, the connection, and it might as well do something that's potentially useful to someone.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  2. who cares?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    16.04 with php7?

    1. Re:who cares?! by dohzer · · Score: 1

      15.10.4lyfe

    2. Re:who cares?! by somenickname · · Score: 2

      15.10.4lyfe

      Or at least the next 5 months.

    3. Re: who cares?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was fine until you mentioned php.

  3. And glibc? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    *nm*

  4. Re:Ubuntu is for LUDDITES! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And apps are for cows. Moo.

  5. Kubuntu is better than Ubuntu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    As a long term Kubuntu user, I do not consider changing to plain Ubuntu an upgrade. Kubuntu fixes a bit of the crap in the main Ubuntu releases and provides a more user friendly interface. Gnome sucks. When I am introducing Linux to older people, that are familiar with Windows, KDE is a much easier for them to accept and start using right away.

    1. Re:Kubuntu is better than Ubuntu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      As a long term Kubuntu user, I do not consider changing to plain Ubuntu an upgrade. Kubuntu fixes a bit of the crap in the main Ubuntu releases and provides a more user friendly interface. Gnome sucks. When I am introducing Linux to older people, that are familiar with Windows, KDE is a much easier for them to accept and start using right away.

      Check out Cinnamon. It's what Gnome 3 should be.

    2. Re:Kubuntu is better than Ubuntu by johnsnails · · Score: 1

      Not only friendlier, SOOOO much more powerful. Dolphin is hands down the best file manager of any distro on any OS.

    3. Re:Kubuntu is better than Ubuntu by Gavagai80 · · Score: 2

      Not only friendlier, SOOOO much more powerful. Dolphin is hands down the best file manager of any distro on any OS.

      Well, except for Konqueror. Dolphin still feels like a dumbed-down version of Konqueror to me.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    4. Re:Kubuntu is better than Ubuntu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Konqueror was a great OS... it's just a shame it was missing a decent file manager.

    5. Re:Kubuntu is better than Ubuntu by johnsnails · · Score: 1

      Yeah I only used Konquerer a bit, either way its the KDE ethos that produces such useful bits of software that Gnome just lacks out of the box. Cheers!

    6. Re:Kubuntu is better than Ubuntu by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      My Ubuntu server doesn't have Gnome. I'm not sure what you're talking about. Or are you using an LTS release for the desktop? In which case why?

    7. Re:Kubuntu is better than Ubuntu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because you want a stable long time supported professional workstation?

    8. Re:Kubuntu is better than Ubuntu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >kde
      >user friendly
      kek

    9. Re:Kubuntu is better than Ubuntu by aethelrick · · Score: 1

      I use LTS 14.04 on my desktop. As a software and hardware developer I want a stable and productive environment that isn't changing all the time. I value things "not going wrong" more than I value having the latest version of something. I also use Gnome as it happens, but I'm running flashback so I have what is basically a Gnome 2 experience on my Ubuntu installation.

      I don't like or want Unity, I find it to be a jarringly odd place to work (and I've tried on more than one occasion to use it for weeks at a time and always eventually removed it in favour of something else that stays out of my way). I was once a long time KDE user but I jumped off that band wagon when they broke it in the move to KDE 4 and I've never gone back.

    10. Re:Kubuntu is better than Ubuntu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like how Kubuntu 14.04 alerts me that there are new drivers for my video card and if I accept the offer to update them all I get is a black screen at boot. No command line, no KDE, no nothing.

  6. alright alright alright by turkeydance · · Score: 0

    news for nerds. thanks.

    1. Re:alright alright alright by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. This is news for Linux zealots.

  7. garbage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that article is garbage... just the regular ubuntu changelog put into words... the softpedia linux section is the biggest crap i've read in years.... same expressions and wording in every news story... and the "email softpedia received" is the newsletter, which i also got

    1. Re:garbage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, it's a fuck of a lot better than the pictograms that they *usually* use for release notes. Give them *some* credit.

  8. Sorry for the joke :D by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After using 126852145 Linux distributions I realized my own still kick ass all of them. But most importantly, where does it goes after being released? Have You ever asked yourselves about it? Does a software, as an wild being, does it really want to be released?

  9. existing 14.04ers by bheckel · · Score: 2

    I'm already on 14.04 so this was good to know: "existing Ubuntu 14.04 LTS users don't need to download anything, though, as they can update to today's 14.04.4 build using the build-in package management system, so just make sure that your Ubuntu 14.04 LTS installation is up to date"

    --
    ~
    ~
    1. Re:existing 14.04ers by Parker+Lewis · · Score: 2, Informative

      The proper command to update is in the LTS Enablement Stack wiki: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Kernel...:

      sudo apt-get install --install-recommends linux-generic-lts-wily xserver-xorg-core-lts-wily xserver-xorg-lts-wily xserver-xorg-video-all-lts-wily xserver-xorg-input-all-lts-wily libwayland-egl1-mesa-lts-wily libgl1-mesa-glx-lts-wily libgl1-mesa-glx-lts-wily:i386 libglapi-mesa-lts-wily:i386

    2. Re:existing 14.04ers by bheckel · · Score: 1

      Thank you Parker Lewis. Is it worth the effort or is the un-updated 14.04 with occasional

      apt-get update && sudo apt-get upgrade

      good enough for normal users (like me)?

      --
      ~
      ~
    3. Re:existing 14.04ers by somenickname · · Score: 4, Informative

      That doesn't update you to 14.04.4, that installs the backported kernel and Xorg drivers. That's not necessary if all your hardware is already supported in vanilla 14.04. If you are already running 14.04.3, the upgrade process is transparent and will happen when you next run dist-upgrade or click the "install updates" button when it next nags you. The ".4" part of the version number has no real meaning beyond, "It has been about 6 months since we last incremented the version number so, let's do so and refresh the images so people are downloading the latest bits". Since the LTS versions have 5 years of support, not refreshing the download images means that, as time goes on, the originally packages are so out of date that you have to upgrade almost all of them immediately after installing. It's really just an arbitrary timestamp rather than what most people would consider an upgrade.

  10. It's Funny! After The Tears. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I did two 12.04 to 14.04 upgrades yesterday. The first installed 14.04.3 and the second, just a few minutes later, installed 14.04.4.

    The not so funny part was that while the first upgrade was flawless and installed kernel 3.13.0. The second upgrade seemed to go great, but installed 3.13.36, which caused the server to boot with no network.

    No problem, right? Wrong! This kernel also rendered the mouse and keyboard inoperable! My only way back was to boot from a LiveUSB, chroot the server and install an older kernel 3.13.28. The hour-ish of downtime was a huge pain in my ass.

    Anyhow, the weird thing is that the prior server, running 3.13.0, still regards that as the newest kernel available. Meanwhile the second one, now running 3.13.28 still has a newer 3.13.36 sitting on it waiting to ruin someone else's afternoon.

    1. Re:It's Funny! After The Tears. by xvan · · Score: 2

      Why not booting selecting the previous kernel on grub?

    2. Re:It's Funny! After The Tears. by ledow · · Score: 1

      Gosh.

      "Update may break things"? Er... yep.
      "Someone in charge of server didn't bother to properly account for potential downtime for an upgrade, didn't keep the old kernels around for booting into, didn't diagnose past 'it doesn't work', etc.?" Er... nope.

    3. Re:It's Funny! After The Tears. by Crowd+Computing · · Score: 1

      No problem, right? Wrong! This kernel also rendered the mouse and keyboard inoperable! My only way back was to boot from a LiveUSB, chroot the server and install an older kernel 3.13.28. The hour-ish of downtime was a huge pain in my ass.

      I'm not sure I understand your problem. I first assumed that you were doing a remote update. However, seeing you were able to fix the problem using a LiveUSB, it appears you do have physical access to the machine. Did you somehow attempt a remote upgrade, and after that failed, decided to drive down to the farm to fix the server? Because as another poster said, you could easily fix your broken kernel problem by selecting one of the already installed backup kernels from the Grub boot screen.

  11. Re:Ubuntu is for LUDDITES! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    mooo say the cows.

  12. Java 8 by cen1 · · Score: 2

    After more than a year there is still no backport of openjdk8. Looks like I'll have to wait for 16.04.

    1. Re:Java 8 by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      There is, you need to grab the Java 8 PPA explicitly, and then install java 8. It's not in the default repos because I suspect that cannot guarantee perfect backwards compatibility, and ubuntu releases are meant to be stable.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    2. Re:Java 8 by KGIII · · Score: 1

      As near as I know (and I kinda communicate with a few of the folks who maintain things) that is the exact reason.

      I seldom understand those types of complaints. I picked an official Ubuntu flavor exactly for this type of thing - the opposite of their claim. I picked it for the breadth of the ecosystem and the ease associated with that. You can often find exactly what you want and not even have to compile it yourself or anything like that.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  13. it must really, REALLY be a slow news day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    for a point release to a nearly 2 year old version to hit the front page without said release having anything even remotely interesting to talk about.

  14. What about the server distribution? by itsownreward · · Score: 1

    I have several Ubuntu 14.04.3 LTS using the Ubuntu Server distribution. I did an update and tried to do a dist-upgrade / upgrade on a test one and there's nothing to install. Is there a lag until the server distro is updated?

    1. Re:What about the server distribution? by itsownreward · · Score: 2

      Never mind; figured it out. I just needed to run "sudo apt-get install linux-generic-lts-wily" to grab the kernel.

    2. Re: What about the server distribution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any suggestions for getting xtables-addons upgraded to work with the newer kernel?

  15. Re: Ubuntu is for LUDDITES! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I believe they are up to 19 colors, idiot.

  16. 16.04? by AndyCanfield · · Score: 2

    I will update to 16.04 LTS when it comes out. When? WHEN?????

    1. Re:16.04? by somenickname · · Score: 4, Funny

      My guess would be the fourth month of 2016...

    2. Re:16.04? by AndyCanfield · · Score: 1

      My guess would be the fourth month of 2016...

      A prototype / preliminary / pilot version is already up. When was the official 14.04 version posted? 2014/04/01? 2014/04/30? Or maybe 2016/02/19? When do we trust our servers to a '16.04' binary?

    3. Re:16.04? by somenickname · · Score: 1

      I personally wouldn't trust any of my servers on 16.04 until 2017. Let someone else beta test it.

    4. Re:16.04? by AndyCanfield · · Score: 2

      We skipped 14.04; we're still running 12.04.

    5. Re:16.04? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      I tend to do that. If there's not a pressing need to upgrade, I leave servers on whichever LTS was most current when I installed them. On my cluster, I skipped 12.04 and went straight from 10.04 to 14.04

      On my laptop, I tend to keep current with the LTS releases, since while there's rarely a pressing need to upgrade, there are a lot of small niggles associated with having software that too far from current.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    6. Re:16.04? by AndyCanfield · · Score: 1

      I try to always run the same OS version on my laptop as on our server. I apt-get the laptop on Friday and the servers on Sunday, in case there are bugs in the upgrade.

    7. Re:16.04? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your server hardware is different than your laptop's, so you won't catch hardware related upgrade issues like that. You could setup a test environment with identical hardware as your server.

    8. Re:16.04? by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      I always test a new release by putting it on all our production servers, then if there are no complaints, I know its good enough for my personal laptop.

  17. Wubi abandoned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Great move. Many locked down UEFI systems have serious troubles booting to anything not Win 10 recovery media. Thanks for abandoning our only install option from within Windows.

    1. Re:Wubi abandoned by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I hear that but I've never encountered it in the wild - and, just so I'm clear, I'm actually an avid user of new hardware. I'll try to explain?

      I do a bunch of stupid things just because I'm easily amused. One of those things that I do is that I replace and refresh hardware at a stupidly fast rate. As I don't really save any data locally, this is not really a problem. No, I don't even get faster hardware every time. No, I don't even *keep* the faster hardware every time - I'll often set up a box, play with it very little, and then find someone to donate it to. It doesn't make sense, I know. It does keep me amused and it's nice to be able to donate nice new hardware or give it away to someone. Computers are already fast enough that I really don't see much benefit to getting faster and faster for my personal needs. Call it a hobby, that's really what it is.

      At any rate, that means I see a lot of hardware. I don't even pay attention to try to find "Linux Compatible" hardware. Ever... If I did, that'd be cheating. I am not sure if this is clear enough - I go through a lot of hardware. I go through an absurd amount of hardware - to the point where it's unusual for a box to last longer than six months and very few stick around for longer than a year. I do give out some nice hand-me-downs.

      I've yet to come across a single desktop or laptop that has given me any problems via UEFI. Until recently, Microsoft insisted that the OEMs leave them unlocked. With the advent of 10, they've since allowed them to lock them. I've yet to have a problem with anything. Ever.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  18. *buntu by malditaenvidia · · Score: 1

    Why do we need a separate distro for every DE under the sun? What are you hoping to achieve?

    1. Re: *buntu by PixetaledPikachu · · Score: 1

      So you can download only the things that you need for offline installation. On anything connected to the internet, each *buntu is a couple of repos and apts away

    2. Re:*buntu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To avoid the Aids infested crap they call Unity.

  19. Stuff Happens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was a remote upgrade from across campus. After the failed upgrade there was one and only one kernel available. I stupidly had not checked to see what other kernels were installed before the upgrade. (I do this all the time. What could possibly go wrong? Ha!) I don't know if there weren't any others or if they were deleted with the upgrade. I first spent some time trying to USB boot through DRAC virtual media without success. I then had to schlep across campus and do the hokie pokie at the server rack.

    Also, my previously stated versions were incorrect. I wasn't paying attention when I typed the message before.
    The successful upgrade to 14.04.3 wound up using 3.13.0-77-generic and is not offering a newer version, as yet.

    The botched upgrade to 14.04.4 wound up failing with 3.13.0-39-generic. After fixing it, I wound up with 3.16.0-28-generic working.

    I'm still getting shit for the down time.

    1. Re:Stuff Happens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like to snapshot my FreeBSD servers, update the snapshot, and if something fails it doesn't affect the running system. If the upgrade seems to have worked, point the bootloader at the new snapshot. If something still goes wrong, boot the prior volume. ZFS is magic.

  20. Slashdot Bug? by allo · · Score: 1

    News from 2014 in the RSS today?

  21. Not a bug. PEBCAK. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's the announcement of the fourth LTS release (i.e. Linux equivalent of a Windows service pack) for Ubuntu 14.04. This is telling you that you can download a 14.04.4 ISO that contains all of the cumulative patches. If you've got a thumb drive with any other version of 14.04, then you should update it to 14.04.4, so that it will be up to date on its patches.

    That's why this is news in 2016.