Slashdot Mirror


Linux Kernel 2.6.32 LTS Has Reached End of Life

prisoninmate writes: At the end of January we reported the fact that the oldest long-term supported kernel branch, Linux 2.6.32, is about to reached its end of life in February 2016, as announced by Willy Tarreau, who said that there might be another point release in a few weeks if important things need to be fixed. Well, it took a little bit longer than two weeks, and on March 12, he published details about the last maintenance release in the series, Linux kernel 2.6.32.71 LTS, along with the official end of life announcement, recommending users to move to the Linux 3.2 branch.

12 of 76 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Age? by TheReaperD · · Score: 3, Informative

    Looks like it was released on December 2nd 2009.

    --
    "Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
  2. Damn, been a while since I worked on the kernel by Snotnose · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Last time I wrote a driver (PCI) we were deciding if we wanted to stick with 2.2 or upgrade to the new fangled 2.4 kernel. Last time I dug into the kernel guts (our hardware was really slow for some reason) 2.4 was still considered new.

    I'm just a user now using Linux to write software for embedded systems.

  3. Re:Well, that's it. by Kjella · · Score: 3, Interesting

    That's the last kernel that I as an individual was vaguely able to keep up with. Now it's such a bloated mess that unless you've been part of the development team for decades, you're really not going to be able to maintain an understanding. It seems nearly every project in computing goes this way. Oh well, sic transit and stuff.

    According to this chart 2.6.32 had ~9.8 MLoC so I'd say you weren't doing too shabby. In fact if you can keep up with over half the current kernel at ~16.8 MLoC, Linus might be hiring...

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  4. Finally! by aralin · · Score: 4, Informative

    As someone having to develop complex drivers for 3 years for this particular version of kernel because Cavium would not port their SDK to anything newer until couple years ago, I can honestly say, it was time... for a long time...

    --
    If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
    1. Re:Finally! by FrankSchwab · · Score: 2

      And those who want to stay on 2.6 are welcome to, and if there's a big enough community they could even conceivably manage to make changes/apply fixes on their own.

      Try applying a Windows 7 security fix to Windows XP. Good luck with that.

      --
      And the worms ate into his brain.
  5. CHange for the sake of change by Billly+Gates · · Score: 5, Funny

    Oh here we go again! Linus wants more money and obsolete perfectly good computers so they can sell more apps on the Gnu appstore. THis is OUTRAGEOUS! We just upgraded from kernel 2.2 from 2001 last year and Linus ends support already?? Kernel 2.6.32 works just fine and is modern and well supported.

    I can't believe users put up with this vandalism and forced obsolence. All the icons are in the wrong spot and my users can't handle change so quickly

    1. Re:CHange for the sake of change by Trogre · · Score: 4, Funny

      Okay, everyone, say it with me now:

      WhooooOOOooooosh

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
  6. Longer than BSD, Windows of the same time period by raymorris · · Score: 3, Informative

    In 2009, three kernels were released, Linux 2.32, FreeBSD 7, and Windows 7. FreeBSD 7 went eol four years later, in 2013. Windows 7 service packs also ended in 2013, Windows 7 mainstream support ended in 2015, Linux 2.32 will support will (somewhat) end in 2016.

    So other operating systems have support for 4-6 years, Linux for 7 years.

  7. Re:Age? by TheReaperD · · Score: 2

    Yes, but you can upgrade to the next/current version free of charge. That makes a major difference between having to spend hundreds or thousands of dollars on licensing to upgrade your systems versus just the time involved for the update. Having to spend the time to upgrade a server once every 6 years is really damn good, especially since you get to do it for free.

    --
    "Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
  8. Re:Age? by iggymanz · · Score: 2

    huh, the 13 years of Linux 2.6 compares well with 12 years of solaris 9 (released Mar 2002 - EOL Oct 2014) or AIX 5.3 (Aug 2004-April 2012). Even the IBM mainframe OS don't go that long for major/minor point release (includes kernel)

    yes the kernel version of each included with support compared to linux which is just the kernel

  9. Re:Implications for Centos & Scientific Linux by elwinc · · Score: 2

    Scientific Linux 6.0 thru 6.6 also use kernel 2.6.32. I'm seeing kernel-2.6.32-573.12.1.el6.x86_64.rpm dated 15-Dec-2015 as the newest SL6 kernel, The Upstream Vendor says they'll be supporting EL6 for 10 or 11 years, so roughly until 2020. Perhaps they'll be backporting changes from newer kernels to 2.6.32?

    --
    --- Often in error; never in doubt!
  10. Re:Implications for Centos & Scientific Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Don't be fooled by the 2.6.32 in RedHat EL6 kernels. That was only the base level. RedHat constantly backports important updates from newer kernels. The latest version is 2.6.32-573.18.1 and still counting (N.B. 573 is somewhat higher than the 71 on the LTS). Mind you I do find the EL7 kernels to be more responsive, so there is always a good argument to upgrade, but no rush 2020 is still a few years away.