Linux Kernel 4.7 Reaches End of Life, Users Urged To Move To Linux 4.8 (softpedia.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Linux Kernel 4.7 Reaches End of Life, Users Urged To Move To Linux 4.8 (softpedia.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on Sunday October 23, 2016 @11:34PM from the core-supporters dept.

prisoninmate writes: The Linux 4.7 kernel branch officially reached end of life, and it has already been marked as EOL on the kernel.org website, which means that the Linux kernel 4.7.10 maintenance update is the last one that will be released for this branch. It also means that you need to either update your system to the Linux 4.7.10 kernel release or move to a more recent kernel branch, such as Linux 4.8. In related news, Linux kernel 4.8.4 is now the latest stable and most advanced kernel version, which is already available for users of the Solus and Arch Linux operating systems, and it's coming soon to other GNU/Linux distributions powered by a kernel from the Linux 4.8 series. Users are urged to update their systems as soon as possible.

77 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

So long, Linux by Hognoxious · 2016-10-23 23:39 · Score: 0, Troll

There won't be a 4.9, the kernel's functions will be subsumed by systemd.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
1. Re:So long, Linux by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-23 23:50 · Score: 0
  
  Come-on, it should be GNU/systemd. You have to give credit where it is due.
2. Re:So long, Linux by bluefoxlucid · 2016-10-24 00:16 · Score: 0
  
  After Dirty COW, the self-protecting kernel people will end up porting all Linux interfaces and core functionality (e.g. iptables) to Minix services. Then they can replace the VM manager and just pass over the PTE data to the new server when there's a bug, instead of rebooting everything. Systemd will be stripped as core functionality makes more sense as a kernel service than as kernel capabilities managed by a user program.
  
  --
  Support my political activism on Patreon.
3. Re:So long, Linux by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-24 00:17 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Come-on, it should be GNU/systemd. You have to give credit where it is due.
  I think systemd/systemd would be more appropriate.
4. Re: So long, Linux by Z00L00K · 2016-10-24 02:17 · Score: 1
  
  The advantage with the Lunux kernel over alternatives is greater than the disadvantages, so Linux will continue. Porting all stuff to other cores like drivers etc. is going to introduce new bugs.
  
  --
  If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
5. Re:So long, Linux by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-24 02:49 · Score: 0
  
  Come-on, it should be GNU/systemd. You have to give credit where it is due.
  I think systemd/systemd would be more appropriate.
  You didn't really think that Poettering would stop while there was still a shred of original Unix/Linux/Gnu technology in there did you?
  Or modularity, for that matter. Forget systemd/systemd. From now on, it's going to be simply SYSTEMD (a/k/a the MCP).
6. Re:So long, Linux by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-24 04:59 · Score: 0
  
  Make parent a +5, Troll--c'mon, gang, you know you really want to!
7. Re: So long, Linux by bluefoxlucid · 2016-10-24 06:14 · Score: 0
  
  That's actually a pretty complex argument.
  Porting the drivers and such to a microkernel architecture in full (L4, Minix, Hurd) would isolate parts of the code and require strict API adherence (and ABI, but ABI amounts to your IPC protocol). That reduces the scope of bugs, in the long run; and it minimizes short-term porting bugs. The cost is essentially a large amount of man-power.
  So you have the likelihood of finding a lot of bugs, eliminating a lot of bugs in the process, and creating new bugs, all at odds with each other, and each with different short- and long-term implications (you'll create new bugs in the short-term, but fewer than e.g. porting everything to BSD; and you'll eliminate and produce fewer bugs in the long-term); along with the enormous cost of simply organizing the change (everything has to be broken down and fixed around boundaries first).
  The single short- and long-term advantage of keeping the Linux kernel architecture is it's a hell of a lot less work to not rearchitect an OS kernel.
  
  --
  Support my political activism on Patreon.
8. Re:So long, Linux by Hognoxious · 2016-10-24 12:01 · Score: 1
  
  He should have just written his own OS. That way he could do whatever he likes without being bound by silly things like "do one thing, do it well" and we could all ignore it.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Linus for prez! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-23 23:44 · Score: 0

Linus Torvalds for president!
1. Re:Linus for prez! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-24 04:22 · Score: 0
  
  A this stage, a dead rat for president would be better than any of the alternatives.
Almost at 5.0?? by haruchai · 2016-10-23 23:46 · Score: 1

It seemed that we were stuck at 2.6 for such a long time. Pretty sure a former company is still running some 2.6 boxes.

--
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
1. Re:Almost at 5.0?? by hodet · 2016-10-23 23:53 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Seeing as RedHat 6.4 uses the 2.6 kernel and is supported until Nov 2020 there will be lots of 2.6 for some time yet. Then there will be extended support as well for those willing to pay for it.
2. Re:Almost at 5.0?? by hodet · 2016-10-23 23:56 · Score: 2
  
  Replying to myself.
  You meant 6.x you moran.
3. Re:Almost at 5.0?? by frank_adrian314159 · 2016-10-23 23:58 · Score: 1
  
  There's probably old switches/routers/lab equipment/etc. still using that kernel (not to mention 4.7). Much of it probably isn't regularly upgraded (if it is upgradable at all).
  
  --
  That is all.
4. Re:Almost at 5.0?? by Z00L00K · 2016-10-24 00:03 · Score: 1
  
  I upgraded to 4.8 yesterday due to the Dirty COW bug.
  Too many jokes about dirty cows are expected.
  
  --
  If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
5. Re:Almost at 5.0?? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-24 00:20 · Score: 0
  
  It seemed that we were stuck at 2.6 for such a long time.
  At one time, Linus Torvalds has some sort of strange aversion to incrementing the kernel's major version number. There was even a mailing list post where he said that there would never be a kernel version 3.
  He obviously changed his mind since then, probably realizing that things would get tricky when you reach 2.9.99.99
6. Re:Almost at 5.0?? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-24 00:25 · Score: 0
  
  At this rate, we'll be at 11 before Windows. Gee, thanks Greg.
7. Re:Almost at 5.0?? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-24 00:27 · Score: 0
  
  Lurk more.
8. Re:Almost at 5.0?? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-24 00:49 · Score: 0
  
  You meant 6.x you moran.
  Get a brain!
9. Re:Almost at 5.0?? by ausekilis · 2016-10-24 01:04 · Score: 2
  
  That's because 2.6.40 became 3.0. If memory serves, it was just because Linus was getting tired of incrementing 2.6.n and there weren't any changes big enough to warrant a major version increase, so he just moved 2.6.40 to 3.0.
  
  Looking at kernel version history and assuming no big changes that would mean major/minor release number changes, kernel 4.9 would otherwise be somewhere around 2.6.69.
10. Re:Almost at 5.0?? by hodet · 2016-10-24 01:14 · Score: 1
  
  Actually you are both right. :-)
  From Urban dictionary
  The preferred method of spelling "moron" by morons, particularly that of a Missouri redneck at a rally supporting the US led war in Iraq.
  Get a brain, moran! GO USA!
11. Re:Almost at 5.0?? by raynet · 2016-10-24 03:44 · Score: 1
  
  There wouldn't be any problem, there could be 2.9.99.100 or 2.9.100.1 or even 2.9.100000.1000000000.
  
  --
  - Raynet --> .
12. Re:Almost at 5.0?? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-24 04:46 · Score: 0
  
  I actually calculated this last week: linux-4.8 would have been linux-2.6.61
13. Re:Almost at 5.0?? by Z00L00K · 2016-10-24 04:55 · Score: 1
  
  And even the 2.4 kernel.
  
  --
  If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
14. Re:Almost at 5.0?? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-24 06:57 · Score: 0
  
  No way am I upgrading. 4.7 was the best version of the Linux kernel ever. Nothing but bloat has been added since then. They can pry my 4.7 from my cold dead fingers. Heck, may if they are going to strong arm me, it's time to move on to OpenBSD. I'm tired of being forced into these "upgrades".
15. Re:Almost at 5.0?? by Formem · 2016-10-31 03:33 · Score: 1
  
  LOL
Third way by wonkey_monkey · 2016-10-23 23:51 · Score: 1

It also means that you need to either update your system to the Linux 4.7.10 kernel release or move to a more recent kernel branch, such as Linux 4.8.
Or you could do nothing. Linux is about choice, after all.

--
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
I Must Be Holding It Wrong by Zontar+The+Mindless · 2016-10-23 23:55 · Score: 2

It also means that you need to either update your system to the Linux 4.7.10 kernel release or move to a more recent kernel branch, such as Linux 4.8.
"*Need*"? I'm quite happy to use my distro's 4.1.34 kernel and let them worry about updating it. Just got a round of security and other fixes for it on Friday, in fact.

--
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
1. Re: I Must Be Holding It Wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-24 00:05 · Score: 0
  
  Kernel 4.1 is supported until September 2017. Your distribution might support it for longer.
2. Re:I Must Be Holding It Wrong by Z00L00K · 2016-10-24 00:28 · Score: 0
  
  It depends on if your machine is open to the internet or not. And if you have users on your machine that you don't want to give root permissions.
  
  --
  If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
3. Re:I Must Be Holding It Wrong by Zontar+The+Mindless · 2016-10-24 01:11 · Score: 2
  
  Since my distro has already provided a fix, it's a moot point for me.
  
  --
  Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
fourth way by serviscope_minor · 2016-10-23 23:55 · Score: 5, Insightful

Or use your distro maintained kernel.

--
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Where is the new scheduler? by bluefoxlucid · 2016-10-24 00:18 · Score: 2

Where are BFQ and BFS? I've been waiting for these to land as standard for months!

--
Support my political activism on Patreon.
How many people use the latest? by hodet · 2016-10-24 00:21 · Score: 1

With distros maintaining their own kernels and backporting security fixes, how many people/organizations use the latest? Who are these users that anxiously await the latest kernel? Serious question, in all my years of using Linux I very rarely have downloaded the latest kernel and compiled it. I have done it pretty much out of interest only.
1. Re:How many people use the latest? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-24 01:33 · Score: 0
  
  It's just impossible to just recompile the Kernel these days. UEFI will block you because you won't have a signature to run your home brewed kernel. Don't tell me to boot with Classic BIOS, because I've done that and all peripherals were disabled if switched to Classic BIOS. All types of distro CANNOT RUN the PCI and USB peripherals if you boot on classic BIOS Consumers were tricked with UEFI, they claimed avoiding UEFI and dropping to classic BIOS would revert everything to normal, but it's just plain LIE. UEFI should die, hope EFF investigates this.
2. Re: How many people use the latest? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-24 02:02 · Score: 0
  
  EFF can investigate all they want, they know it's a lost battl
3. Re:How many people use the latest? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-24 02:44 · Score: 0
  
  I don't have any of the issues you've described. Perhaps you should be more selective with your hardware. Hope this helps. -PCP
4. Re:How many people use the latest? by Z00L00K · 2016-10-24 05:00 · Score: 1
  
  I recompiled to the latest kernel yesterday and I didn't have any problems with UEFI, so I'm not sure what you are talking about.
  
  --
  If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
5. Re:How many people use the latest? by subk · 2016-10-24 07:18 · Score: 1
  
  Arch users run the latest kernel. And all we have to do is a simple "# pacman -Syu" after it hits the repository. If you want to go out of your way to run old kernels (Debian, Fedora, etc), go for it. I prefer to be a little more current.
  
  --
  Now, if you'll excuse me, I have backups to corrupt.
I'm enjoying 2.6 still by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-24 00:23 · Score: 1

Thanks RedHat!
1. Re:I'm enjoying 2.6 still by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-24 02:37 · Score: 0
  
  What you actually are enjoying is the lack of SystemD.
Journalism by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-24 00:55 · Score: 0

Did this Softopedia article just reworded the Linux mailing list? Bah, journalism!
migration paths per distribution by nimbius · 2016-10-24 01:01 · Score: 5, Funny

4.8 is a large step, however ive compiled a list of migrations for major distributions
Ubuntu: apt-get install...wait...apt-cache update && apt-....isnt there a widget? ignore the update its probably already happened or systemd already did it...
fedora: in the dark ages, 40 minutes ago to be precise, this old kernel called 4.8 was often said to be the next version. youre currently on Fedora 23, so in the next 11 minutes once youve upgraded to fedora 29 you'll be patched for the upcoming vulnerability in kernel 6.0.
Slack: 2.4 booted just fine this morning and the coffee is already done so no time for compiling some new fangled bullshit from the "hyperlink" transport protocol. lets load up some gopher and call the cops, those kids are getting a little too overambitious with the pokemon GO at the park down the street.
Gentoo:...hey did you see arch wrote a really good doc on upgrading?
Arch: finish the doc for gentoo guys theyre almost done compiling userland.
BSD: load up nethack, queue something up on MPD and lets wait for this whole cow fiasco in Linux land to blow over.

--
Good people go to bed earlier.
1. Re:migration paths per distribution by Alter_3d · 2016-10-24 03:41 · Score: 1
  
  What command do I use to upgrade the kernel? I use Windows Vista. Thanks
2. Re:migration paths per distribution by bheerssen · 2016-10-24 03:53 · Score: 1
  
  4.8 is a large step, however ive compiled a list of migrations for major distributions
  Ubuntu: apt-get install...wait...apt-cache update && apt-....isnt there a widget? ignore the update its probably already happened or systemd already did it...
  There is a widget for this. It's called Software Updater and it's found in System Tools in the menu. If you want to upgrade to a newer distribution version (eg: from 16.04 to 16.10) you need to select the appropriate option in Software & Updates.
  
  --
  (Score: -1, Stupid)
3. Re:migration paths per distribution by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-24 04:07 · Score: 0
  
  I want to update kernel on solar calculator. Provide instructions ASAP
4. Re:migration paths per distribution by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-24 04:50 · Score: 0
  
  To update your Windows kernel, there's a special command you must execute that involves you opening your wallet, getting lubed up and bending over for M$.
  Corporations large and small have been doing this for years, but it yields rather poor results. The current NFL debacle with the surface tablets is a direct result of running this aforementioned upgrade command, for example.
  The typical verbal response from the M$ help line you dial for help and upgrade support involves a lot of laughter on their end, followed by "Fcuk you, dude! We have your money now, we don't care!"
  YMMV. Good luck, you will definitely need it.
5. Re:migration paths per distribution by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-24 05:00 · Score: 0
  
  You read all 60 posts on microsoft's support site as to why your automatic windows updates are failing, all of which offer commands to fix it, none of which workr for you.
  On a related note, anyone have any ideas as to why my windows 10 won't update automatically? I've already tried sfc, the windows update troubleshooter, stopping and restarting the service, rebooting my computer, etc.
6. Re:migration paths per distribution by Gavagai80 · 2016-10-24 06:28 · Score: 1
  
  Sure, if you want to turn a 15 second process into a 2 minute process with a bunch of clicking around and waiting for horridly slow GUIs to load/refresh.
  
  --
  This space intentionally left blank
7. Re:migration paths per distribution by fibonacci8 · 2016-10-24 07:23 · Score: 1
  
  Sure, if you want to turn a 15 second process that you understand into a 2 minute process that can be easily described to friends or family if they're interested in doing the same without a technical background.
  Fixed that for you.
  
  --
  Inheritance is the sincerest form of nepotism.
8. Re:migration paths per distribution by Gavagai80 · 2016-10-24 10:21 · Score: 1
  
  It's anything but easy to describe where to make a series of clicks. It's easy to show someone how to update through a GUI, but you're stuck describing then you're better off describing a command line so that they only have to remember 3 words (sudo apt-get upgrade) instead of several paragraphs of vague attempts at describing their screen only to find out they have a different version where it all looks different.
  
  --
  This space intentionally left blank
9. Re:migration paths per distribution by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-24 14:19 · Score: 0
  
  On a related note, anyone have any ideas as to why my windows 10 won't update automatically? I've already tried sfc, the windows update troubleshooter, stopping and restarting the service, rebooting my computer, etc.
  This place is full of Linux zealots, it's the worst place in the world to ask for Windows tech support.
  Having said that, if you're serious about your question you need to elaborate on the problem. Are there any error messages for example? There's a script floating around which can refresh the Windows Update service and clear out old crud that could be blocking updates, but error messages/codes might reveal a simpler solution.
10. Re:migration paths per distribution by KiloByte · 2016-10-24 15:19 · Score: 1
  
  I still haven't figured out what's the clicky-clicky way to do an upgrade, and I'm a full DD. Plus, GUIs are different in every derivative and often version.
  
  --
  The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
Ubuntu by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-24 01:02 · Score: 0

And yet, Ubuntu 16.04 LTS is still at kernel version 4.4.
1. Re:Ubuntu by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-24 02:01 · Score: 0
  
  Since you know, 4.4 is projected to have an EOL of Feburary 2018. LTS == Long Term Stable. Do you know what that means? It means you don't go making major changes, like a new major kernel revision.
Will 4.8 work with KDE again? by ArsenneLupin · 2016-10-24 01:05 · Score: 1

Will 4.8 work with KDE again? If not, is there a place where we still can download a debian package of 4.6?
1. Re:Will 4.8 work with KDE again? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-24 02:39 · Score: 0
  
  Whats broken with KDE in 4.8? I've been running the absolute latest KDE/plasma releases on 4.8 for a while now with no issues.
Bleeding edge much? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-24 01:15 · Score: 1

I'll be on 4.4 for until at least April 2018. Please find all the crashes for me before then? kthxbye.
1. Re:Bleeding edge much? by danomac · 2016-10-24 06:17 · Score: 1
  
  I'm still on 4.1.x. My hardware doesn't change all that often, so...
Is Linus becoming irrelevant? by sinij · 2016-10-24 02:12 · Score: 0

Is Linus becoming irrelevant? I am getting Mozilla-like whiplash from these rapid changes.

I think most kernels are now maintained by distro teams. Recently, I discovered that some popular Linux distros won't even compile with Linus' kernel. So clearly, we have a lot more *nix OSes mascaraing as Linux... or maybe Linux community moved on past Linus?
1. Re:Is Linus becoming irrelevant? by armanox · 2016-10-24 02:27 · Score: 2
  
  Negative. They all use Linus's kernel as upstream, and just apply their own patches to it from there. Without Linus, they do not move forward and begin to diverge from each other.
  
  --
  I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
2. Re:Is Linus becoming irrelevant? by khz6955 · 2016-10-24 02:34 · Score: 1
  
  @sinij: "Recently, I discovered that some popular Linux distros won't even compile with Linus' kernel."
  
  Where, do tell, can you provide a citation for where Linus' kernel won't compile and with what popular Linux distros?
3. Re:Is Linus becoming irrelevant? by sinij · 2016-10-24 02:49 · Score: 1
  
  RHEL7 for example. Won't compile with version-correct kernel downloaded directly from Linus.
4. Re:Is Linus becoming irrelevant? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-24 03:35 · Score: 0
  
  If they messed with gcc, you need the gcc variant the distro uses to compile the kernel. E.g, Ubuntu's default gcc need -fno-pie to compile Linux. Yes, we are going to patch it upstream to add the no-pie flag, PIE is a good thing as a rule, the kernel won't stand in the way.
  But that's not it, at least one widely used subversion of gcc 6.2 miscompiles the kernel, for example. This *is* just a coincidence, not a shot at Ubuntu, but it was distributed by Ubuntu as well. Why would anyone try to use a nearly-compiled-of-the-day version of gcc on the kernel I wouldn't know, Ubuntu certainly doesn't (nor does Debian, or Fedora). But it is nice to get the bug reports, fix gcc, and keep moving forward.
Why is this news? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-24 03:06 · Score: 0

It happens all the time that a non-LTS Kernel reaches EOL.
Version 4.8 lolz by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-24 03:17 · Score: 0

With Windows already well past version 2000, there's no way the Lunix will catch up at this pace!
PAY for it? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-24 03:19 · Score: 0

I didn't switch to Lunix just to have to pay for shit.
Phone kernel 3.4.112 not safe? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-24 03:32 · Score: 0

Android 6.0.1 has kernel 3.4 when built by Cyanogenmod in version 13.0-20161022 nightly. I suppose some technical issue impedes building a current kernel.
How unsafe is 3.4.112 kernel?
1. Re:Phone kernel 3.4.112 not safe? by Z00L00K · 2016-10-24 05:05 · Score: 1
  
  On a droid - not a big problem unless you install some strange apps.
  
  --
  If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Great. by Shaman · 2016-10-24 03:36 · Score: 1

Tried to update to 4.8.4 (manually) and it won't read my BNX2 firmware. 4.7.10 is fine.
So much for 4.7 being a long-term release (iirc)

--
...Steve
I beg to differ by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-24 04:06 · Score: 0

I beg to differ. The blurb said that 4.84 is the most advanced kernel. Nope! The most advanced is 4.9.0-rc2. It came out yesterday. Its running now (as I type this, on the machine I'm typing it on). FTFY
dirty cow by Lead+Butthead · 2016-10-24 06:00 · Score: 2

I didn't know Gateway 2000 is still around.

--
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
Users? by mutherhacker · 2016-10-24 07:18 · Score: 0

You know something is seriously wrong with an operating system when a user needs to upgrade their kernel... [unleash hate!]
Somebody better tell Google! by wierd_w · 2016-10-24 08:04 · Score: 1

My Chromebook celes is driving the latest stable build.
Uname -a says it is driving on 3.18.0
That is significantly older than 4.6.