Canonical Preps Security Lifeboat, Yells: Ubuntu 12.04 Hold-Outs, Get In (theregister.co.uk)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Canonical Preps Security Lifeboat, Yells: Ubuntu 12.04 Hold-Outs, Get In (theregister.co.uk)

Posted by msmash on Wednesday March 15, 2017 @06:00AM from the XP-moment dept.

Gavin Clarke, writing for The Register: Canonical is extending the deadline for security updates for paying users of its five-year-old Ubuntu 12.04 LTS -- a first. Ubuntu 12.04 LTS will become the first Long Term Support release of Canonical's Linux to get Extended Security Maintenance (ESM). There are six LTS editions. All others have been end-of-lifed -- and given no security reprieve. LTS editions of Ubuntu Linux are released every two years. Desktop support runs for three years and the server edition receives security patches and updates for a period of five years. Security updates for 12.04 were scheduled to run out on April 28, 2017 but that now won't happen for those on Canonical's Ubuntu Advantage programme. They'll now receive important security fixes for the kernel and "most essential" userspace packages on their servers running 12.04. In what's shaping up to be Canonical's Windows XP moment over at Microsoft, the Linux spinner rolled out the lifeline because customers are clinging to 12.04.

88 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Should not be necessary. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-15 06:06 · Score: 0, Interesting

After all this time, there should have been enough eyeballs scouring the open source code for vulnerabilities that it should be impregnable. I cannot understand how something like this could happen with open source being constantly audited by all its users for bugs before they compile and install.
1. Re: Should not be necessary. by TheOuterLinux · 2017-03-15 06:36 · Score: 1
  
  It's not a matter of finding security issues, it's a matter of people knowing that 12.04 LTS works really well on older hardware and why upgrade if you don't need to. Most updates to software are eye candy related, most bugs are 64-bit related, and most vulnerabilities are focussed on the newer hardware. Also, 12.04 is much easier to create custom distros from. Though, I prefer SuseStudio/OpenSUSE.
2. Re: Should not be necessary. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-15 06:56 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know if you've ever done bug hunting on a large codebase like the Linux kernel, but it's hard. Stupid hard on code that has been audited thoroughly, because all the low hanging fruit has been found already.
  An experienced bug hunter can review the same code many many times before finding a subtle bug, and there just aren't that many people out there with that skill set. Also consider that some appreciable fraction of those people are finding bugs for private, offensive use rather than to fix them.
3. Re: Should not be necessary. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-15 07:01 · Score: 1
  
  Hmmm. Point well taken, I agree with your assertion that a well written, secure, closed source code base that cannot be reviewed and exploited by unauthorized hackers would be a superior solution. Perhaps something akin to Windows 10.
4. Re: Should not be necessary. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-15 07:49 · Score: 0
  
  Haha pwned.
5. Re: Should not be necessary. by Type44Q · 2017-03-15 09:08 · Score: 1
  
  I cannot understand...
  Is this a riddle? I know the answer! It's because you're a shill, right??
6. Re: Should not be necessary. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-15 15:11 · Score: 0
  
  Additionally, some distributions have QA teams that do a terrible job of transferring their knowledge to other developers, who can assist in the auditing process. Gentoo is one such distribution that suffers from a complete lack of crystal clear QA and security guidelines.
  It's not that these people don't take the job seriously; it's that they don't want others playing in their sandbox. And that becomes a problem when you're trying to ship a quality OS with fewer bugs and vulnerabilities.
  All distributions should find ways to get their developers to practice QA. If it's too involved, automate and document it. Establish Good Ideas and pass down knowledge. It's the only way libre software will get better.
7. Re: Should not be necessary. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-16 00:28 · Score: 0
  
  Because that's exactly what history shows us, right? Windows gets hacked infrequently and Linux distros scrabble to patch vulnerabilities that are found on a daily basis.
XP moment: not quite by DogDude · 2017-03-15 06:08 · Score: 2, Interesting

"In what's shaping up to be Canonical's Windows XP moment"

In another 5-10 years, this may be true. Mainstream support for XP lasted a decade, and some versions were supported for 13 years. 5 years support for an OS is, as The Orange Asshole would say, "Sad!".

--
I don't respond to AC's.
1. Re:XP moment: not quite by amiga3D · 2017-03-15 06:16 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I think people are hanging onto 12.04 because the next LTS release is where Ubuntu started to go off the rails.
2. Re:XP moment: not quite by LVSlushdat · 2017-03-15 06:31 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Umm.. As far as I'm concerned, the next LTS, that being 14.04, is just fine... Its the following one, 16.04 that DEFINITELY "went off the rails", that being systemd.. All my systems are staying on 14.04 until close to its EOL, in April 2019, giving me 2 more years to find a non-systemd alternative to Ubuntu.. I'd rather stay with a Debian-derived OS, but its looking like I may be going back to my Linux "roots", that being Slackware, where I started with Linux in 1994..
  
  --
  THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)
3. Re:XP moment: not quite by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-15 06:39 · Score: 0
  
  Hate to tell you this but there really isn't one that doesn't involve moving to some level of rolling your own. The only path for us holdouts is FreeBSD it seems- which is pleasantly about as easy to live with as 8.04 or 10.04 Ubuntu but with more modern appointments.
4. Re:XP moment: not quite by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-15 06:39 · Score: 0
  
  Umm.. As far as I'm concerned, the next LTS, that being 14.04, is just fine... Its the following one, 16.04 that DEFINITELY "went off the rails", that being systemd.. All my systems are staying on 14.04 until close to its EOL, in April 2019, giving me 2 more years to find a non-systemd alternative to Ubuntu.. I'd rather stay with a Debian-derived OS, but its looking like I may be going back to my Linux "roots", that being Slackware, where I started with Linux in 1994..
  So install a "straight" version of Debian, like "Stable" or "Testing"; it's just as easy as install Ubuntu and lacks Ubuntu's home-grown "spyware".
  Then follow the directions found on the Internet (a good search engine is your friend here), though the best info was found via a search engine that provided a link to Debian's own web site, and remove SystemD(eath) and replace it with SYSV Init. I have done that many times.
  My only worry, and it should also be yours, is what to do if Debian "drinks the Kool-Aid" and respins their entire distribution into using SystemD(eath) exclusively?
5. Re:XP moment: not quite by MightyMartian · 2017-03-15 06:52 · Score: 1
  
  I think you'd best count on Debian doing this at some point. The only solutions are either to move to one of the looser distros like Slackware, or to FreeBSD. While I do love Slack, I don't know if I'd ever have enough confidence in it to put in a server room, so that leaves FreeBSD, which is where I'm heading. It does take some getting used to, I have to put on my old quarter century old Xenix hat to some extent, but it least it actually functions like Unix should.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
6. Re:XP moment: not quite by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-15 06:53 · Score: 0
  
  I feel 16.04 is mostly fine. It is a bit annoying that most PHP packages weren't actually tested and only work with PHP5 while the OS only allows installing PHP7. So you need to find a lot of packages yourself (they are available from most vendors).
  The systemd stuff I find is mostly OK. I mean... the log-files are still there, you still use "service apache2 reload" and the only difference is where the logs from services failing to start appears (and even then, the command to see the log is printed in the console so you don't need to google how to see the damn apache error-message).
  Of course, if you are fine with 14.04 I don't see anything essential in 16.04. The only reason to upgrade is so you don't get stuck with no possible upgrade later on (14.04 won't be able to upgrade directly to 18.04, I'd assume).
7. Re:XP moment: not quite by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-15 07:16 · Score: 0
  
  Hate to tell you this but there really isn't one that doesn't involve moving to some level of rolling your own. The only path for us holdouts is FreeBSD it seems- which is pleasantly about as easy to live with as 8.04 or 10.04 Ubuntu but with more modern appointments.
  PCLINUX OS is systemd free
8. Re:XP moment: not quite by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-15 07:21 · Score: 0
  
  Might I suggest OpenBSD? It is even more minimalist than Slackware.
9. Re: XP moment: not quite by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-15 07:22 · Score: 0
  
  Devuan . I know, sounds too much like a vulva, but still much better because Debian sounds like Debilian
10. Re:XP moment: not quite by LVSlushdat · 2017-03-15 07:28 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  I seriously doubt Patrick Volkerding is gonna go down the systemd "rathole"... Although if for some insane reason, he did do that to Slackware, like you say, theres always the 'BSD's, which wouldn't be so bad to replace Linux...
  
  --
  THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)
11. Re:XP moment: not quite by LVSlushdat · 2017-03-15 07:34 · Score: 1
  
  Oh yes.. I've used plain-jane Debian quite a bit on several hosted VMs I run, mainly because the VPS vendor didn't have any non-EOL'ed Ubuntu images.. All they had, in 2015, mind you, were a bunch of EOL'ed (12.10/13.04/13.10) non-LTS versions, which nobody in their right mind would use on an internet-facing host, therefore I used/still use Debian there.. I am unaware that systemd can be removed from the current releases of Debian, which is why I started looking at Devuan (or howEVER you spell it) which is supposed to be Debian_withOUT_systemd.....
  
  --
  THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)
12. Re:XP moment: not quite by Billly+Gates · 2017-03-15 07:40 · Score: 1
  
  Consider Freebsd? It's networking performance is very good and it's TCP/IP stack is the standard which is why Cisco used it and Juniper still does.
  Freebsd is one of the most conservative and stable versions of Unix and the Freebsd handbook has excellent documentation. Also to mention FreeBSD specific features include jails, Zfs, and dtrace. Hyper-V and VMware support are top notch as well as both Microsoft and Amazon hosting Freebsd on their clouds.
  
  --
  http://saveie6.com/
13. Re:XP moment: not quite by Billly+Gates · 2017-03-15 07:47 · Score: 1
  
  Go download an iso and fire up a VM? Make sure install the handbook in the install as you will need it. Only downside to BSD is being conservative it is a very basic install. No bash or Xorg. You can install those and make it into a Linux like distro by installing bash and gnuls instead of bsd ls with --color option (how is that compared to Unix like lol). Also it comes with clang. GCC is still there via the ports in usr/ports as well as the binary pkg-add utility.
  Clang eats ram for breakfast and I did a /usr/ports/x11org make install clean and it are up so much ram I didn't have any free to do a kill -9 :-(
  But Zfs is awesome
  
  --
  http://saveie6.com/
14. Re: XP moment: not quite by corychristison · 2017-03-15 08:07 · Score: 1
  
  Just throwing this out there: Gentoo or Archlinux with OpenRC.
15. Re:XP moment: not quite by hairyfeet · 2017-03-15 09:08 · Score: 1
  
  How EXACTLY is this a troll? If you are running a point of sale or other embedded Windows XP setup (or don't mind tweaking a single line in the registry) you can get updates for XP until Apr 2019, that is nearly 20 years worth of security patches.
  I'm sorry but no Linux system comes even slightly close to the amount of support you get from Windows, Windows Vista is only now having its free support end, Windows 7 will continue to get updates until 2020 and Windows 8.1 gets patches until 2023...can anybody show me even a single Linux distro that gets free security patches without forcing the user on the upgrade treadmill for this long?
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
16. Re:XP moment: not quite by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-15 10:25 · Score: 0
  
  The Orange Asshole
  How EXACTLY is this a troll?
  Really, dude?
17. Re:XP moment: not quite by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-15 13:32 · Score: 0
  
  >Orange
  HAHAHAHAHAHAHA so clever! What an educated, sophisticated political viewpoint to shoehorn into this completely unrelated topic. You've really shown me the light. I certainly will vote for Hillary in 2020 now.
18. Re:XP moment: not quite by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-15 15:22 · Score: 1
  
  A lot of distributions have made their stand on systemd, be it for or against. I found myself in a similar situation when I left Arch for Gentoo in 2012. Gentoo supports any init system you want, really. There's also Slackware, CRUX, Gobolinux, Devuan, Alpine, Damn Small, Tiny, Puppy... tons of smaller distros that aren't swayed so easily.
  It's really only the mainstream distros that went systemd. Most of that is due to the campaigning Red Hat developers did throughout the community, from pushing systemd as a dependency for GNOME 3 to inciting arguments on the Debian-devel mailing lists. I can provide more info on the particulars if you're interested, but their attitude of forcing their init system to be standard has more or less been proven true, while those of us who warned about it were ignored years ago.
  In short, look for distros that don't care about software fads and instead focus on their own vision. systemd, PA, avahi, consolekit/polkit, and dbus are the Mainstreaming of the GNU/Linux world. If you want to see a preview of what mainstream distros will look like, look at Red Hat. They all treat Red Hat as their primary upstream, so if you run RH in a live environment you'll generally know what the rest of mainstream will look like in 3-12 months.
19. Re: XP moment: not quite by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-15 16:30 · Score: 0
  
  All those things that you claim are bad downsides, are the very things I like more about BSD and dislike about Linux. You've shown above how easy it is to solve your own complaints. I rather not have X and just install it if needed, that have tons of X shit by default that I don't need that I have to go down dependency hell lane to remove junk. And just try to see how far you can get ripping out systemd from Linux. ...yeah good luck with that. At least the PulseAudio and NetworkManager bullshit are easy fixes.
20. Re: XP moment: not quite by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-15 16:35 · Score: 0
  
  Linux From Scratch beeeotch!
21. Re: XP moment: not quite by Billly+Gates · 2017-03-15 16:40 · Score: 1
  
  All those things that you claim are bad downsides, are the very things I like more about BSD and dislike about Linux. You've shown above how easy it is to solve your own complaints. I rather not have X and just install it if needed, that have tons of X shit by default that I don't need that I have to go down dependency hell lane to remove junk. And just try to see how far you can get ripping out systemd from Linux. ...yeah good luck with that. At least the PulseAudio and NetworkManager bullshit are easy fixes.
  That's what I love about FreeBSD too, but hate sometimes. I love that it not only supports tinkering, but ENCOURAGES IT! THe whole system is built from the ground up to do whatever you want on it. Isn't that the traditional power of the PC over the Mac and appliances?
  Problem is it rather is a pain in the ass if you want a quick desktop. But, it is very well designed. I loved /usr/share/examples where CVSUP used to be be. I remember FreeBSD 4.x used to have sample /etc/x scripts you can use. I HATE RC. FreeBSD scripts have # uncomment this line to enable X in the old examples with CVSUP (this is 10 years ago so I do not remember where the exact location was or name).
  I do use turnkeylinux for simple appliances to fire up FAST if I want to code a website. But for someone with servers FreeBSD encourages more of work and less of trying to be the Windows of Unix like Linux is with GUI's and config programs that do things for you. And FreeBSD has much better documentation besides the handbook in /usr/docs including even Unix history. This is something you do not get unless you use it and see FreeBSD is not another distro but a whole new OS with a unified feel.
  
  --
  http://saveie6.com/
22. Re:XP moment: not quite by Billly+Gates · 2017-03-15 16:46 · Score: 1
  
  Actually Hairy you may want to look at FreeBSD. It has an ABI unlike Linux and changes are much much more minimal making it easy to upgrade without stuff craping out.
  Unfortunately, it is not for Grandma or our users by far. FreeBSD gets updated all the time and with things not changing you can do a pkg-add or a make install clean at /usr/ports for any package. Since the kernel team and userland are all one there is that sense of integration. Also the scripts in /etc are simplistic. Not horrible if/fi else programs that break for each distro upgrade!
  I hate RC scripts and logic SHOULD NEVER be in a config file ... except under Linux which is why upgrades fail besides the lack of an ABI forcing Xorg to break.
  
  --
  http://saveie6.com/
23. Re:XP moment: not quite by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-15 17:30 · Score: 0
  
  as The Orange Asshole would say
  Using this doll, can you show us where the bad man touched you inappropriately?
24. Re:XP moment: not quite by GoingDown · 2017-03-15 18:51 · Score: 1
  
  I'm sorry but no Linux system comes even slightly close to the amount of support you get from Windows, Windows Vista is only now having its free support end, Windows 7 will continue to get updates until 2020 and Windows 8.1 gets patches until 2023...can anybody show me even a single Linux distro that gets free security patches without forcing the user on the upgrade treadmill for this long?
  Centos comes to my mind (and of course RHEL). Centos releases are supported for about 10 years, which is about in same level as Windows 7 support.
  Centos 5 was released April 2017, and its support is ending 31 March 2017.
Why 12.04? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-15 06:08 · Score: 1, Interesting

is there something "special" about 12.04? With 16.04 ubuntu got systemd-infested, but was there something after 12.04 that customers don't like? Or simply "we don't upgrade, period"?
1. Re:Why 12.04? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-15 06:41 · Score: 0
  
  I'm assuming it's holdouts for Gnome 2.
2. Re:Why 12.04? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-15 06:44 · Score: 1
  
  14.04 has unity
3. Re:Why 12.04? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-15 07:06 · Score: 0
  
  14.04 has unity
  this.
  Very happy that 16.04 has a MATE edition, after living with Unity in 14.04
4. Re:Why 12.04? by Kjella · 2017-03-15 07:10 · Score: 1
  
  is there something "special" about 12.04? With 16.04 ubuntu got systemd-infested, but was there something after 12.04 that customers don't like? Or simply "we don't upgrade, period"?
  Probably just the inherent risk and potential cost of changing anything you know works. Had that at work today, we'd stopped updating data on a legacy format that had been properly notified in all the right places that was going to be shut down and that it had been shut down, both the ones formally in charge and the key consumers directly. It was left accessible for legacy data. And then there's one little rarely run side process that ends up with stale data for the last part of the year and the data gets odd enough it's reported as a bug and we trace the dependency chain to finally say yeah, that's because you're have bad data.
  We struggle enough to have decent test coverage on code and that's with tons of automated checks. Business processes always have terrible, terrible test coverage. You make a change to something like say a dialog or take away a checkbox wait for someone to scream bloody murder. Or data in a database, I develop a system that keeps track of what is used for what. But it's constantly sabotaged by side processes that slurp up data because they don't have time to learn to notify anyone what they actually use. Then nobody can delete shit because nobody can keep track over whether or not some process somewhere has grabbed this data and we need to reproduce it.
  And making things better usually involves finding out that what was there was broken in so many ways. Like I'm working now on a system that once was fed by one package that did thing "right", so let's not make fields compulsory or use foreign keys or any of that. Then over time things have been tweaked and use expanded and five different packages and various SQL scripts manipulate it. Then I start finding data that has no history, no user track, is duplicated or inconsistent and... bah. It could easily be the same with OS fixes, you weren't supposed to be able to do that but you did and now that we've fixed the OS your shoddy code will crash and burn. /rant
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
5. Re:Why 12.04? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-15 07:21 · Score: 0
  
  that was it, thanks. So the right answer to ubuntu's offer is "bite me, we're not paying you extra for an un-fucked desktop, we upgrade to mint 18.1"...
6. Re:Why 12.04? by tlhIngan · 2017-03-15 07:34 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  For a long time you needed 12.04 to build Android, though recent releases allow 14.04 and I think 16.04 without issue But if you have a range of Android versions, 12.04 will build a lot of them.
7. Re:Why 12.04? by LVSlushdat · 2017-03-15 07:35 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah.. but not on Ubuntu 12.04_Server.. which is what _I assume_ is having support extended....
  
  --
  THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)
8. Re:Why 12.04? by caseih · 2017-03-15 07:39 · Score: 1
  
  Well it was very stable, has a good desktop environment. In fact if I recall it was the last LTS before unity. Of course Mate desktop gives you an upgrade path now that wasn't apparent back when unity was rolled out.
  LinuxCNC has been based on Ubuntu 12.04 for years. I have a hunch that Tormach still uses that base distro for their advanced fork of LinuxCNC. Again for the same reasons as above. Stability and lack of change in the underlying system are very important in this space. Not saying they were right to stick with Ubuntu 12.04. Just giving their reasoning.
9. Re:Why 12.04? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-15 08:43 · Score: 0
  
  "In fact if I recall it was the last LTS before unity."
  12.04 is definitely Uniity. This is about the time they introduced Amazon to the system as well, mostly eliminating any security aspect to be gained from Unity. 12.04 is kind of where it started going off the rails for Canonical.
10. Re:Why 12.04? by Desler · 2017-03-15 08:45 · Score: 1
  
  And that matters on the server edition (the thing being discussed) how?
11. Re:Why 12.04? by Desler · 2017-03-15 08:46 · Score: 1
  
  This isn't about desktops. It's about LTS on their server edition.
12. Re:Why 12.04? by Desler · 2017-03-15 08:47 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe read the submission more closely? This is about Ubuntu server edition support.
13. Re:Why 12.04? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-15 10:36 · Score: 0
  
  They make a server edition of Umbongo? Seriously? [eyeroll]
14. Re:Why 12.04? by Hadlock · 2017-03-15 11:29 · Score: 2
  
  12.04 was the first widely used version of Ubuntu in the mainstream. It also ironed out a bunch of the weirdness from it's predecessors and the versions after it (13.x and especially 14.04) are basically the same on the server side so there was very little reason to upgrade from 12.04 and then after that 16.04 has all it's systemd weirdness that people are actively trying to avoid until 14.04 goes EOL at which point enterprise folks might start doing preliminary testing on it.
  
  If 12.04 weren't going EOL, I'm sure many, many people would happily continue spinning it up and using it; it's perhaps the most well publicly documented version of linux, 14.04 being close behind.
  
  --
  moox. for a new generation.
15. Re:Why 12.04? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-15 16:19 · Score: 0
  
  12.04 didn't have Gnome 3 nor Unity (nor systemd).
  I just realized that the Squid proxy server that's been running undisturbed in my garage cupboard for a number of years is actually on 12.04.5 LTS. Guess I'll have to upgrade. :)
16. Re:Why 12.04? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-16 02:31 · Score: 0
  
  I'm assuming it's holdouts for Gnome 2.
  If that was the only reason for holding out, you might as well run 16.04 MATE edition. It takes me back to the 'golden age' of gnome 2 on 10.04 as far as I'm concerned.
Help by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-15 06:23 · Score: 5, Funny

I was thinking about moving to Linux from Windows 7. But is there a way to install cygwin in Linux? I need cygwin to run git and other tools for development.
1. Re:Help by Desler · 2017-03-15 06:35 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  It's this new invention called a joke.
2. Re:Help by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-15 06:38 · Score: 0
  
  umm, can't tell if trolling or serious...
  git can run on linux, and cygwin is for windows. you want wine.
3. Re:Help by Desler · 2017-03-15 06:41 · Score: 1
  
  Can't tell if austistic or not...
4. Re:Help by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-15 06:51 · Score: 0
  
  so if I install wine I can install cygwin and run git, git bash, mingw, etc?
5. Re:Help by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-15 07:10 · Score: 0
  
  then i guess he must be french, 'cause his jokes are unfunny...
6. Re:Help by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-15 07:29 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Hmm, I think you should run Cygwin in WINE. That will give you the best of both worlds for sure.
7. Re:Help by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-15 08:00 · Score: 1
  
  No, you need ubuntu for windows for those.
8. Re:Help by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-15 08:05 · Score: 0
  
  But is there a way to install cygwin in Linux? I need cygwin to run git and other tools for development.
  Me: Sure, just install wine........ *6 hours later.*........ OK, now start it and your good!
  You: But, we're running Windows 10 now....
  Me: As you should be.
9. Re:Help by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-15 08:23 · Score: 0
  
  You do realise that Cygwin is a library that implements POSIX on Windows, and that POSIX is a set of standards for Unix and Unix clones like Linux... Right? If you need Cygwin to run anything on your Linux box you've probably done something horribly, horribly wrong...
10. Re:Help by Desler · 2017-03-15 08:44 · Score: 1
  
  They were clearly being sarcastic. Do you need your sense of humor tuned up?
11. Re: Help by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-15 10:40 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, its easy. Just install Virtualbox, create a new VM, install Windows 7, then install cygwin. You'll feel right at home.
12. Re:Help by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-15 11:33 · Score: 0
  
  I hope you where sarcastic to, since his wine comment clearly where sarcastic.
  There are only so many levels of recursion my sarcasm handler can handle
13. Re:Help by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-15 15:32 · Score: 0
  
  Anyone who runs Windows 10 while also knowing about the huge breaches of privacy and security the OS bakes in and re-enables after every update cannot be taken seriously.
14. Re:Help by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-16 04:19 · Score: 0
  
  Haven't those security and privacy breaches been back ported and shoved into Windows 7/8/8.1 via 'updates'?
Reason is SystemD by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-15 06:32 · Score: 1

all later versions start to force systemd, or make it really hard to remove.
Why is more recent valued over more stable? by Cesare+Ferrari · 2017-03-15 06:33 · Score: 2

It has always interested me to know what drives companies to upgrade their systems. Let's say you have a farm of 1,000 servers that you've had for 5 years, doing useful stuff, running 12.04 - what incentive is there for you to upgrade?
If they are web facing, and under attack - sure, I get it.
If you are developing cutting edge software for deployment to other hosts - I get it.
But if you are using them to actually do work for your company, say, running some data mining, or hosting a big kafka cluster, why change? The logical point is when you rip the lot out and install new hardware (and decide on a new machine config, including OS) but for existing hardware, shouldn't the OS choice live for the life of the server?
1. Re:Why is more recent valued over more stable? by Desler · 2017-03-15 06:35 · Score: 1
  
  Security fixes?
2. Re:Why is more recent valued over more stable? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-15 06:45 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  1) Even internal servers should be running versions receiving security patches to prevent easy pivots once you're inside the perimeter.
  2) Vendor support only lasts so long and some companies need/require it to ensure they meet SLAs.
  3) Non-homogeneous hardware deployments but homogeneous system builds.
  4) Perpetually developing against old libraries will eventually cause you issues when you are forced to upgrade.
3. Re:Why is more recent valued over more stable? by Billly+Gates · 2017-03-15 08:01 · Score: 1
  
  It has always interested me to know what drives companies to upgrade their systems. Let's say you have a farm of 1,000 servers that you've had for 5 years, doing useful stuff, running 12.04 - what incentive is there for you to upgrade?
  If they are web facing, and under attack - sure, I get it.
  If you are developing cutting edge software for deployment to other hosts - I get it.
  But if you are using them to actually do work for your company, say, running some data mining, or hosting a big kafka cluster, why change? The logical point is when you rip the lot out and install new hardware (and decide on a new machine config, including OS) but for existing hardware, shouldn't the OS choice live for the life of the server?
  Technical debt and hardware support.
  Look you can't expect things to always magically work. Hardware dies, new standards come into play, newer software needs to interact, security fixes, etc. Have you read about struts exploit going on at arstechnica.com?
  IE 6 problems haunted my last employer. Guess what they still use it!! In a VM now but still. Technology should always change as things always change. Looking forward and being agile means you pay less being proactive rather than reactive. Also being hacked using a 15 year old struts Java web install you also have the problem with talent who have struts on his resume of current skills. No one uses that anymore so employment and not overworking your existing employees to death with out of date technology because HR can't find someone based on a keyword with 5 years of experience.
  
  --
  http://saveie6.com/
4. Re:Why is more recent valued over more stable? by swb · 2017-03-15 08:20 · Score: 1
  
  The problem is that existing hardware isn't available forever. Standards change and the underlying hardware changes and you find your $stable_version doesn't have drivers for it.
  In theory, virtualization will extend those lifetimes even longer, and it sure seems to be a common use case -- but even hypervisors end support for operating systems.
5. Re:Why is more recent valued over more stable? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-15 17:32 · Score: 0
  
  Ding ding. We have a winner. /thread.
Its the hardware stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-15 07:16 · Score: 0

Anyone who has tried the latest Ubuntu release knows it get's slower and slower on older hardware. I have no doubt its why many still stick with 12.04 LTS because of this. After all eye candy and better support for newer hardware means nothing if your running old hardware.
1. Re:Its the hardware stupid by Desler · 2017-03-15 07:50 · Score: 1
  
  Eye candy on the server edition? What?
SystemD by Billly+Gates · 2017-03-15 07:34 · Score: 3, Informative

It's quite obvious.
If you must upgrade try FreeBSD. We don't change things for the sake of changing them their and it is a very stable conservative version of Unix.

--
http://saveie6.com/
1. Re:SystemD by Desler · 2017-03-15 07:51 · Score: 2
  
  If that were the reason then there is 14.04.
2. Re:SystemD by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-15 08:26 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, try FreeBSD, the OS which no longer reports correct load average due to what appear to be "changes for the sake of change", with no one taking responsibility (c#7 onward). This applies to 10.x and newer.
  systemd sucks hard, but it is not a reason to consider FreeBSD. A better approach is to either find a distro that still uses SysV init or some equivalent (ex. OpenRC), or grudgingly bite the bullet and try to disable (through config files) the annoyances of systemd (ex. restore text logging vs. binary logs).
3. Re:SystemD by DrStrangluv · 2017-03-15 08:55 · Score: 2
  
  Or bite the bullet, install a SystemD distro on your desktop so you can learn to live with it.
  I'm not a fan, but it's obvious that systemd is where things are heading. Like it or not, the sooner I get on board and learn how to use it properly the easier things will go for me long term.
4. Re:SystemD by Vladus2000 · 2017-03-15 11:49 · Score: 2
  
  My desktop is 16.04 (well, whatever the Mint equiv is), but my two servers are still 14.04 and I have no plans to upgrade them. If I replace the hardware I may end up with systemd, but I am trying to avoid it for server as long as possible. For my desktop I care a lot less and it is becoming more difficult to get a newer linux desktop without it. I do not run server type services on my desktop machine, so my interaction with systemd is virtually none. I do have to use linux machines at work that run systemd though, so I am becoming somewhat familiar with it. Every time I need to run journalctl I want to scream.
5. Re:SystemD by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-15 15:37 · Score: 0
  
  See, that's the mindset that a Windows or Mac user would adopt. "Oh it's going there anyway, can't stop it." Fuck that, this is libre software. You aren't *required* to run fuck-all. You can do LFS if you want to, and there are distros that don't follow the bandwagon. Vote with your mind ('mindshare') and use distros that respect your right to choice. It doesn't take much to fuck a distro over; if people don't use it, it loses influence.
  I say this as someone who gave it an honest shot before making up their mind. It's terrible software built by an egomaniac. I don't want to support that sort of shit in the libre software world.
Not All by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-15 07:36 · Score: 0

There are six LTS editions. All others have been end-of-lifed -- and given no security reprieve.
I don't know about the only six bit, but there are at least 2 others that have not been EOLd. 14.04 and 16.04.
1. Re:Not All by Desler · 2017-03-15 07:53 · Score: 1
  
  Reading comprehension fail? The sentence is saying no other alreadyEOLed version has been given this reprieve. Versions that are not EOL obviously fall out of the scope of what was being talked about.
yo dawg by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-15 08:14 · Score: 0

I'd talk to Xzibit about it. I hear he's an expert on this kind of thing.
Seen a bunch of 12.04 issues on ubuntuforums. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-15 08:22 · Score: 0

Seen a bunch of 12.04 issues on ubuntuforums the last few weeks.
Felt good to tell them to migrate ASAP and give up on those old errors.
Heck, I have 1 server still running 12.04 too, so I'm testing the migration now. Should be done this weekend. It was our main internet reverse-proxy system for about 50 different websites.
slashdot being trolled by Dancing Monkey Boy .. by khz6955 · 2017-03-15 11:34 · Score: 1

Is that dancing monkey boy, if so then all I can say is fuck off and die, sweaty.

ref: "After all this time, there should have been enough eyeballs scouring the open source code for vulnerabilities that it should be impregnable. I cannot understand how something like this could happen with open source being constantly audited by all its users for bugs before they compile and install."
Insert systemd FUD by LVSlushdat by najajomo · 2017-03-15 11:50 · Score: 2

I've been using Ubuntu since at least 12.04 and am currently on 16.04 on low spec hardware and can honestly say I haven't noticed any problems in general or with systemd, booting, suspend, resume and shutdown are all quite acceptable quick.

ref: "Umm.. As far as I'm concerned, the next LTS, that being 14.04, is just fine... Its the following one, 16.04 that DEFINITELY "went off the rails", that being systemd.. All my systems are staying on 14.04 until close to its EOL, in April 2019, giving me 2 more years to find a non-systemd alternative to Ubuntu.. I'd rather stay with a Debian-derived OS, but its looking like I may be going back to my Linux "roots", that being Slackware, where I started with Linux in 1994"..