Slashdot Mirror
Ubuntu 16.10 Reaches End of Life (softpedia.com)
prisoninmate shares a report from Softpedia: Today, July 20, 2017, is the last day when the Ubuntu 16.10 (Yakkety Yak) was supported by Canonical as the operating system now reached end of life, and it will no longer receive security and software updates. Dubbed by Canonical and Ubuntu founder Mark Shuttleworth as the Yakkety Yak, Ubuntu 16.10 was launched on October 13, 2016, and it was a short-lived release that only received nine (9) months of support through kernel updates, bug fixes, and security patches for various components. Starting today, you should no longer use Ubuntu 16.10 (Yakkety Yak) on your personal computer, even if it's up-to-date. Why? Because, in time, it will become vulnerable to all sort of attacks as Canonical won't provide security and kernel updates for this release. Therefore, all users are urged to upgrade to Ubuntu 17.04 (Zesty Zapus) immediately using the instructions here.
And so should you!
But, you have to go STRAIGHT TO JAIL! to replace O.J.!
And no, you CANNOT PARDON YOURSELF!
Not sure why we would care -- it's just an old already-replaced short lived release. The release Ubuntu users should care about is 14.04 (supported until 2019-04) as it's the last one with a sane init.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
You should replace the batteries in your smoke alarm.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Baby give one more chance
to shmekel on yur tiney lance
Oh Baby give one more chance,,,to set things riiiiight
*snip*
*slurrp slurrrrp
But sixteen years is not enough for Windows XP?
Bring on the excuses...
Why? Because, in time, it will become vulnerable to all sort of attacks
This is misleading. The software is already vulnerable to all possible attacks. Over time, existing vulnerabilities might be exploited. Software does not become vulnerable because it is not 'supported'. That's not to say there is a risk, but the risk is not directly that the software is not supported.
Rename:
"$(( 2 * Y )).10" -> "$(( 2 * Y + 2 )).04 Pre-Alpha.$(( 2 * Y )).10"
"$(( 2 * Y + 1 )).04" -> "$(( 2 * Y + 2 )).04 Alpha.$(( 2 * Y + 1 )).04"
"$(( 2 * Y + 1 )).10" -> "$(( 2 * Y + 2 )).04 Beta.$(( 2 * Y + 1 )).10"
"$(( 2 * Y + 2 )).04 LTS" -> "$(( 2 * Y + 2 )).04"
Then nobody will be surprised when .10 and odd.04 suddenly lose support.
That an intentionally short lived release of a distribution had it's EOL date happen exactly when they said it would?
Do you prefer it when they lie instead? Or maybe you prefer your operating system to just arbitrarily decided to restart and lose your work instead?
Do you have time to laugh between re-installing shitty OS'es every two weeks? Seems like that'd keep you very busy.
You don't use Linux because you can't make decisions for yourself based on your personal preferences? Yeah, that about sums it up for most people -- choice is bad. Don't give a user a choice between LTS and short-lived releases, because they'll blunder into the choice they don't want.
This space intentionally left blank
If you decided to run a business based on a short-lived release that was stated to be such (eg. 16.10), then I'd argue that you are a kindergarten. You should've based it on one of the LTS releases like 14.04 (supported until 4/2019) or 16.04 (supported until 4/2021). But then you aren't running a business, you're just a troll.
Personal preference has nothing to do with it. We're running a business, not a kindergarten. We need professional tools.
So availability of applications have what do to with support window? Maybe you shouldn't be running anything, since you can't seem to make a coherent argument.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
So use an LTS release, or pay for enterprise support, just like you do with Microsoft.
You don't use Linux because you don't want to, for whatever reason. But the fact that a single, advertised-as-short-term-support release has been abandoned is not a good reason not to use Linux. It's an ignorant attempt at trolling at best.
Slackware, hmph. Well. Interesting, but does it run Linux?
And this, right here, is the primary reason we don't use Linux.
Not really a good reason. Most distributions have long term support versions. And generally moving from one such release to another is relatively straight forward.
A better reason to not use Linux is if tools you need aren't available for Linux. I'm talking to you, Altium and SolidWorks! But if you develop software, unless you are in a Windows only shop, Linux has a lot of advantages.
You... you realize this is an intentional short lived release... right?
And... that upgrading Linux is as simple as running a simple command line and it doesn't break compatibility with everything...
14.04. The longest version is supported for 4.5 years. 16.06 has 5 years worth of support. What kind of company is going to re-do their entire infrastructure every 5 years? That's bonkers. It's a tremendous waste of time and money, that quite frankly, would get somebody (rightfully) fired in a heartbeat in our company. If you work for a company that can afford to re-do their entire IT infrastructure every 5 years, then congrats. Otherwise, you'd better keep your resume up to date, because a company that uses this stuff is burning through money at a rate that I can't even imagine.
I don't respond to AC's.
Completely redo your infrastructure? Dude, we're not talking about Windows here. If you upgrade servers from something as old as 14.04 up to 17.04 (most current release available) you'll need to change approximately 0% of your configuration. You'll want to update a lot of it to take advantage of new features available, but you do that sort of thing over time if you've any sense at all. You don't even upgrade every machine in one session, you upgrade them in groups so the downtime won't shut down your business. This ain't rocket science, rolling upgrades have been SOP everywhere except in Redmond since the late 60s.
I run systemdOS for all my Linux software.
Install a new OS without regression testing the apps you need to run on it? Really?
I don't respond to AC's.
and NetworkManager does it still does not properly support bridging or bonding?
funny how you use Windows as the negative when they have far better long term support. The reality is the window is closer to 3 years as you pick a release then go through all your testing before finally deploying. Then at least 12 months before it is no longer supported you need to do the same again. rolling upgrades, you are full of shit, deployments, even rolling upgrades are expensive and time consuming especially from testing point of view.
This kind of thing is one reason I switched to a rolling release distro (Arch, in my case). I won't be going back.
Your ignorance? This is no different than "SP1 is no longer the latest; there is now an SP2. In order to continue with this update you must first apply SP2"
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
That would be why professionals have test environments. You upgrade the test environment, regression test on the test server, then upgrade production environment.
Even old school IBM AS/400 machines you upgrade the OS more often than every 4 years.
"So availability of applications have what do to with support window?"
Everything. Neither people nor companies "run" operating systems. They run applications and services built upon those applications. That's why operating systems with strong implantation on corporate environments expend quite a lot of effort making sure the most popular applications and services' support windows match theirs.
Now don't go injecting any reality into the debate. And the hard core Linux crowd spend all their time praising the Linux OS but still don't understand that people and businesses don't use OS's they use applications.. The biggest problem with migrating to Linux is that there are to many distros. You need to find the distro that will fulfill your needs but you have no idea if or when the distro will go end of line because the principle developers get bored and move into another project. And there are not to many businesses who want to staff a fulltime OS development team. But a lot of companies do staff fulltime application developers.
... and yet, by your own admission, you refuse to use them. Interesting.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
16.06 has 5 years worth of support. What kind of company is going to re-do their entire infrastructure every 5 years?
If you need 10 years, Red Hat Enterprise Linux has that. Add ~5 years of “extended” support, if you really need it. If somehow you have managed to get yourself in a real pickle and need to run it longer than that, you can maintain it yourself (as a company, using contractors, probably ex Red Hat employees) or use hardened (virtualized, in separate network etc.) unmaintained versions.
In any case, I am not aware of any applications that are supported longer than 10 years.
You LIE sir. You lie!.
The simple command line upgrade from 16.04 to 16.10 broke my display driver, broke my desktop and broke my video player. And unfortunately, one does not roll back a version update. So I'm left with the option of wipe the drive and install 17.04. Or perform a simple upgrade, and when that fails, wipe and install 17.04.
There are times when Ubuntu makes Windows look like a good OS.
16.10 is a short term support release. I was meant to be supported for a short period of time. Every two years Canonical releases a long term support (LTS) release (12.04, 14.04, 16.04) with support term of 5 years. If in doubt - stick to the latest LTS release (16.04). Also (unlike e.g. Windows) updating between Linux versions (Ubuntu or other) doesn't imply losing support for your software and hardware for some reason (the reason usually been Microsoft needs more of your money), so in this sense, the support term for software/hardware on Linux is practically infinite.
It's true, Ubuntu sucks, which is why I switched to Linux Mint a while ago. But am always interested in other distros, so let me ask you: What are the main advantages of Slackware?
That's exactly the reason why I use Linux for work and Windows only for gaming...
The argument against Microsoft and for Linux was how Linux will run on older hardware with lower memory and speed requirements. By the mere reason of being "open source" the code will be more efficient, faster and by default (or magic) much more secure than any commercial operating system and have features that user actually want and need. While evil corporations will force users to constantly upgrade to newer versions, open-source Linux will be magically supported forever. Sigh. Linux isn't magical at all. Sad. :-(
Or 'editions' as they apparantly are called now since Windows 10. Don't know if SP still are a thing on their server line though. But you are correct and more people should understand this, people running say Windows Server X are not running the initial release anymore.
and NetworkManager does it still does not properly support bridging or bonding?
That's not NM's job. That's ifupdown's job. It works fine there.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
This might be a bit of a novice or silly question, but is there a reason why this specific release of this specific GNU/Linux distro has a dedicated posting here on Slashdot?
This isn't flame-bait and I'm not trolling... I'm actually trying to understand the process of selecting news-worthy submissions for posting. I can't recall seeing similar articles like this [either for earlier ubuntu distributions, or others] and I didn't see anything in the article that highlights this as special other than the unusually short lifespan of this particular release. Is that the reason for the posting, or could it be something else?
Genuinely curious.
I don't know why Canonical even bothers with .10 releases. They consume untold human resources and divert them away from the "good" releases.
I would rather just see beta and RC releases of the main product starting 6 months before release than these short-lived, often buggy and unstable .10 releases.
The time it takes Windows to do a simple update is about the same time it takes to install Linux from scratch. And all you have to do is back up your ~Home directory to a flashdrive and copy it back to keep all your (porn) files. Windows is a fucking joke compared to Linux.
the developer said, "Don't talk back."
You don't have your ~home in a separate partition? :O
I wonder if there is an animal whose name starts with "A1"
But when will Canonical finally reach 'End Of Life' ?
Then Linux and Windows together is like a mullet; business in the front and party in the back.
Constant churn is only good for development or hobby systems, otherwise use an LTS release supported for 5 years.
I just tar gzip my home directory and do a fresh install. Unzip my home in place and I'm back up and running. I have a shell script that is a bunch of apt-get installs that I use to restore all my common software. Add updates and I'm fully up and running, start to finish, in 45 minutes. Windows 10 doesn't even install (or upgrade) in 45 minutes.
I only use LTS versions, so I only do this about every four years anyway.
Yes, every incremental Ubuntu release only gets 6 months of extended support. It's been this way for many years. This is not a news story. Shame on you for reporting it, BeauHD. What has happened to the editorial standards on Slashdot?
It does.
This gives you the option of changing the pager that systemd uses without changing it for everything. If you don't set it, PAGER will be used instead.
You can toggle this from within less by typing - S. (And you can use lesskey to do it with a single keypress.)
Plenty of applications are supported more than 10 years. The same version of our point of sale has been supported for the past decade, and will be supported for another 5 years.
I don't respond to AC's.
What are the main advantages of Slackware?
runlevel 3
It's the most UNIX-y and generic, it's like the old days days when plain text config files did all the work, so it's easy to modify and fix... and you can switch to a terminal to restart gracefully if the GUI locks up (or even just stop and restart X, but I don't recommend that). And the calculator will do really big factorials. It installs ludicrous fast. Everybody else is full of cruft, with their own kind of lock in. Beware!
Because other OSes never go out of support. How's using XP going for you?
There are times when Ubuntu makes Windows look like a good OS.
You LIE sir. You lie!.
You are correct, and Slackware is an excellent distro but I found the lack of a decent package manager to be a big turn off in modern Linux. Slackbuilds are nice, but it gets to be a pain if you need a lot of different tools or depend on something that pulls in a ton of libraries and have to go through building all of the first. There are some more comprehensive Slackbuilds out there that handle downloading and installing everything on their own, and those are great when the exist and all of the addresses still resolve, but no where near as convenient as a simple apt-get or whatever the hell the Red Hat tool is called these days. I've tried that slapt-get program and was rather unimpressed, seemed like a lot of the available software was broken right out of the box and the client itself was pretty buggy. I will say that it's very rare I have ever found a broken Slackbuild, they almost always work, just like everything else in Slackware. It's not a bad system, and 90% of the time it's easy and quick. I'm just an inpatient man and frequently need to add different software, so I switched back to Debian for that reason.
Other than that though, the included software is pretty comprehensive and the system is ROCK SOLID. Every thing being configured with scripts and some time a curses helper program sounds complicated if you didn't grow up on old school Unix, but it really works and the learning curve was very mild for someone who wouldn't call themselves a "Unix Hacker" but has a little sense and basic computer skills. I actually preferred this to the more automated graphical "Control Panel" interfaces you'd find in something like Debian or Ubuntu because these scripts have been working problem free for 20 years. I've never personally seen anything go wrong, but if it did, it would be simple to search and fix because everything is just the basic Unix tools that have been around forever.
My only other complaint is sometimes vanilla KDE is a bit awkward without a distro tweaking the settings and doing some additional work to get it all working perfectly out of the box. This is minor and I'm sure a lot of Linux users probably prefer it this way so that they can customize it to their own liking. I'm the kind of guy who rarely even changes the default wallpaper. Then again, if I ever do install Slackware on another machine I'll probably just settle for a simpler window manager and settle for not having all the shiny things.