Ubuntu 16.10 Reaches End of Life (softpedia.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Ubuntu 16.10 Reaches End of Life (softpedia.com)

Posted by BeauHD on Thursday July 20, 2017 @01:45PM from the time-to-upgrade dept.

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.

164 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Starting today, by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-20 13:50 · Score: -1, Flamebait

you should no longer use Ubuntu, period.
Always use Slackware. It really is a treat.
1. Re:Starting today, by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-20 15:27 · Score: 0
  
  Slackware, hmph. Well. Interesting, but does it run Linux?
2. Re: Starting today, by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-20 15:47 · Score: 0
  
  I run systemdOS for all my Linux software.
3. Re: Starting today, by Joe_Dragon · 2017-07-20 16:24 · Score: 1
  
  and NetworkManager does it still does not properly support bridging or bonding?
4. Re:Starting today, by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-20 22:43 · Score: 0
  
  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?
5. Re: Starting today, by drinkypoo · 2017-07-21 00:21 · Score: 2
  
  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.'"
6. Re:Starting today, by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-21 12:36 · Score: 0
  
  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!
7. Re:Starting today, by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-22 16:20 · Score: 0
  
  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.
Trump like Ubuntu! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-20 13:55 · Score: 0

And so should you!
But, you have to go STRAIGHT TO JAIL! to replace O.J.!
And no, you CANNOT PARDON YOURSELF!
1. Re:Trump like Ubuntu! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-20 14:15 · Score: 0
  
  It's gonna be just like the Oprah show: "You get a pardon! And you get a pardon! And you get a pardon! And you get a pardon!"...
2. Re:Trump like Ubuntu! by Gay+Kwanzaa+Darkie · 2017-07-20 15:33 · Score: -1
  
  Hey, remember in the '90s all the trolling going on?
  
  There was this "fad" "song" going around...
  
  Star Spangled Banner lyrics...
  OJ can't you see
  That you're clearly guilty?
  
  Anyone else remember this one? Anyone know the rest of the lyrics?
  
  Loved him in the Chevy Chase movies when things weren't going so well in the rest of the world. Great comic relief. Like Theo Huxtable but way more convincing. And then THIS happened.
  
  Me and my hole family facepalmed. We had a Bronco at the time and were thinking about a Bronco II. Way to kill a car and a wonderful reputation. :(
  
  P.S. My brother bought some DirecTV "Hugh!" cards from him. Watched the Lewis/Holyfield fight and made about $10k. Good money in those days.
non-remarkable non-LTS by KiloByte · 2017-07-20 13:56 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
1. Re:non-remarkable non-LTS by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-20 14:56 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  I have been trying not to care about this init stuff. Through a series of upgrades I've ended up with one machine still stuck with upstart and another on systemd, and I didn't want to get involved in this discussion. I figured I'd just adapt to whatever.
  Let's just say I have reached the point of caring. :-/
  One small thing to start: how the fuck is it not the default behaviour of journalctl to linewrap so you can actually see all the errors?
  I am no sysadmin. I've been using Linux for about 24 years, day-in, day-out, in one capacity or another (back from the 0.99pl12 days, stack of floppy disks, 486 with 8 megs of RAM and a tiny hard disk) and I'm still confident and happy saying I am no sysadmin. I accept my limits; I know I am a developer just *using* it with admittedly pretty significant day-to-day acquired knowledge, I'm not operating it as a sysadmin with studied expertise. I look like an expert to others; I don't feel like an expert.
  So I expected some relearning and some frustration, but fuck me I didn't expect to feel patronised.
2. Re:non-remarkable non-LTS by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-20 15:22 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  how the fuck is it not the default behaviour of journalctl to linewrap so you can actually see all the errors?
  Why the fuck do you expect anything shat out by Lennart Poettering to be user friendly?
3. Re: non-remarkable non-LTS by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-20 15:24 · Score: 0
  
  Anytime a systemd os is retired is a time to celebrate.
4. Re:non-remarkable non-LTS by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-20 15:28 · Score: 1
  
  One small thing to start: how the fuck is it not the default behaviour of journalctl to linewrap so you can actually see all the errors?
  Lennart Poettering should be hit on the head with an actual log until he recognises the importance of logging (real, or traditional).
5. Re:non-remarkable non-LTS by GoingDown · 2017-07-20 15:52 · Score: 1
  
  One small thing to start: how the fuck is it not the default behaviour of journalctl to linewrap so you can actually see all the errors?
  It is definetely not journalctl's job to linewrap anything - your terminal should do that.
6. Re:non-remarkable non-LTS by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-20 16:04 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  And it isn't journalctl's job to truncate log lines to the width of the terminal. Yet it does.
7. Re: non-remarkable non-LTS by Zero__Kelvin · 2017-07-20 16:50 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  The output is paged through less by default, and long lines are "truncated" to screen width. The hidden part can be viewed by using the left-arrow and right-arrow keys.. You could also use 'alias' to change the default behavior, or use other methods. As usual when people hate on systemd, you are complaining about systemd because you don't understand it and couldn't be bothered to learn what you could have learned with 2 minutes of googling. It literally would have taken less time to learn about it than complain about it.
  
  --
  Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
8. Re:non-remarkable non-LTS by UltraZelda64 · 2017-07-20 17:07 · Score: 0
  
  Can't we just etch a log into the sides of a steel bar and hit him upside the head with that instead? Maybe pass it on and play our own little version of pinatad?
9. Re: non-remarkable non-LTS by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-20 18:27 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Considering that the default behaviour for the past forty years, for all Unix systems, has been to print out lines unaltered, wrapping them when necessary, why the hell do users have to adjust to new behaviour? This is altering the system's behaviour, contrary to end user expectations, for no good reason that I am able to discern.
  Two minutes of googling? Multiply that by however many thousands of sysadmins are out there and having to deal with this bullshit. Multiply that by however many times a sysadmin gets tripped up before baking it into a system image as a default, plus the number of times they get caught with a new release.
  Arguing "you can change the behaviour back, quit whining" simply doesn't cut it in the context of systems that are managed by the thousands.
10. Re:non-remarkable non-LTS by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-20 18:33 · Score: 0
  
  Here's another one for you to add to the reasons to hate on systemd.
  I was debugging a problem with a service. For some reason, it wasn't listening on the ports it was supposed to.
  The first thing I did was try running it in the foreground. It worked as it should have.
  Okay. Let's try running it from the init script. The wrong behaviour appeared.
  Okay. Let's copy and paste the commands from the init script. The right behaviour appeared.
  Hang on. Wait. WHAT?
  Copy the script from /etc/init.d to /root and run it from there. The right behaviour appeared.
  Fuck me with a pile driver. When a fucking init script does something completely different depending on whether it's in /etc/init.d, or in /root, there is something seriously wrong somewhere. It shouldn't matter whether the script is in /usr/bin, /etc, /etc/init.d, /root, /tmp, or in /timbuctoo/elephants/are/nice - if the script runs, it should do the same fucking thing, irrespective of where it's stored. (Note the caveat. I can understand a script not running, if for example /tmp is mounted with noexec. But that's a very different thing from running and quietly doing something completely different.)
  That's not just broken. That's utterly, utterly braindead behaviour.
11. Re:non-remarkable non-LTS by thegarbz · 2017-07-20 18:58 · Score: 1
  
  One small thing to start: how the fuck is it not the default behaviour of journalctl to linewrap so you can actually see all the errors?
  If you pipe journal control through anything like you would have done previously it defaults to linewrap.
  Given how much more it actually displays per line the no linewrapping is a bonus. It makes it much easier to read.
  Why do some distributions default to coloring ls and others not?
  Why do some distributions provide a short hand for ls -l --color and others not?
  Why is it that people get so upset about something when the new option is more configurable than the previous options. Add "export SYSTEMD_PAGER=less" to your environments and your incredible problems of personal preference will be a thing of the past.
12. Re:non-remarkable non-LTS by thegarbz · 2017-07-20 19:01 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Journalctrl is not a grep of a dumb text file. It's job is to do whatever it was designed to do by the author.
  Fortunately the author made it quite configurable. Just export SYSTEMD_PAGER=less, and journalctl will look 100% identical to your previous ways of working. Or just ignore journalctl and set it to output to syslog and it will actually be 100% identical to your previous way of working (with the addition of boot messages in the syslog).
  Complaining about something more configurable that offers a complete compatibility with your own way of working looks childish.
13. Re: non-remarkable non-LTS by thegarbz · 2017-07-20 19:02 · Score: 1
  
  This! Not only can you change it through aliases but there are also specific environmental variables that can be set so journalctl adjusts its behaviour on a per use basis. The option the people who don't RTFM are looking for is "export SYSTEMD_PAGER=less"
14. Re: non-remarkable non-LTS by thegarbz · 2017-07-20 19:03 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  Considering that the default behaviour for the past forty years
  Oh dear, someone moved your cheese.
15. Re: non-remarkable non-LTS by Anne+Thwacks · 2017-07-20 22:00 · Score: 2
  
  This is altering the system's behaviour, contrary to end user expectations, for no good reason
  which should be considered a crime against humanity (well, against Unix philosophy, anyway), and punished by people using another distribution (but nuking from high orbit is fine in my books).
  Personally, I like the *BSDs.
  
  --
  Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
16. Re:non-remarkable non-LTS by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-20 22:02 · Score: 1
  
  Nice strawmen there. Nobody is upset about distro differences or more flexible configuration. People are upset about the default changing. Existing infrastructure breaks, with very little justification. The correct approach is to use the new and flexible configuration options to default to a configuration that acts identical to what is already there. People that want the new shiny can change the config, people that want to get things done do not need to stop and wipe up the mess someone else made.
17. Re:non-remarkable non-LTS by Anne+Thwacks · 2017-07-20 22:05 · Score: 1
  
  Why is it that people get so upset about something when the new option is more configurable than the previous options.
  NO, You just don't get it at all why should adding more configurability fuck with the well established defaults which zillions of lines of code and millions of dumb users totally depend on to get things done?
  This is something that is in the same league as casually kicking people in the shins for no reason, or spilling other people's drinks in a public bar, and you can't be surprised if it leads to a bar brawl - it is the conventional way to start one.
  
  --
  Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
18. Re:non-remarkable non-LTS by butzwonker · 2017-07-20 22:46 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Maybe they should use sane defaults?
19. Re:non-remarkable non-LTS by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-20 23:03 · Score: 0
  
  > Fortunately the author made it quite configurable.
  They _could_ have.
  > journalctl | less
  if you want a pager
  > journalctl
  if you don't.
  But they didn't do that.
20. Re: non-remarkable non-LTS by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-20 23:43 · Score: -1
  
  Shill for LP harder
21. Re: non-remarkable non-LTS by F.Ultra · 2017-07-20 23:47 · Score: 1
  
  Since you executed the script it actually doesn't sound like systemd was involved at all.
22. Re:non-remarkable non-LTS by thegarbz · 2017-07-20 23:48 · Score: 1
  
  I agree. You should tell that to the package manager of your distribution.
23. Re:non-remarkable non-LTS by MangoCats · 2017-07-20 23:49 · Score: 1
  
  I suppose the 15.10 that I'm typing this on is even worse off, then?
  Funny that it's in better shape than the 14.04 LTS running on another machine in my house - that 14.04 has patched itself into all kinds of system-error complaints, and seems to be more crash prone - maybe because it runs Kodi all the time, but I like to think most of the problems are in the updates. The last update to Kodi that changed the whole user interface was particularly annoying.
24. Re: non-remarkable non-LTS by F.Ultra · 2017-07-20 23:50 · Score: 1
  
  Tell that to your distribution because it's them that changed your default. Yes the journald default is this but since it's configurable the distribution choose to not change it to match their old behaviour.
25. Re: non-remarkable non-LTS by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-20 23:50 · Score: 1
  
  And people wonder why real sysadmins hate systemd. (hint... douchebags like yourself.)
26. Re:non-remarkable non-LTS by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-20 23:55 · Score: 1
  
  > Add "export SYSTEMD_PAGER=less" to your environments
  Why doesn't it respect the PAGER environment variable? Why do we have to use a NEW variable in the SYSTEMD namespace?
  I mean... seriously? That's been the way you specify your desired pager for _decades_.
  > ...your incredible problems of personal preference will be a thing of the past.
  Heh. Maybe PAGER is a thing of the past. We all know that Poettering and the Systemd Cabal say that everything from the past must be swallowed into the systemd project and namespace. :(
27. Re:non-remarkable non-LTS by thegarbz · 2017-07-20 23:55 · Score: 1
  
  NO, You just don't get it at all why should adding more configurability fuck with the well established defaults
  Implying your retarded* well established defaults are the best way.
  
  which zillions of lines of code
  That was automatically handled via the backwards compatibility. If this change broke anything then the person shouldn't be coding let alone coding millions of lines.
  
  and millions of dumb users totally depend
  And "dumb" users are the reason we make changes and improve things rather than staying locked in some course because of ... reasons.
  
  This is something that is in the same league as casually kicking people in the shins for no reason, or spilling other people's drinks in a public bar, and you can't be surprised if it leads to a bar brawl - it is the conventional way to start one.
  If that's what you think then you should seek psychiatric help. Just because someone moved your cheese doesn't mean the world is ending, and unlike any of your examples they didn't do it *to you*, they did it *for everyone else*. Learn the difference. "Change for changes sake" is equally as bad as staying the course because "It's always been like that". But as usual in cases like this, people aren't interested in reasons, they just want it the way it always was and will seek the blood of anyone, regardless if that's the programmer who specifically added backwards compatibility options so the distribution maintainers can set the defaults the way their users expect.
  *my opinion. I hate line-wrap.
28. Re: non-remarkable non-LTS by Hognoxious · 2017-07-21 00:01 · Score: 1
  
  So instead of users working around Lennart's shitty designs the distro maintainers should do it?
  While I agree that's an inconvenience to fewer people and is therefore a slight improvement I can think of another step that would be even better. Can you?
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
29. Re:non-remarkable non-LTS by GoingDown · 2017-07-21 00:15 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, I actually realized now what is the issue.
  If you run
  >journalctl | less
  You will get normal less pager with wordwrap
  If you just run
  > journalctl
  You will get still paginated output, without wordwrap (not sure what this is using as pager, is this something built in?).
  Finally
  >journalctl --no-pager
  Will show you plain output without pager.
  Yeah, it seems that defaults are little bit strange, and I do not understand why there must be that default pager (without wordwrap) at all. And I don't know where the pager is choosen from, I do not have either PAGER or SYSTEMD_PAGER set (this is Ubuntu). And actually, setting pager does not seem to help
30. Re: non-remarkable non-LTS by drinkypoo · 2017-07-21 00:19 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  It literally would have taken less time to learn about it than complain about it.
  The default in basically everything is to show full lines. But systemd wants to be different. Why? Because Poettering thinks Unix was done all wrong, and he's smarter than everyone else, and changing default behaviors on the console to be more like a GUI is a great idea. That's because he's a fucking child. His development stopped at maybe age twelve. It's all what he wants and what he thinks, and everyone else is dumber than him, right? Except a review of his code proves that's false. He's actually a shit coder with shit ideas and you're defending them because you're a shit person.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
31. Re: non-remarkable non-LTS by Hognoxious · 2017-07-21 00:29 · Score: 2
  
  Shittest book on anything ever.
  But I must take my hat off to you for your time management skills. Most people would find shilling for the 1% or Lennart Poettering a full time job on its own (no apostrophe - is it that hard?) but you manage to combine both.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
32. Re:non-remarkable non-LTS by dbIII · 2017-07-21 00:38 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  Careful - that's far more explicit than what Lennart screamed was a "death threat" a few years back.
  He takes comments like yours seriously. It's apparently OK for him to describe a fantasy about people like you collecting bitcoins to pay a hitman to go after him (and for him to say it "really happened" - yeah right) but he's got too thin a skin to allow you a fantasy.
  
  What I'm trying to say is "jokes" like that just reinforce his "us and them" attitude, where everyone who isn't his fanboy is apparently not worth listening to because they apparently want to be violent towards him.
33. Re:non-remarkable non-LTS by Hognoxious · 2017-07-21 00:39 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Implying your retarded* well established defaults are the best way.
  It implies nothing of the sort. However breaking expectations is rarely a good idea.
  Is brake on the left & gas on the right intrinsically better than the other way round? No idea. But it's what people expect, and if you're going to change it then your awesome solution doesn't just need to be better - it needs to be vastly better.
  See also: qwerty.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
34. Re: non-remarkable non-LTS by dbIII · 2017-07-21 00:47 · Score: 2
  
  More that Lennert never knew where the cheese was before - but yes you have a point.
  The annoying thing is the number of changes and the ones (like killing all user processes on logout!!!!!!) that show he just didn't ask anyone before making the changes. Things like his comment "what tool was used to create a username with a number?" show he's not getting good advice about the environment he's working in - on top of things like the newbie mistake of not checking for valid inputs. That's pretty fucking cheesy.
  It's only really a problem because so many of these things are going live before others can do something about it.
35. Re: non-remarkable non-LTS by Zero__Kelvin · 2017-07-21 00:52 · Score: 1
  
  The default is what your distribution says it is, and your jealousy is telling. You aren't a mind reader, psychologist, or qualified / competent software engineer, so your ramblings about why it is that way are just that .. ignorant ramblings.
  
  --
  Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
36. Re: non-remarkable non-LTS by drinkypoo · 2017-07-21 01:07 · Score: 1
  
  The default is what your distribution says it is,
  Yes, and that's a problem, because the default should be to provide expected behavior. Sun's former use of csh instead of sh was a problem, too. Just do the classic Unixy thing and leave it the hell alone. I for one do not comprehend why anyone would write even a bash-specific script for something like an init script.
  
  and your jealousy is telling.
  If I have to be him to have what he has, I don't want it.
  
  You aren't a mind reader, psychologist, or qualified / competent software engineer, so your ramblings about why it is that way are just that .. ignorant ramblings.
  And you aren't a functioning human being, but you're still permitted to post to Slashdot.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
37. Re:non-remarkable non-LTS by khandom08 · 2017-07-21 01:10 · Score: 1
  
  not sure what this is using as pager, is this something built in?
  It uses less. Type 'h' in the terminal and you will see the help screen entitled " SUMMARY OF LESS COMMANDS"
38. Re: non-remarkable non-LTS by Zero__Kelvin · 2017-07-21 01:17 · Score: -1
  
  I don't even have to comment now. Anyone can plainly see how absurd you are, and how much you don't understand.
  
  --
  Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
39. Re:non-remarkable non-LTS by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-21 01:28 · Score: 0
  
  And people wonder why Linux is not on the Desktop. We've got a spyware version of Linux with silly animal names. The latest version expires after 9 months. But that's OK because a much older version is still supported! And of course only Linux fans following the news will understand any of this madness.
40. Re: non-remarkable non-LTS by drinkypoo · 2017-07-21 01:29 · Score: 1
  
  I don't even have to comment now.
  You don't have to comment ever, but you keep coming back anyway
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
41. Re: non-remarkable non-LTS by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-21 01:43 · Score: 0
  
  Oh, it was. It most definitely was. I can't remember the exact details now - it was quite a few months ago - but there were options set somewhere in the systemd service control files that were overriding the options set both in the service's standard configuration file, and in the init script. But this happened only when the script was run from a copy in /etc/init.d - not from a copy in /root.
  It wasn't until I eventually figured out where the systemd secret sauce was kept and changed the values in there that running the script from /etc/init.d did what it should have been doing in the first place.
42. Re: non-remarkable non-LTS by Dog-Cow · 2017-07-21 01:55 · Score: 0
  
  You're right. Instead of taking two minutes to solve your problem, you could take the same two minutes to put a bullet in your brain. Then you've solved everyone else's problem, too.
43. Re:non-remarkable non-LTS by Dog-Cow · 2017-07-21 01:59 · Score: 1
  
  Has the default behavior of journalctl changed? No? Then take your computer and use it to bludgeon yourself to death, you ultra-conservative whiny shit-face.
44. Re: non-remarkable non-LTS by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-21 02:00 · Score: 0
  
  Self-confessed troll identified ^^^^
45. Re: non-remarkable non-LTS by Dog-Cow · 2017-07-21 02:00 · Score: 1
  
  You seem to have a serious problem with changes that don't affect you. Use your power cable as a noose and hang yourself. You'll never be bothered by systemd again, you whiny shit-bag.
46. Re: non-remarkable non-LTS by Hognoxious · 2017-07-21 02:37 · Score: 1
  
  I love a well-reasoned argument. Could you point me to someone who could provide one, you smelly fat kiddy-diddler?
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
47. Re:non-remarkable non-LTS by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-21 04:38 · Score: 0
  
  Amen brother! These dumbfucks seem to not understand conformity through established standards. Deviation better have a damn good reason. Something beside: "I like it better."
48. Re:non-remarkable non-LTS by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-21 04:42 · Score: -1
  
  Congratulations Linux Community on another decade of your OS being fucking useless on Desktop.
49. Re: non-remarkable non-LTS by thegarbz · 2017-07-21 05:16 · Score: 1
  
  shill
  verb
  verb: shilling; plural noun: shillings
  1.
  A term used on Slashdot to describe anyone who disagrees with you or has a differing opinion.
50. Re: non-remarkable non-LTS by thegarbz · 2017-07-21 05:23 · Score: 1
  
  More that Lennert never knew where the cheese was before - but yes you have a point.
  That's the principle behind it. Someone moved my cheese is about your reaction to things that others do to you.
  
  Things like his comment "what tool was used to create a username with a number?
  Yeah he's a dick to users. Yeah his software has bugs. All of which has nothing to do with the fact that many of the complaints are people's inability to RTFM or to blame him for defaults which are in the domain of the distribution provider and nothing to do with him. I mean do you go and complain to GNU because the latest version of Raspberian ships by default without ls aliased to "ls --color"?
  Maybe if half the people directed their venting at the people actually in control rather than just blindly bitch on slashdot it wouldn't be as bad. But they don't. Also explained by someone moved my cheese, people make irrational decisions when something happens to them which doesn't at all affect their situation.
51. Re:non-remarkable non-LTS by thegarbz · 2017-07-21 05:37 · Score: 1
  
  Is brake on the left & gas on the right intrinsically better than the other way round?
  Funny you mention that. No problem with moving indicators and wipers, or gear sticks from the left to right. People adjust to that within a few minutes. People also didn't have a problem back when Ford had the accelerator on the steering wheel. But then only until very recently you could find motorbikes with the throttle on the left instead of the right. And the standards for bicycles require the front / back brake to be different on left hand drive vs right hand drive countries so you can indicate your turn without slamming on the front brake and kissing pavement.
  Yet everyone survives through this transition just fine. There are people that bitch about everything, such as the pedals not being cantilever from the top and instead from the bottom, or that the acceleration response is different for some cars (Tesla gets complains about this), or the different spacing between pedals, different sizes of pedals, if you actually looked into it you'll realise just how non-standard car systems are, and if you look through history you'll find many examples of people changing, altering or playing with it trying to find something "better".
52. Re:non-remarkable non-LTS by thegarbz · 2017-07-21 05:42 · Score: 1
  
  Why doesn't it respect the PAGER environment variable? Why do we have to use a NEW variable in the SYSTEMD namespace?
  Because log file outputs especially with the additional information added by systemd are now wider than before so it makes sense not wordwrap, the same can not be said for many other uses of less.
  Also because journalctl is a different program to less so why shouldn't it have its own config?
  
  I mean... seriously? That's been the way you specify your desired pager for _decades_.
  Nope. It's been the way you specify your desired pager settings under "less" for decades. Maybe journalctl isn't for you. Just set it up to dump to syslog and use less like you used to and let everyone else who is comfortable reading the manual use a different program.
  You can do anything if you set your mind to it. Or if you post on a forum and get someone else to RTFM out to you.
53. Re:non-remarkable non-LTS by thegarbz · 2017-07-21 05:45 · Score: 1
  
  These dumbfucks seem to not understand conformity through established standards.
  Oh I didn't realise there was an established standard for how journalctl should display it's output. I just tried running that command on and older unix machine and I got journalctl: command not found.
  Maybe you can help me and tell me what the "established standard" should be for this program that didn't exist until a few years ago.
  Maybe learning to use new programs are too hard for you. Give your computer to a 15 year old so he can setup journald to output to syslog and you can awk grep less your way through a text file the "better" way like you used to.
54. Re: non-remarkable non-LTS by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-21 07:49 · Score: 0
  
  So instead of users working around Lennart's shitty designs the distro maintainers should do it?
  While I agree that's an inconvenience to fewer people and is therefore a slight improvement I can think of another step that would be even better. Can you?
  I don't understand. Somebody decides to write a utility a certain way. He never held a gun to anyone, he never forced any end user or distro to use it. He wrote it, stated his intentions, and stated what his defaults would be and everyone knew it.
  Distros then said, "Hey I like this, I like these defaults, I will move to this journalctl stuff". You then installed said distro. Everyone seems to hate this new systemd/journalctl stuff, but yet every single distro and every single serious system administrator who maintains huge amounts of computers are switching to it. Why is that?
  You guys act like this "Lennart" guy is some dictator who is ruining unix. Do you not understand that every single person who has adopted his changes has done so voluntarily because they saw benefits?
55. Re:non-remarkable non-LTS by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-21 08:07 · Score: 0
  
  > Nope. It's been the way you specify your desired pager settings under "less" for decades.
  Bzzt. Wrong! Check table 7-1: http://www.tldp.org/LDP/intro-linux/html/sect_07_02.html
  "PAGER: used by programs like man which need to know what to do in case output is more than one terminal window."
  > Because log file outputs especially with the additional information added by systemd are now wider than before...
  You're kidding me. You've never _ever_ looked in /var/log, have you? Lines with lengths that are _many_ multiples of 80 characters are the norm and have been for _decades_.
  Sadly, this sort of ignorance is all too common of vocal systemd proponents. "RTFM", indeed.
56. Re:non-remarkable non-LTS by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-21 10:30 · Score: 0
  
  > Oh I didn't realise there was an established standard for how journalctl should display it's output.
  There's a well-established defacto standard for _every program that writes text to stdout and stderr_.
  journalctl does exactly this, and it doesn't comply with the standard. It doesn't do anything that warrants breaking from the standard.
  It should be up to the operator of journalctl whether or not he chooses to push output to a pager configured not to linewrap... not having journalctl decide to make it look like it's truncating lines. (After all, it's not uncommon for programs to have a mode where they abbreviate content and truncate lines to fit the terminal width!)
  A car manufacturer would never swap position of the gas and brake pedals. A program that writes to stdout/stderr should never default to pushing to a pager configured to fail to linewrap.
57. Re: non-remarkable non-LTS by dbIII · 2017-07-21 14:13 · Score: 1
  
  That's the principle behind it. Someone moved my cheese is about your reaction to things that others do to you.
  I am very aware of the phrase as should be clear from me taking it one step more above. It's not just that "the cheese was moved" as in different behaviour, it's that Lennart is not taking the prior behaviour into account at all - he doesn't know where the "cheese" was in the first place and is not going to listen to anyone who does. It's not about improvements just different. It's a quick choice not based on experience, reinvention for the sake of it so almost always likely to be less than ideal on the first attempt. That has annoyed people.
  
  If half the people directed their venting at the people actually in control
  Hence my comment "It's only really a problem because so many of these things are going live before others can do something about it."
  Pulseaudio mostly works these days probably because the team that took over a decade ago listen. Systemd is likely to benefit to being run in a similar way instead of the it is - the inevitable design flaws and bugs that crop up in a project appear to persist for far longer than they should due to the insular approach taken. I've still got a lot of stuff on CentOS/RHEL6 because a couple of software vendors are having mostly systemd related issues on RHEL7. That wouldn't happen with sensible defaults to fall back to so the new software can act like the old. The attitude is that the world has to change for Lennart.
58. Re:non-remarkable non-LTS by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-22 12:31 · Score: 0
  
  I've decided to use journalctl | cat. It works great, and everyone will hate me for doing it!
59. Re: non-remarkable non-LTS by F.Ultra · 2017-07-24 01:50 · Score: 1
  
  This is no different from all the thousands of other project where distributions change the default by supplying their own configurations or patching the project in question. Since the maintainers on Ubuntu have decided to not change the default behaviour of journalctl then they have decided that this way is not shitty but better. You obviously does not agree, but then no one is forcing you to either. Myself I have yet to form an opinion on the matter, sometimes I think that it's better and sometimes I think that it's worse and when I find it to be worse, I use the "--no-pager" option to disable it.
60. Re: non-remarkable non-LTS by F.Ultra · 2017-07-24 01:53 · Score: 1
  
  If you execute "/etc/init.d/script" then you execute the script with your shell and not with systemd. This is why i.e upstart required you to make a link from /etc/init.d/script to /lib/init/upstart-job so that upstart could execute the script regardless of location, systemd does not do this so you have to explain further how systemd could interfere with your script if you executed it directly with bash.
61. Re: non-remarkable non-LTS by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-24 11:37 · Score: 0
  
  Why do you assume I didn't learn about it? I did.
  And then I complained about it, because it is dumb. Sorry if this troubles you, but I have my own opinion.
62. Re:non-remarkable non-LTS by UltraZelda64 · 2017-08-03 17:33 · Score: 1
  
  Awww... so you're saying I might make poor 'lil Poettering (however the hell you spell his name) cry. Awww, such a shame. Waaaaahhh....
  If he can't take a joke, that's his problem. If he, as a supposedly respected software developer, has nothing to do but scour Slashdot topics and find discussions that include him and whine because people make fun of him... then, well, that's actually pretty pathetic. He can cry all he wants.
Also, today by I'm+New+Around+Here · 2017-07-20 13:57 · Score: 4, Funny

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.
1. Re:Also, today by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-20 14:57 · Score: 0
  
  Oh, and the air filters for your air conditioning system. I use the 3-month filters, but still... it's time.
2. Re:Also, today by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-20 15:18 · Score: 0
  
  And shake your fire extinguishers too. Some models need periodic maintenance.
3. Re:Also, today by tehcyder · 2017-07-20 19:09 · Score: 1
  
  You should replace the batteries in your smoke alarm.
  Wait, they use batteries?
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Getting my dicc sucked by a Rabbi by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-20 14:01 · Score: -1

It felt gud nigga. How can I do this
Metzitzah B'Penis by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-20 14:03 · Score: 0

Baby give one more chance
to shmekel on yur tiney lance
Oh Baby give one more chance,,,to set things riiiiight
*snip*
*slurrp slurrrrp
Nine Whole Months by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-20 14:12 · Score: 5, Insightful

But sixteen years is not enough for Windows XP?
Bring on the excuses...
1. Re:Nine Whole Months by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · 2017-07-20 14:17 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Yeah, but at least XP didn't have systemd.
2. Re:Nine Whole Months by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-20 15:13 · Score: 0
  
  Excuse for what, exactly?
3. Re: Nine Whole Months by Zero__Kelvin · 2017-07-20 16:52 · Score: 1
  
  Why would we make excuses for your stupidity?
  
  --
  Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
4. Re:Nine Whole Months by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-21 00:32 · Score: 0
  
  Fuck off twat. Don't pretend that you don't know there are long term support releases and this is not one of them.
5. Re: Nine Whole Months by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-21 01:53 · Score: 0
  
  Show me on the doll where Nutella touched your micropenis.
6. Re:Nine Whole Months by johnsie · 2017-07-21 01:56 · Score: 1
  
  So basically they went to all the effort of packaging up a whole version of a distro and releasing a version that only lasted 9 months. You're the twat if you think that isn't a giant waste of time.
7. Re:Nine Whole Months by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-21 04:11 · Score: 0
  
  Well, it's their time. They may do whatever they want with it.
Fucking Uboontu by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-20 14:17 · Score: -1

I'm glad this OS is done. This isnt even a real linux, just pieces of mach kernel and everything they stole everything from GNOME. This has been a long time coming. If it wasn't for their terrible patches, we could have a much better alternative to systemd.
About time.
Misleading by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-20 14:35 · Score: 2, Informative

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.
1. Re:Misleading by tehcyder · 2017-07-20 19:12 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  You seem to have overlooked the phrase "in time". No one is saying that software magically becomes vulnerable the second support stops.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
2. Re:Misleading by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-20 22:06 · Score: 0
  
  You seem to have missed the second sentence you replied to. The vulnerabilities are already there, since day one. Malicious entities just do not know them yet. "Discovery" only makes them available to a broader audience, usually resulting in a fix during the support period. That fixed vulnerability did not pop up though. It has been there all the time
3. Re:Misleading by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-20 22:51 · Score: 0
  
  Non-malicious entities just do not know them yet.
  FTFY - we don't know what mailicious entities know and whether they use exploits in the wild, we can only assume that the bugs that have not been fixed yet are not yet known by non-malicious entities (or the fix is underway).
4. Re:Misleading by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-21 13:33 · Score: 0
  
  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.
  You seem to have overlooked the phrase "in time".
  No, I didn't.
  
  No one is saying that software magically becomes vulnerable the second support stops.
  I'm saying software is *immediately* vulnerable according to its programmed defects the moment it is installed. Support is a back-stop effort to fix code after the fact, once vulnerabilities are *discovered*. But discovering a vulnerability is not the point in time when the software first becomes vulnerable, as the original parent suggests.
proposed name change by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-20 14:44 · Score: 0

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.
Why we don't use Linux by DogDude · 2017-07-20 14:55 · Score: -1

And this, right here, is the primary reason we don't use Linux.

--
I don't respond to AC's.
1. Re:Why we don't use Linux by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-20 15:00 · Score: -1
  
  Yeah... Keep using Windows so us Linux fans have someone to laugh at.
2. Re:Why we don't use Linux by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-20 15:06 · Score: 0
  
  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?
3. Re:Why we don't use Linux by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-20 15:07 · Score: 0
  
  Do you have time to laugh between re-installing shitty OS'es every two weeks? Seems like that'd keep you very busy.
4. Re:Why we don't use Linux by Gavagai80 · 2017-07-20 15:09 · Score: 0
  
  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
5. Re:Why we don't use Linux by DogDude · 2017-07-20 15:14 · Score: -1, Troll
  
  Personal preference has nothing to do with it. We're running a business, not a kindergarten. We need professional tools.
  
  --
  I don't respond to AC's.
6. Re:Why we don't use Linux by Todd+Knarr · 2017-07-20 15:23 · Score: 0
  
  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.
7. Re:Why we don't use Linux by Kjella · 2017-07-20 15:24 · Score: 1
  
  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
8. Re:Why we don't use Linux by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-20 15:24 · Score: 0
  
  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.
9. Re:Why we don't use Linux by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-20 15:26 · Score: -1
  
  We need professional tools.
  then why are you pretending that a non-LTS release is an LTS release? you're a fucking clown
10. Re:Why we don't use Linux by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-20 15:27 · Score: -1
  
  It looks like you know as much about Linux as Donald Trump knows about the US healthcare system.
11. Re:Why we don't use Linux by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-20 15:32 · Score: 0
  
  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.
12. Re:Why we don't use Linux by ckatko · 2017-07-20 15:35 · Score: 1
  
  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...
13. Re:Why we don't use Linux by DogDude · 2017-07-20 15:37 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  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.
14. Re:Why we don't use Linux by Todd+Knarr · 2017-07-20 15:44 · Score: 0
  
  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.
15. Re:Why we don't use Linux by DogDude · 2017-07-20 15:48 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  Install a new OS without regression testing the apps you need to run on it? Really?
  
  --
  I don't respond to AC's.
16. Re:Why we don't use Linux by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-20 16:32 · Score: 0
  
  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.
17. Re: Why we don't use Linux by Zero__Kelvin · 2017-07-20 16:55 · Score: 1
  
  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
18. Re:Why we don't use Linux by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-20 17:08 · Score: 0
  
  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.
19. Re:Why we don't use Linux by turbidostato · 2017-07-20 17:30 · Score: 1
  
  "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.
20. Re:Why we don't use Linux by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-20 17:40 · Score: 0
  
  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.
21. Re: Why we don't use Linux by Zero__Kelvin · 2017-07-20 18:14 · Score: 1
  
  ... 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
22. Re:Why we don't use Linux by Tranzistors · 2017-07-20 18:19 · Score: 2
  
  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.
23. Re:Why we don't use Linux by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-20 18:35 · Score: 0
  
  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.
24. Re:Why we don't use Linux by butzwonker · 2017-07-20 22:53 · Score: 1
  
  That's exactly the reason why I use Linux for work and Windows only for gaming...
25. Re: Why we don't use Linux by F.Ultra · 2017-07-20 23:56 · Score: 1
  
  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.
26. Re:Why we don't use Linux by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-21 01:07 · Score: 0
  
  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.
27. Re:Why we don't use Linux by zwarte+piet · 2017-07-21 02:21 · Score: 1
  
  You don't have your ~home in a separate partition? :O
28. Re:Why we don't use Linux by footNipple · 2017-07-21 02:30 · Score: 2
  
  That's exactly the reason why I use Linux for work and Windows only for gaming...
  Then Linux and Windows together is like a mullet; business in the front and party in the back.
29. Re:Why we don't use Linux by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-21 04:46 · Score: 0
  
  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.
30. Re:Why we don't use Linux by DogDude · 2017-07-21 11:33 · Score: 1
  
  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.
31. Re:Why we don't use Linux by Chris+Mattern · 2017-07-21 13:09 · Score: 1
  
  Because other OSes never go out of support. How's using XP going for you?
32. Re:Why we don't use Linux by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-22 01:03 · Score: 0
  
  There are times when Ubuntu makes Windows look like a good OS.
  You LIE sir. You lie!.
Rolling Release by Philotomy · 2017-07-20 16:37 · Score: 4, Interesting

This kind of thing is one reason I switched to a rolling release distro (Arch, in my case). I won't be going back.
1. Re:Rolling Release by somenickname · 2017-07-20 17:18 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Meanwhile the people who use their computers to get work done use the LTS releases, Debian stable, CentOS, etc.
2. Re:Rolling Release by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-20 17:19 · Score: 0
  
  I wish there was a good rolling release version of Ubuntu/Mint
3. Re:Rolling Release by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-20 18:07 · Score: 0
  
  LMDE2 is the rolling release for mint based on debian as its superior to stupid ubuntoo.
4. Re:Rolling Release by thegarbz · 2017-07-20 19:06 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Because the ever moving target of rolling releases which could change at any moment are so much better than running the command "do-release-upgrade" every 6 or so months?
5. Re:Rolling Release by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-20 21:22 · Score: 0
  
  Back when I used Ubuntu, I dreaded every upgrade because I knew something would konk out and force me to either reinstall or hammer the configuration until it worked.
  It's been ages, though, so maybe things are better now?
  Regardless, I switched to a rolling release (Gentoo), and my system has been more stable than ever. There's a bit more of a maintenance overhead, and, yeah, recompiling Firefox takes 30 minutes and murders the CPU, but it is a small price to pay to have a stable system (and no systemd, pulseaudio, network-manager or any of that superfluous and buggy gunk that has been holding the Linux desktop back).
6. Re:Rolling Release by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-20 21:51 · Score: 0
  
  It's Arch Linux mate. Part of the experience is debugging which packages aren't working anymore due to a obscure issue on the bleeding-bleeding edge version.
  You get the fun of problem management, learning how to fix linux and teamwork by sharing and testing possible fixes with the Arch community.
7. Re:Rolling Release by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-20 22:59 · Score: 0
  
  Fuck that. The distro should come fixed. Some of us have work to do.
  Digging through dozens of dependencies and fixing what the "developers" of the release broke today on hundreds of systems is not "the fun of problem management". The tool is not fit for purpose. The "problem management" indicates that it's not worth the investment. Arch is trash to be thrown away for professionals that really know what they are doing.
  Let teenagers and enthusiasts have at it, but professionals have better things to do.
8. Re:Rolling Release by Kjella · 2017-07-20 23:46 · Score: 1
  
  Back when I used Ubuntu, I dreaded every upgrade because I knew something would konk out and force me to either reinstall or hammer the configuration until it worked. It's been ages, though, so maybe things are better now?
  Doesn't that describe like every upgrade, ever? Even with the best of intentions things can break and then you have all those pushing the new shiny who wants to break things. The question is how often do you want/need it compared to the benefit of getting new hardware support, new software features and fixes quicker. Every day, taking it in stride (until it breaks in the most inconvenient way at the most inconvenient time), every six months, every two years... you can skip an LTS and do it once every four years, the choice is yours.
  The only real downside I saw was that even with backports and PPAs occasionally sorting it out you sometimes had cascading dependencies where you wanted to upgrade just one software package and it set off a chain reaction. I mean the software already exists in a newer distro, if there was a simple way to say "Take application X from distro version N+1/2/3, put it in an AppImage/Flatpak/Snap/chroot container and let me run that isolated from the rest of the system" that would be great. Ideally integrated into apt-get so that branch would get updates along with the rest. If you upgrade your distro and "catch up" later, you can uninstall the container and install it the ordinary way. That way you'd have a vast library of "free" backports.
  Note: I might be unaware what actually exists now, there's some years since I last ran Linux.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
9. Re:Rolling Release by arth1 · 2017-07-21 00:49 · Score: 1
  
  Meanwhile the people who use their computers to get work done use the LTS releases, Debian stable, CentOS, etc.
  Very different definitions of Long Term for those.
  Debian: 5 years
  CentOS: 10 years upstream support
  Red Hat: 10 years plus 4+ years of extended lifecycle support at extra cost.
  In many fields, 5 year isn't enough. The cost and complexity of replacing legacy software and hardware can be a showstopper. If you work in manufacturing, you have to be able to support customer installations that's more than 10 years old. Including being able to run development environments that actually work with the hardware in question, even if newer OSes have dropped all support. Say someone publishes a way to hack all 2006 model cars from a big manufacturer. They want to provide a fix, but may need their 2006 systems running to do so.
  Or banking, where they sometimes need to scan old microfiches or even punch cards, especially when one bank in the past engulfed another and not everything got nicely integrated. Got a handy hollerith driver or SANE fiche scanner plugin for Debian?
10. Re:Rolling Release by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-21 01:01 · Score: 0
  
  Craps on about easy upgrades... followed by "recompiling Firefox only takes 20 minutes".
  Jesus. I've been using Linux since 1997 - you Gentoo idiots appeared and you are STILL knocking about claiming it's, like, totes,easy to recompile everything for upgrades/installation.
  I've noticed the CFLAGs argument have died down though. So that's something.
  Just die already.
11. Re:Rolling Release by Bite+The+Pillow · 2017-07-21 02:00 · Score: 2
  
  I also switched to rolling release. It's called Windows 10.
12. Re:Rolling Release by Philotomy · 2017-07-21 02:58 · Score: 1
  
  I know what you're saying (I run CentOS servers, too), but for my workstation (yes, for professional use) and for personal (non-work) computers, I much prefer rolling release.
13. Re:Rolling Release by Philotomy · 2017-07-21 03:07 · Score: 1
  
  I've run both rolling and non-rolling distros over the years. All I can tell you is that, yes, I prefer a rolling release distro for my workstation. I've been running the same install of Arch for several years, now, and there have only been a couple times that applying updates caused me any issues. I run updates once or twice a week, and before running them I check the Arch news for any gotchas or pre-update tweaks I might need to perform (uncommon). Personally, I wouldn't run Arch on a production server, but for a workstation or a home system I think it's great.
14. Re:Rolling Release by Philotomy · 2017-07-21 03:12 · Score: 1
  
  I'm a professional developer. I prefer Arch (and don't have any problem keeping it up to date and stable). I think you're mistaken about it being "trash." That said, if you prefer something else, I don't mind.
15. Re:Rolling Release by thegarbz · 2017-07-21 05:27 · Score: 1
  
  Back when I used Ubuntu, I dreaded every upgrade because I knew something would konk out and force me to either reinstall or hammer the configuration until it worked.
  Mine hasn't conked out since I've been using it. Hardy. Phwoar I just realised that's version 8 so I've been running it for 9 years. Even the gnome > unity or the init > upstart > systemd didn't break anything.
  But then judging by the arch mailing list it sounded like the move to systemd there caused a shitload of problems with broken startup configurations.
16. Re:Rolling Release by ottdmk · 2017-07-21 08:09 · Score: 1
  
  The "ever moving target" can definitely be an issue. I'm not a Linux guy primarily (although I do run OpenSuSE and Steam-OS at home.) I'm mostly a FreeBSD guy (currently 11.0-RELEASE). I like the balance FreeBSD has struck. The base system is quite stable and is supported for long stretches of time. The ports system, on the other hand, is continually updated with the latest & greatest. Works for me.
17. Re:Rolling Release by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-21 10:16 · Score: 0
  
  Same here. Every single "big version update" with KUbuntu has brought some problem that prevented me from logging in to X that required skills far beyond those of the average computer user to resolve.
  I've never seen that shit with Gentoo. Rolling release distros are the way to go if you don't have a _hard_ requirement on an LTS distro.
18. Re:Rolling Release by iggymanz · 2017-07-21 12:37 · Score: 1
  
  things that roll hit bumps; rolling releases always break a given configuration and need fixing
19. Re:Rolling Release by Philotomy · 2017-07-21 16:12 · Score: 1
  
  That's possible (although I'd also say it's possible for non-rolling releases), but it hasn't been my experience with Arch. YMMV, of course. Some of it may be hardware and driver dependent.
20. Re:Rolling Release by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-22 12:57 · Score: 0
  
  No, this is debian oldstable with linux 3.16 but with rolling release for either the Mate desktop or the Cinnamon desktop.
  If you do want to use Debian 8 with the Cinnamon desktop as it gets upgraded to 3.2, 3.4, 3.6 etc. this is perfect, but this is not debian sid at all unless you turn in into sid and see if it breaks or not.
comparing to windows xp... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-20 18:44 · Score: 0

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.
mod 3Own by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-20 20:31 · Score: -1, Flamebait

Be a cock-sucking Polite to bring the project as a THe LONGEST OR ARCHITECTURE. MY
But, but, but Linux is magical and perfect by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-20 22:59 · Score: 0

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. :-(
Question on Posting Guidelines by ytene · 2017-07-21 00:27 · Score: 1

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.
1. Re:Question on Posting Guidelines by SeriousTube · 2017-07-21 02:07 · Score: 1
  
  Probably because it's the last release of the 16 series?
2. Re:Question on Posting Guidelines by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-21 03:07 · Score: 1
  
  >the unusually short lifespan of this particular release
  It's not unusual. Ubuntu has been following a 6 month regular release schedule for years.
  >Is that the reason for the posting, or could it be something else?
  Judging from the submitter's posting history, he posts stories that appear on softpedia.com. He probably works for them and perhaps is the author of those articles.
  Once a upon a time, Slashdotters frowned on submissions by shills.
3. Re:Question on Posting Guidelines by hackel · 2017-07-21 05:13 · Score: 1
  
  lol, what? "16 series?" There are two releases every year, and it's been that way since the beginning. It's not a "series". They aren't connected. If anything, it was the *second* release in the 16.04 LTS series if you consider 18.04 to be the start of a new LTS series. Still not remotely newsworthy.
Why even bother with .10 releases? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-21 00:55 · Score: 0

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.
When asked for a comment, by Chris+Mattern · 2017-07-21 01:07 · Score: 2

the developer said, "Don't talk back."
Next Name by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-21 02:22 · Score: 0

I wonder if there is an animal whose name starts with "A1"
Ubuntu reaches 'End of Life' by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-21 02:27 · Score: 0

But when will Canonical finally reach 'End Of Life' ?
Just use LTS release by iamacat · 2017-07-21 02:34 · Score: 1

Constant churn is only good for development or hobby systems, otherwise use an LTS release supported for 5 years.
Stop posting non-stories! by hackel · 2017-07-21 05:10 · Score: 1

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?
PAGER *and* SYSTEMD_PAGER by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-21 06:27 · Score: 0

Why doesn't it respect the PAGER environment variable?
It does.

Why do we have to use a NEW variable in the SYSTEMD namespace?
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.
Toggle with -S by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-21 06:35 · Score: 0

You can toggle this from within less by typing - S. (And you can use lesskey to do it with a single keypress.)