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.

Comments

non-remarkable non-LTS

[KiloByte]

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.

Re:non-remarkable non-LTS

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:non-remarkable non-LTS

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:non-remarkable non-LTS

[Anonymous Coward]

And it isn't journalctl's job to truncate log lines to the width of the terminal. Yet it does.

Re: non-remarkable non-LTS

[Zero__Kelvin]

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.

Re: non-remarkable non-LTS

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:non-remarkable non-LTS

[thegarbz]

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.

Re: non-remarkable non-LTS

[Anne Thwacks]

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.

Re:non-remarkable non-LTS

[butzwonker]

Maybe they should use sane defaults?

Re: non-remarkable non-LTS

[drinkypoo]

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.

Re: non-remarkable non-LTS

[Hognoxious]

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.

Re:non-remarkable non-LTS

[Hognoxious]

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.

Re: non-remarkable non-LTS

[dbIII]

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.

Also, today

[I'm New Around Here]

You should replace the batteries in your smoke alarm.

Nine Whole Months

[Anonymous Coward]

But sixteen years is not enough for Windows XP?

Bring on the excuses...

Re:Nine Whole Months

[NoNonAlphaCharsHere]

Yeah, but at least XP didn't have systemd.

Misleading

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Rolling Release

[Philotomy]

This kind of thing is one reason I switched to a rolling release distro (Arch, in my case). I won't be going back.

Re:Rolling Release

[somenickname]

Meanwhile the people who use their computers to get work done use the LTS releases, Debian stable, CentOS, etc.

Re:Rolling Release

[thegarbz]

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?

Re:Rolling Release

[Bite The Pillow]

I also switched to rolling release. It's called Windows 10.

Re:Why we don't use Linux

[Tranzistors]

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.

Re: Starting today,

[drinkypoo]

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.

When asked for a comment,

[Chris Mattern]

the developer said, "Don't talk back."

Re:Why we don't use Linux

[footNipple]

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.