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]

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

[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.

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.

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?