Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Open Source Operating Systems Linux

LTSI Linux Kernel 3.4 Released 61

Posted by Soulskill
from the penguins-with-boosterspice dept.
hypnosec writes "The Linux Foundation has announced the release of Linux 3.4 under its Long Term Support Initiative (LTSI), which will be maintained for the next two years with back-ported features from newer Linux kernels. Based on Linux 3.4.25, the LTSI 3.4 is equipped with features such as Contiguous Memory Allocator – which is helpful for embedded devices with limited hardware resource availability; AF_BUS – a kernel-based implementation of the D-Bus protocol; and CoDel (controlled delay) – a transmission algorithm meant for optimization of TCP/IP network buffer control."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

LTSI Linux Kernel 3.4 Released

Comments Filter:
  • Good, I suppose (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jones_supa (887896) on Wednesday January 23, 2013 @04:02AM (#42666817)
    If we want the Year of Linux on Desktop to come, we will need more these kind of strict, conservative standards. One of the top reasons why developers don't want to target the platform is that things are changing way too wildly.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 23, 2013 @04:06AM (#42666839)

    If QNX and NetBSD can hack it, why the heck can't Linux?

  • Not very long term (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Myopic (18616) * on Wednesday January 23, 2013 @01:27PM (#42671039)

    Why is two years considered Long Term? In my short career I've worked with many machines which have run the same version of an OS for a lot longer than that. I would think ten years would be a *minimum* threshold for "long term support". Ten years from now, yes, some machines will need that critical security update. No, we can't expend six months every two years to re-test the systems to make sure they work with the new kernel.

    There's a sliding scale of how reasonable it is to keep backporting bug fixes but two years? Two years doesn't seem long enough. Even my laptop has a three-year-old version of OS X on it.

Administration: An ingenious abstraction in politics, designed to receive the kicks and cuffs due to the premier or president. -- Ambrose Bierce