Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Security Ubuntu Windows Linux

Canonical Preps Security Lifeboat, Yells: Ubuntu 12.04 Hold-Outs, Get In (theregister.co.uk) 88

Gavin Clarke, writing for The Register: Canonical is extending the deadline for security updates for paying users of its five-year-old Ubuntu 12.04 LTS -- a first. Ubuntu 12.04 LTS will become the first Long Term Support release of Canonical's Linux to get Extended Security Maintenance (ESM). There are six LTS editions. All others have been end-of-lifed -- and given no security reprieve. LTS editions of Ubuntu Linux are released every two years. Desktop support runs for three years and the server edition receives security patches and updates for a period of five years. Security updates for 12.04 were scheduled to run out on April 28, 2017 but that now won't happen for those on Canonical's Ubuntu Advantage programme. They'll now receive important security fixes for the kernel and "most essential" userspace packages on their servers running 12.04. In what's shaping up to be Canonical's Windows XP moment over at Microsoft, the Linux spinner rolled out the lifeline because customers are clinging to 12.04.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Canonical Preps Security Lifeboat, Yells: Ubuntu 12.04 Hold-Outs, Get In

Comments Filter:
  • XP moment: not quite (Score:3, Interesting)

    by DogDude ( 805747 ) on Wednesday March 15, 2017 @02:08PM (#54044921)
    "In what's shaping up to be Canonical's Windows XP moment"

    In another 5-10 years, this may be true. Mainstream support for XP lasted a decade, and some versions were supported for 13 years. 5 years support for an OS is, as The Orange Asshole would say, "Sad!".
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by amiga3D ( 567632 )

      I think people are hanging onto 12.04 because the next LTS release is where Ubuntu started to go off the rails.

      • by LVSlushdat ( 854194 ) on Wednesday March 15, 2017 @02:31PM (#54045091)

        Umm.. As far as I'm concerned, the next LTS, that being 14.04, is just fine... Its the following one, 16.04 that DEFINITELY "went off the rails", that being systemd.. All my systems are staying on 14.04 until close to its EOL, in April 2019, giving me 2 more years to find a non-systemd alternative to Ubuntu.. I'd rather stay with a Debian-derived OS, but its looking like I may be going back to my Linux "roots", that being Slackware, where I started with Linux in 1994..

        • Consider Freebsd? It's networking performance is very good and it's TCP/IP stack is the standard which is why Cisco used it and Juniper still does.

          Freebsd is one of the most conservative and stable versions of Unix and the Freebsd handbook has excellent documentation. Also to mention FreeBSD specific features include jails, Zfs, and dtrace. Hyper-V and VMware support are top notch as well as both Microsoft and Amazon hosting Freebsd on their clouds.

        • Just throwing this out there: Gentoo or Archlinux with OpenRC.

        • I've been using Ubuntu since at least 12.04 and am currently on 16.04 on low spec hardware and can honestly say I haven't noticed any problems in general or with systemd, booting, suspend, resume and shutdown are all quite acceptable quick.

          ref [slashdot.org]: "Umm.. As far as I'm concerned, the next LTS, that being 14.04, is just fine... Its the following one, 16.04 that DEFINITELY "went off the rails", that being systemd.. All my systems are staying on 14.04 until close to its EOL, in April 2019, giving me 2 more year
        • by Anonymous Coward

          A lot of distributions have made their stand on systemd, be it for or against. I found myself in a similar situation when I left Arch for Gentoo in 2012. Gentoo supports any init system you want, really. There's also Slackware, CRUX, Gobolinux, Devuan, Alpine, Damn Small, Tiny, Puppy... tons of smaller distros that aren't swayed so easily.

          It's really only the mainstream distros that went systemd. Most of that is due to the campaigning Red Hat developers did throughout the community, from pushing systemd as

    • How EXACTLY is this a troll? If you are running a point of sale or other embedded Windows XP setup (or don't mind tweaking a single line in the registry) [pcworld.com] you can get updates for XP until Apr 2019, that is nearly 20 years worth of security patches.

      I'm sorry but no Linux system comes even slightly close to the amount of support you get from Windows, Windows Vista is only now having its free support end, Windows 7 will continue to get updates until 2020 and Windows 8.1 gets patches until 2023...can anybody

      • Actually Hairy you may want to look at FreeBSD. It has an ABI unlike Linux and changes are much much more minimal making it easy to upgrade without stuff craping out.

        Unfortunately, it is not for Grandma or our users by far. FreeBSD gets updated all the time and with things not changing you can do a pkg-add or a make install clean at /usr/ports for any package. Since the kernel team and userland are all one there is that sense of integration. Also the scripts in /etc are simplistic. Not horrible if/fi else p

      • I'm sorry but no Linux system comes even slightly close to the amount of support you get from Windows, Windows Vista is only now having its free support end, Windows 7 will continue to get updates until 2020 and Windows 8.1 gets patches until 2023...can anybody show me even a single Linux distro that gets free security patches without forcing the user on the upgrade treadmill for this long?

        Centos comes to my mind (and of course RHEL). Centos releases are supported for about 10 years, which is about in same level as Windows 7 support.

        Centos 5 was released April 2017, and its support is ending 31 March 2017.

  • Why 12.04? (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    is there something "special" about 12.04? With 16.04 ubuntu got systemd-infested, but was there something after 12.04 that customers don't like? Or simply "we don't upgrade, period"?

    • by Anonymous Coward

      14.04 has unity

    • by Kjella ( 173770 )

      is there something "special" about 12.04? With 16.04 ubuntu got systemd-infested, but was there something after 12.04 that customers don't like? Or simply "we don't upgrade, period"?

      Probably just the inherent risk and potential cost of changing anything you know works. Had that at work today, we'd stopped updating data on a legacy format that had been properly notified in all the right places that was going to be shut down and that it had been shut down, both the ones formally in charge and the key consumers directly. It was left accessible for legacy data. And then there's one little rarely run side process that ends up with stale data for the last part of the year and the data gets o

    • Re:Why 12.04? (Score:4, Informative)

      by tlhIngan ( 30335 ) <slashdot@@@worf...net> on Wednesday March 15, 2017 @03:34PM (#54045653)

      For a long time you needed 12.04 to build Android, though recent releases allow 14.04 and I think 16.04 without issue But if you have a range of Android versions, 12.04 will build a lot of them.

    • by caseih ( 160668 )

      Well it was very stable, has a good desktop environment. In fact if I recall it was the last LTS before unity. Of course Mate desktop gives you an upgrade path now that wasn't apparent back when unity was rolled out.

      LinuxCNC has been based on Ubuntu 12.04 for years. I have a hunch that Tormach still uses that base distro for their advanced fork of LinuxCNC. Again for the same reasons as above. Stability and lack of change in the underlying system are very important in this space. Not saying they were r

    • by Hadlock ( 143607 )

      12.04 was the first widely used version of Ubuntu in the mainstream. It also ironed out a bunch of the weirdness from it's predecessors and the versions after it (13.x and especially 14.04) are basically the same on the server side so there was very little reason to upgrade from 12.04 and then after that 16.04 has all it's systemd weirdness that people are actively trying to avoid until 14.04 goes EOL at which point enterprise folks might start doing preliminary testing on it.

      If 12.04 weren't going

  • Help (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 15, 2017 @02:23PM (#54045017)
    I was thinking about moving to Linux from Windows 7. But is there a way to install cygwin in Linux? I need cygwin to run git and other tools for development.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Hmm, I think you should run Cygwin in WINE. That will give you the best of both worlds for sure.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    all later versions start to force systemd, or make it really hard to remove.

  • It has always interested me to know what drives companies to upgrade their systems. Let's say you have a farm of 1,000 servers that you've had for 5 years, doing useful stuff, running 12.04 - what incentive is there for you to upgrade?

    If they are web facing, and under attack - sure, I get it.
    If you are developing cutting edge software for deployment to other hosts - I get it.

    But if you are using them to actually do work for your company, say, running some data mining, or hosting a big kafka cluster, why change? The logical point is when you rip the lot out and install new hardware (and decide on a new machine config, including OS) but for existing hardware, shouldn't the OS choice live for the life of the server?

    • by Desler ( 1608317 )

      Security fixes?

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      1) Even internal servers should be running versions receiving security patches to prevent easy pivots once you're inside the perimeter.
      2) Vendor support only lasts so long and some companies need/require it to ensure they meet SLAs.
      3) Non-homogeneous hardware deployments but homogeneous system builds.
      4) Perpetually developing against old libraries will eventually cause you issues when you are forced to upgrade.

    • It has always interested me to know what drives companies to upgrade their systems. Let's say you have a farm of 1,000 servers that you've had for 5 years, doing useful stuff, running 12.04 - what incentive is there for you to upgrade?

      If they are web facing, and under attack - sure, I get it.
      If you are developing cutting edge software for deployment to other hosts - I get it.

      But if you are using them to actually do work for your company, say, running some data mining, or hosting a big kafka cluster, why change? The logical point is when you rip the lot out and install new hardware (and decide on a new machine config, including OS) but for existing hardware, shouldn't the OS choice live for the life of the server?

      Technical debt and hardware support.

      Look you can't expect things to always magically work. Hardware dies, new standards come into play, newer software needs to interact, security fixes, etc. Have you read about struts exploit going on at arstechnica.com?

      IE 6 problems haunted my last employer. Guess what they still use it!! In a VM now but still. Technology should always change as things always change. Looking forward and being agile means you pay less being proactive rather than reactive. Also being hacked

    • by swb ( 14022 )

      The problem is that existing hardware isn't available forever. Standards change and the underlying hardware changes and you find your $stable_version doesn't have drivers for it.

      In theory, virtualization will extend those lifetimes even longer, and it sure seems to be a common use case -- but even hypervisors end support for operating systems.

  • SystemD (Score:4, Informative)

    by Billly Gates ( 198444 ) on Wednesday March 15, 2017 @03:34PM (#54045655) Journal

    It's quite obvious.

    If you must upgrade try FreeBSD. We don't change things for the sake of changing them their and it is a very stable conservative version of Unix.

    • by Desler ( 1608317 )

      If that were the reason then there is 14.04.

    • Or bite the bullet, install a SystemD distro on your desktop so you can learn to live with it.

      I'm not a fan, but it's obvious that systemd is where things are heading. Like it or not, the sooner I get on board and learn how to use it properly the easier things will go for me long term.

      • My desktop is 16.04 (well, whatever the Mint equiv is), but my two servers are still 14.04 and I have no plans to upgrade them. If I replace the hardware I may end up with systemd, but I am trying to avoid it for server as long as possible. For my desktop I care a lot less and it is becoming more difficult to get a newer linux desktop without it. I do not run server type services on my desktop machine, so my interaction with systemd is virtually none. I do have to use linux machines at work that run sys

You know, the difference between this company and the Titanic is that the Titanic had paying customers.

Working...