i mean if you’re staying on 14.04 you should at least cough up some money so they can keep maintaining it. like seriously
Totally agree with that. What I have a problem with is withholding security updates on the latest LTS releases and only releasing them on ESM. That’s some scummy BS.
Who’s doing that?
Back when I used Ubuntu, I would always get a message when I logged in telling me that security updates are available, but only through some kind of subscription-based program.
It’s a big reason why I switched to Debian.
That’s not really what ESM updates are. There are the
mainanduniversearchives. The former are the core packages most Ubuntu installs are likely to want, while the latter are the many third-party packages Ubuntu offers easy access to. ESM is Canonical backporting security updates for those third-party packages to be compatible with the versions in each release’suniversearchive, for 10 years - long after those third party devs have stopped supporting that Ubuntu release.So ESM matters if you are sticking with an ageing distro for compatibility reasons, but not if you’re a normal user who will upgrade to the next LTS release on schedule, or if you’re accessing more recent versions of those packages via other methods.
In addition, ESM is free for personal use on up to 5 devices.
It’s an extra layer of support above and beyond that offered by the package maintainers, not withholding stuff for paid users.
Why would it say that additional security updates are locked behind ESM even when I’m on a maintained version?
I love the fact that Ubuntu, Redhat and SUSE are competing for long term enterprise support. The philosophy “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it” rings true, Linux enterprise deployment business make more revenue and the update backports and security backport fixes help the wider community too.
seems like a good deal actually. like one of the few good things canonical does.
This is insane for a number of reasons. Who the fuck would want to use a 15 year old release?
As long as it secure, lots of businesses. If it works and you dont need the new features of future releases and just want reliability.
Yup. We use software that depends on 20.04, but we do have an upgrade path. We are moving to 22.04 as those projects wrap up. We can’t go to 24.04 yet because it’s not certified compatible and doesn’t work.
I decommissioned multiple 2008R2 hosts in the past couple of years and at least one 2008.
If the business had it their way they would keep using them forever because they don’t want to pay any money or figure out a solution that lets them access historical data on a modern platform…
I’m sure i’m not alone. I’m positive older hosts are running out there at all kinds of orgs large and small. This isn’t just a windows problem either. The weakest link is still probably some refrigeration controller with an internet connection.
You should have seen the panic back in 2017 when my team found a cluster of Server 2003 running at a hospital.
The client thought it was fine.
Reminds me of when a client walked in to the help desk I work at the other day with a 2015 Macbook Pro still running El Capitan. I upgraded her to Monterrey - it’s been EOL for a year, but it’s better than sending her away with El Capitan. Monterrey is the best I can do since OCLP would be outside our policy.
Let me guess
“It’s still running fine! I don’t see the problem.” -Business
“What’s it do?”-IT Consultant
“Oh, it’s our ERP. Every worker here is connected to it via RDP including the folks working from home, and we don’t even have VPN! It’s just a little slow. Can you make it faster?”-Business
my guess is someone big wants it and offered to pay enough to fund it, so canonical is just opening up the same support timeframe to anyone willing cough-up some cash.
Somebody that deployed SAP or EMR and woukd pay anything to not redeploy that stack.
