Hi!
On vrijdag 11 juni 2021 18:38:46 CEST Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> IMHO the version to pick is always the current tip of the development
> tree.
I understand that from a (kernel) developer's POV.
> Assuming the vendors get their changes into mainline users are
> free to use any later kernel.
That may be true if *everything* is FLOSS.
But my router (Asus BRT-AC828; 3.4.103) has very likely also binary firmware
(for Wifi AC), which makes me doubt I'll be able to do that.
I actually do have the source code for this router('s latest firmware).
While I am a technical user and I should be able to update busybox/samba f.e.
to a later version, writing kernel code to update to (f.e.) the 4.4 kernel [1]
(ah, I meant *Super* Long Term Support kernel), while keeping my Wifi working,
is WAY out of my league.
(A 4.x kernel should make WireGuard possible IIUC)
> That is more useful than restricting to an ELTS kernel.
> With an ELTS kernel the users wail that it is too old
> and/or the vendors have the pain to update their patch stacks to the
> next ELTS version
I'm looking at this from a *user*'s POV (with some technical knowledge).
I can be wrong, but it appears to me that what happens most often is that a
product is released with a specific kernel and will never be updated again (by
the manufacturer). Assuming they indeed started with the tip of the tree,
that'll result in a random kernel version being supplied with that product.
It would be awesome if the manufacturer would then update it to an ELTS/SLTS
version, but I don't expect to see that happen in my lifetime ;) [2]
So the *user* is stuck with a random kernel version.
If the user is 'stuck' with a ELTS/SLTS kernel version, just like a whole
bunch of other (technical) people ('on the internet'), then the chances of
collaborating with them to prolong the lifetime and security of their
product(s) go way up.
There are likely differences between product groups and therefor lifetime, but
I had my router in mind with my replies.
Cheers,
Diederik
[1] https://lwn.net/Articles/749530/
[2] I totally understand why they wouldn't/won't do it. It's a major (support)
risk and they much rather sell me a new product then let me prolong the
lifespan of an already bought product.Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.