Why are so many desktop users using old distributions?
Posted by King-Little@reddit | linux | View on Reddit | 253 comments
Hey everyone,
As the author of Albert (a standalone C++ / Qt keyboard launcher), I constantly deal with a recurring headache: most of the users sit on old software. Telemetry shows that most of the users are on Ubuntu LTS or Linux Mint (based on LTS).
Flatpak is not a silver bullet, its devs explicitly told me that it is not for Albert (okay, cool). To ship recent versions of Albert for the majority of users I have to provide like 3 to 4 years backward compat. This takes a _lot_ of time.
Now I wonder: why do I have to at all? Why are most users deliberately using software that is EOL or at least quite old?
ToxicEnderman00@reddit
Ubuntu LTS and Mint are really stable. I've had no instabilities or crashes that weren't hardware related in Mint for the 4ish years I've used it. Mint also just works 95% of the time for most users, even for gaming in my experience.
hjake123@reddit
You're mixing stable (unmoving, issues remain the same and features are not added) with stable (no crashing bugs). These are unrelated concepts.
morphick@reddit
If it does its job and stays out of my way it can be stable (feeds horses) for all I care.
ToxicEnderman00@reddit
Probably, I just use Mint and it works perfect
whosdr@reddit
I don't think you need a stable distro for that kind of stability though.
ToxicEnderman00@reddit
I dunno bro I just use mint and know it works perfectly lmao
whosdr@reddit
Fair, can't fault that.
fallen_one_fs@reddit
Why would I risk bleeding edge update that can, and often will, break, if ol' reliable do trick just the same?
People are not fond of change, specially on things they rely on for work and education, very SPECIALLY that one, with a huge emphasis on SPECIAL, you wouldn't want the stuff you need for work to suddenly stop working, would you? Yeah...
My main concern is: stuff is working. I left Windows BECAUSE OF THIS, Windows 11 is pushing updates that break itself, it's no longer reliable, I need reliability, Mint offers a lot of reliability, I don't care about bleeding edge features, if what I got is working, I'll stick to what I got.
It's just that.
2rad0@reddit
Probably your software depends on some new feature, what feature do you require not found in all versions of qt-6 ?
FortuneIIIPick@reddit
Ubuntu 22.04 LTS is a major, officially supported distro until April 2027. It is currently May 2026.
Aside from that, as much as I love KDE, it pisses me off that the KDE Developrs let KDE components atrophy on an officially supported, major worldwide distro like Ubuntu.
lmns_@reddit
Huh? How can the KDE developers influence what Kubuntu is shipping?
okktoplol@reddit
because they prefer stability over bleeding edge things that may unexpectedly break, that's just how things are
King-Little@reddit (OP)
Sure but recent versions do not only contain features but also bug fixes
morphick@reddit
Bug fixes fix old bugs to make room for new ones.
CliveOfWisdom@reddit
So do LTS versions.
For most people (me included) an OS is a tool and not a hobby. We want to install something that works, stays the hell out of our way, and stays working for as long as possible.
Same goes for any software. I’ve worked plenty of places that use ancient versions of software because it works, it does what they need, everyone knows how to use it, they might have enormous macro libraries/automations or hundreds of thousands of legacy jobs/files that aren’t compatible with newer versions. So, they’ll happily stay on the old version forever, providing there isn’t some glaring security vulnerability.
I’ve also worked places where software vendors have rolled out cloud-based, auto-authentication systems that wont allow versions beyond a certain age to be authenticated. So, you come in one morning and your ability to get any work done is decimated because you’ve been forcibly upgraded to a version that isn’t compatible with you macros/automation, can’t open any of your templates, blanks, references, or legacy jobs. This is the main reason I loathe SaaS.
I have no desire to stay on the bleeding edge of anything.
okktoplol@reddit
Long term support also contains bug fixes, that's why it's called long term support
Basic_Fall_2759@reddit
Critical fixes, not all fixes
King-Little@reddit (OP)
CVEs and importand fixes. Your fav desktop app will not get updates.
QuickSilver010@reddit
That's fine, I can wait maybe a couple more years till the desktop becomes more stable, then switch to that.
Farados55@reddit
As a dev, you should know new versions are not free from bugs.
niiiiisse@reddit
They also contain new bugs!
andreaswpv@reddit
Why upgrade if it does all I need. And why not stay with LTS.
METAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAL@reddit
The answer is basically security. And very very rarely some cool new feature in KDE (or whatever you favorite desktop environment is).
SpareEconomy1849@reddit
On some level, older releases (that still get security updates of course) are more secure, they've had more time to be tested
juan18506@reddit
As a debian user, why not? I don't need new features so updates only bring new bugs or display/functionality changes that could get annoying
I use it my pc for gaming and study, steam and everything just works so I don't need changes
nmlsk@reddit
These days I cbf with stuff breaking or even silly things like major UI changes in apps or config file changes, hence Debian 13.
necheffa@reddit
It isn't EOL, it is a currently supported distribution with LTS.
I build my products on the oldest platform I want to support and cross platform the same binaries on the newer platforms.
ApricotTechnical1931@reddit
I’m sometimes worried that the loudest group is currently “progressivists” that are loud about bleeding edge. I get it’s fine.
BUT majority of user just want software that works day to day. Don’t get me wrong, I sometimes like to experiment with Arch and compile from source, but in long run I earn my bread on ThinkPad running Debian stable.
Are the packages new? No.
Do you get latest bells and whistles? No.
And I don’t care, because my main objective when I arrive to customers site is to repair their critical infrastructure and not spend 3/4 hour troubleshooting, why is my Arch with riced Hyprland won’t booting after last night update.
bubblegumpuma@reddit
There are a lot of bugs that I've avoided just by sticking to the latest LTS kernel. That mild BTRFS corruption bug that made it into Fedora? I avoided it despite using BTRFS, because of the kernel version I was using. I actually prefer the somewhat rapid 6 month package upgrade release cycle that distros like Ubuntu, Alpine, Fedora and NixOS stick to, but in terms of the kernel and my base desktop environment packages, I don't want shit to be changing on me all the time. I just want to use the computer. I block out part of a day twice a year to update all my PCs and software, and figure out what may have changed.
There is a valid counterargument to using LTS kernels in that there are multiple documented cases of backporting causing bugs, but I find that the benefits that come from waiting for code changes to stabilize are worth that risk. At the very least, I think it's a good idea to wait for a week or so before installing new kernel versions to wait for the point releases, unless there is some compelling reason to upgrade, like new drivers. For out of date software, there is always out of band packaging, like Flatpak, Appimage, theoretically Snap, containerization in general, etc.
mrahh@reddit
This meme needs to die. Arch, despite being an "unstable" bleeding edge distro is incredibly stable for daily use, and it's exceedingly rare to run into issues even if you're updating daily. Anecdotal, but I've been using arch for 10+ years and haven't had any issues since my very early days, and it was always just around wifi - likely because of the card in the PC I had built at the time. I doubt I'm an exception either - most of the "I bricked my system" stuff is because people muck around with customizing things and tinker a lot more than someone using Ubuntu - not because of the underlying distro or packages.
stormdelta@reddit
Just because you haven't had issues doesn't mean other people don't. This myopic mentality is a serious problem in the Arch community in my experience.
This itself is a meme in the Arch community used to deflect and ignore the experiences of people who have issues with it.
I'm an experienced user that's used Linux off and on since the early 2000s, and Gentoo is my favorite distro, at least for my main desktop PC.
Every time I've touched Arch it's had problems, and when asking for help I invariably get told I "must be doing something wrong" because if it works on their machine, surely there couldn't possibly be something that doesn't work on other people's machines, right?
a-peculiar-peck@reddit
By definition, Arch isn't stable in the same way as Debian is stable. It is an entirely different paradigm. Debian stable (or other LTS distributions) do not change. That is, there is no new features coming in, barely any bug fixing except for the most important bugs.
The current stable Debian 13.x experience will be the exact same in 3 years. You can be in a coma for 3 years, wake up and boot your Debian distro, do the updates, and you would not notice 3 years have passed.
It is stable in the sense that it's also the user experience that is stable.
I'm sure applying updates and majorly breaking your system is quiet rare in Arch, but by definition of being a rolling release, you're never sure if what an update will bring. New features, new bugs, minor changes and breaking changes included.
ApricotTechnical1931@reddit
I don’t have this experience. I use Linux for nearly 20 years, many years professionally. And I wouldn’t use Arch on my daily driver.
Ok_Distance9511@reddit
Out of curiosity, what distro do you use?
necheffa@reddit
I would go as far as to say that most users don't even necessarily want software or a computer.
They have problems they want solved and right now software running on a computer might be the most convenient way to solve it; if not technically then in terms of cost.
We can look at the steady decline of more traditional microcomputers in favor of mobile. Cellphones and tablets are designed for consumers, not creators.
ApricotTechnical1931@reddit
Agree.
Even creators don’t care. Look how many people uses MacBooks as their workhorse- path of least resistance.
I’m sad that many discussions turn the way “try this niche distro, this distro is better”. I think it’s damaging to the community in long run. As a beginner I would be intimidated with it and also go with MacBook instead…
King-Little@reddit (OP)
I was referring to the packages it ships. E.g. Qt 6.4, which is EOL. Even if Canonical would like to, they can't ship patch versions because they simply do not exist.
necheffa@reddit
I'll preface by saying I'm not super familiar with your project, so I can't speak directly to what you are building.
But a part of the value proposition of a distribution is the ABI it provides. And you can't have a stable ABI if you are constantly churning packages. So the distribution has to pin major and often minor versions of the upstream packages that comprise them.
I can feel confident that when I compile my product on Debian 13.1 for example, my users will be able to continue to patch their Debian 13.x systems and the binaries I provided will continue to function on the latest, currently 13.5, minor release.
necheffa@reddit
Something I missed mentioning explicitly here in my initial reply:
The assumption that upstream needs to do a patch release is not a good assumption. It certainly helps if they do, there is a big reason that Debian, for example, typically packages ESR versions of Firefox and LTS versions of the kernel - its less maintenance work for the Debian maintainers.
But don't think distribution maintainers will not create their own patches by backporting bugfixes upstream only released in N+M versions to the N version the distro is currently supporting.
I think this is something that /u/hjake123 may have been confused about as well.
hjake123@reddit
I was, I did not know that debian maintainers made those kinds of patches except for security-related changes to core libraries
hjake123@reddit
You're telling the developer that their own out of date package isn't EOL? The one responsible for granting it life and deciding when that life ends?
necheffa@reddit
You (and OP apparently) seem to be a bit confused.
So here is the thing, the version of the package distributed by the distribution is not necessarily the same the upstream version. Sure, some boutique distro is just repackaging from upstream directly. But bigger distros with more resources (or even corporate backing) are going to backport fixes to older major versions.
That is how distributions work. OP is not the sole arbiter of "life and death".
hjake123@reddit
Clearly that hasn't happened, or OP wouldn't be talking about needing to support LTS distro packages, though?
necheffa@reddit
It isn't clear to me. To be frank, the fact that OP is asking this indicates a level of naivety and inexperience.
Now, I do recognize the difficulty, especially for a solo project without funding, but there is a simple solution if this really bothers OP: have a maintenance release that only gets bug fixes and without breaking the API.
But what usually happens, due to a lack of funding and the stress of solo'ing a project like this is that bug fixes and feature enhancements get mixed up into the tip of main without consideration for user migration. It is less engineering effort that way. It is what it is.
Fredol@reddit
Hi, fellow maintainer.
In theory, you're not supposed to provide any direct support, distros are meant to patch your software so it works there.
I don't understand how flatpak would not be a solution? Anything can run under flatpak, even CLI apps.
hjake123@reddit
I thought flatpaks don't allow for cli programs? At least I've heard that repeated often, it's part of why immutables use Brew and why Kapsule is being made
Fredol@reddit
no they do, it's just the syntax is annoying.
```
flatpak run com.example.cli-app test --myarg 1
```
hjake123@reddit
ah so they don't put the program on PATH? i mean, that could surely be changed somehow, right? add some exports folder with symlinks to the binaries and put that on the path? but idk the internals of flatpak so that may be foolish
Fredol@reddit
flatpak does not put anything in PATH, other than flatpak.
https://github.com/flatpak/flatpak/issues/1188
Basically you have to alias every cli program installed with flatpak in your .bashrc
natermer@reddit
A lot of people don't want to deal with the churn from upgrading their OSes to a new version every six to eight months.
One of the major classical problems with Linux distributions is that there is no sort of cohesive "OS layering" going on. Think about the "network stack" how you can have separate layers for different protocols and they are largely agnostic about what is going on above or below.
In Linux distributions there is strong "layering" or division between the Kernel and Userspace... but Linux userspace is just one big mush. Instead of trying to provide any sort of stable interface between OS layers the goal of the distribution is to gather every piece of software code they can get their hands on and build it all together in one big Gordian knot and ship it as one big thing.
Want to upgrade your office suite? Well... the "Linux distribution way" says that the best way to do it is to upgrade your entire OS.
Here is a dependency map of Debian from 2013:
https://wiki.debian.org/DependencyHell?action=AttachFile&do=view&target=hairball.png
And since then it has grown almost exponentially.
If the purpose of the OS was to serve itself then that would be fine. It would be everybody's job all the time to always upgrade to the latest version of everything and be happy about it.
However the purpose of the OS is to make writing and running software easier so that it can serve the needs of the end user. That is the entire purpose. There is no other purpose for the OS to even exist. Anything that makes life more difficult for software authors and users makes it worse.
So it is no surprise at all that once people get something they want running they are not going to want to change it. It works for them they have things they want to accomplish outside of maintaining their desktop OS and dealing with the inevitable configuration drift that comes from continuously upgrading their OS versions.
UdPropheticCatgirl@reddit
Systemd attempts to solve lot of these issues, but people complain anytime someone tries to rely on their APIs… so it’s seemingly intractable issue thanks to the community.
sunjay140@reddit
It takes like 5 minutes to upgrade Fedora versions.
natermer@reddit
you are not getting the nature of the problem.
mikelwrnc@reddit
LTS is by definition not EOL. What are you on?
sunjay140@reddit
The packages in LTS are often EOL
gmes78@reddit
By definition, no. In practice, it often is, as there's not enough manpower to properly maintain all the packages.
Key_Pace_2496@reddit
It sounds like you made some poor development choices and are trying to blame it on your users.
UdPropheticCatgirl@reddit
It’s following advice for upstream, it’s the same reason why KDE project recommends avoiding debian, since what debian calls LTS means EOL in practice because bugfixes rarely get backported, and it can endup being quite a hatchet job if they do…
sphericalhors@reddit
I never understood why people don't stay on non-LTS Ubuntu. A long time ago I used non-LTS Ubuntu for some time and it always was buggy.
As for me, I use 22.04 on my two work computers, and 24.04 on home PC.
I don't like to upgrade my OS, instead I prefer to reinstall everything once in a couple of years. But now for some time I don't have a time to do that, besides everything that I use works flawless.
Furthermore, now to move to 26.04 I need to find how to do on Wayland several things that I use in my Xorg setup.
Some-Success-8941@reddit
UdPropheticCatgirl@reddit
This is completely delusional take tho… If support for something is in-tree it will run better with mainline kernel than lts one and deprecations of support basically never happen (there is still 25 years old hardware with full support in the mainline). Arguably the laptop should run better with everything that’s not mint because you get to use newer more performant graphics stack…
wmil@reddit
The Ubuntu dist upgrade frequently fails in a way that leaves your computer not booting. Desktop users avoid dealing with that until they feel they need to.
Your edit implies you're talking about old packages in current distros.
That's more of a thing where the package maintainers don't want to deal with all of the regression testing that updating a package requires. Or there's a known break with newer versions and the package maintainer is afraid to update until all of the other packages have been updated to support it.
It's especially true with something like cmake where they just aren't sure if everything will compile with new versions so they ship an ancient version that's already been heavily tested against.
crypticcamelion@reddit
Turn you question around, I have a well functioning desktop, it does what I want how I want it, why should I upgrade? My car is also from 2011, it starts every day it drives fine, I don't drive much why would I buy a new?
mattdm_fedora@reddit
People, as a whole, don't like change.
gordonmessmer@reddit
As a community, I think we have failed to educate those people about the security trade-off they're making.
*Most* of the software in free LTS systems is unmaintained and probably insecure.
rarsamx@reddit
"Most", "Insecure".
Is that your opinion or have statistics to spread FUD?
LTS releases security patches. That's why it's LTS.
Own_Quality_5321@reddit
If it's LTS, doesn't itean that it gets security updates?
crimsonscarf@reddit
Soft disagree/nit here: people don’t like change on systems they rely on. Phones, workstations, servers, are all critical tools people need to work at any given moment, and any downtime is an inconvenience.
There are plenty of linux users who use it on their gaming, personal, or otherwise “fun” oriented machines. In these cases it’s common for people to find a lot of joy specially in changing it around, customizing every piece of software.
DoubleOwl7777@reddit
precisely. i use my laptop for college. i need it to work and be as little maintenance as possible first and foremost.
FrohenLeid@reddit
People, as a whole, like stability.
Chester-Berkeley@reddit
companies much less, lmao
fellipec@reddit
Because if is not broken don't need to fix
King-Little@reddit (OP)
What if it _is_ broken?
MaybeTheDoctor@reddit
On raspberry pi i had everything working with GPIOs and wanted to add video image recognition, but i had to upgrade the distrustful because libraries didn’t support the 6month old version i had. After the upgrade i found that the GPIO interface I used was no longer supported.
So that’s why. The ecosystem is vast and complex and you never know what breaks when you upgrade.
AcidMemo@reddit
This is what happens when developers rely on modules that were deprecated for 6 to 10+ years. It was known for decades that old gpio libraries will break.
AppropriateCover7972@reddit
I think many people like using a system that is stable and prefer that over constant trouble shooting bleeding edge distro. I do both. I use Debian and Aurora. But I hear from a lot of friends that they use way older versions of Debian bc they don't feel the need to update anything
unluckyexperiment@reddit
Not every user (and most businesses) like fast changing software versions. It creates a maintenance nightmare and is very expensive to do so.
Latlanc@reddit
No message from mods? Just temporarily remove the post to slow down its traction? Shameful behaviour.
QuickSilver010@reddit
Hi. I'm a guy using Kubuntu 20.04
It's EOL-ed like 5 years ago.
I'm simply too lazy to update. Everything I already have just works fine. If I need any more supplemented, I can just use nixpgks.
Willing-Actuator-509@reddit
Because, my friend, most people don't care about updates and new packages. 4 years old software is not old. RHEL 10 has EOL in 2035. I will keep it till the last minute.
DizzyCardiologist213@reddit
The average person with an older PC, like me, would prefer a distro and OS and everything that's made for the system. It works, it's not top of mind like someone with a new setup or a gamer would think, and we just want the PC to work the way we're familiar with it working until it's too old to be usable. Which, these days, seems like other than PCs with throttling issues that are too cheap to be worth figuring out, could be 10 or 12 years sometimes.
I've got a house with 7 PCs in it, and none is newer than 3 years old. Three of the PCs are 6, and the only reason I don't have older is two that were 12 years old just bit the dust last year.
vagrantprodigy07@reddit
Realistically, updating your system CAN break things. The average user doesn't know how to fix broken things. Hence, they don't update unless they have to.
Preparation1903@reddit
Bro that's crazy, I reinstall my whole OS pretty much annually.
I mean that's due to hardware malfunction and user error, but still, I can't imagine doing that unless it's a locked down system like a gaming console or a phone where not updating gives you access to advanced features.
ionburger@reddit
reinstalling your os once a year is crazy if you dont have a good reason to, i aint got time for that.
Preparation1903@reddit
I've had some hardware issues that have screwed up my computers so that's most of it. Like all the way broken.
But I also only use like 3 different programs on CachyOS so it's really not much to set up, just normal OS installation selections, then installing emulators and Brave Browser pretty much.
But I also kind of get anxious that my computer has bloat on it after I've installed too many things so I also like to start fresh.
Not sure if that counts as a good reason, maybe I should make a backup and just restore from there once I've installed my core stuff.
Mostly I just like to tinker around.
ionburger@reddit
i mean theres not a downside to reinstalling more often, its your computer and your time, just sounds like hell to me lol.
thessag@reddit
If you need the machine for your job, you have no time to reinstall often. In the best case at the end of LTS you hardware is EOL, and you get a new machine with LTS again.
I have all my dev-tooling inside containers, no need for bleeding edge host system.
Sataniel98@reddit
Because we don't want to bend to the release schedule of every developer in the world. Calling stable release distros "old" is rather loaded. They're not developing slower than other distros, they just take rarer and bigger steps at a time to upgrade. It's very advantageous to be able to take the environment you're working with for granted the way it is, and not have components unexpectedly behave differently.
Latlanc@reddit
You are delusional. This is exactly why linux will continue to stay at 5% marketshare. If you don't plan on making it easy for developers to distribute their software, they are not going to bother with linux.
Sataniel98@reddit
Nothing - nothing - prevents you from downloading deb packages from the internet and installing them with a double click like on Windows. Nothing prevents you from adding a built-in update system to your system like most programs do on Windows. Windows has had three years between Windows 7, 8 and 10 each and six between 10 and 11 (the annual updates aren't comparable to major Debian or Ubuntu LTS updates). Linux doesn't depend on the curated approach of most distros beyond system packages. The difference is simply that Linux users often want and come for the curated approach of most distros. Especially downstream distros like Mint benefit a lot from a stable base, it allows them to have time for actual development and not to spend all their time on preparing releases or even reacting to constant rolling upstream changes. If rolling releases made it easier to ship software in a curated repository, Debian and Ubuntu wouldn't have multitudes of the package number Arch's repo has. I'm not trying to argue against Arch anyway - far from it - I'm just saying there's a tradeoff to rolling releases and it's naive to assume you can live up to everyone's needs and preferences with just one of them.
Latlanc@reddit
First, use indentation.
If there are ANY .deb packages in the first place. Which BTW don't always work cross Debian based distributions.
Windows offers hands-off experience for the devs. Is it great? Heck no, but it is still better user experience nonetheless.
Again, you seem to be psy-oped by "curated approach" which can notoriously break some packages (like OBS) and bombards developers with distro specific complaints - which undoubtedly wastes their time.
Speaking of wasting your time, that's exactly what trying to package stuff for distributions is. For many years that was the only way of getting software for Linux. What if devs don't care? No worries, we will package it for you! Look where that ended up? Burnout. Nobody wants to be a code jannie anymore.
Mint developers are wasting so much time it's not even funny. They run their own dated desktop environment, multiple codebases, tooling like libadapta that saw limited use. Why? Because it's a new shiny thing. They want to develop new stuff! But the development costs are insane if you want to run multiple things at once on top of doing someone else's work. Freezing stuff is not the answer. It's a sign that you can't handle what you currently have to maintain.
Offering an easy, distro agnostic way for the developers to package their software themselves with premade autoupdate logic is something Linux was desperately lacking until Flatpak came, and you can't deny it. Is perfect? Heck no, but it's the right way forward.
Number of packages =/= quality. You can check nixpkgs and see how that goes. Nix users like me basically maintain their own distro with custom derivations.
You seem to label me as an Arch user - it's funny, I use image based systems, Bazzite and Bluefin to be exact and NixOS for my work. If I could, I would burn down all traditional distros and build something better than what we currently have. Fortunately I don't have to! Check out UBlue team's work. I'm not even kidding when I say this, but they are the true visionaries of modern Linux desktop.
Zogtee@reddit
People like something that is stable and works. A co-worker once asked me about software updates, "Why does it need to update so often? Is there something wrong with it?" and I think she had a good point.
DoubleOwl7777@reddit
yes, this is one of the reasons why i hate discord. like why do i have 17 updates a day?
chozendude@reddit
While we may not be big fans of Microsoft and Apple's tendency to force updates on users, I've come to realize that this is the problem these major corporations have been trying to address. While it doesn't excuse the behavior, it is irrefutable that most humans instinctively follow the path of least resistance. I have multiple family members that use Linux, and most of them simply will not click the update manager button sitting in the taskbar until something stops working, and getting them to actually update to a new version of the OS may well be the same as sending them on a "Lord of the Rings" style journey.
whosdr@reddit
Though forcing the update on them with a dice roll of it just outright failing isn't the best choice either. Nor is it particularly respectful of their choice.
It's a difficult problem to resolve. Mint provides an automatic update mechanism, though as an LTS it does eventually lose support. And even that has led to issues for people when kernel updates have caused trouble.
chozendude@reddit
Fully agreed. That forced update policy is one of the main reasons I use Linux and have no interest in switching back to Windows unless I literally have no other choice. I just think this issue is more nuanced than "people don't want to update". It's often quite easy for us as "nerds" to forget that most people don't actually care about the underpinnings of their PC. They just want to click buttons and have stuff work. As long as that transaction works, the average PC user simply has no reason to change or do any form of maintenance - even if we (nerds) may think that maintenance is the bare minimum
whosdr@reddit
I don't want to do the maintenance either! I just know better than to avoid it..
As much as a nerd, I'm definitely just a normal user too. Messing with my OS is only one of my hobbies that use a PC, so I get to sit on both sides of the fence depending on where my focus is.
Today it's looking into webgl batching. And catching up with manga. x3
Moscato359@reddit
LTS distros are stable
People want stability
Windows handles this by having side by side DLLs instead, which gets bloaty, but solves the problem
whosdr@reddit
Flatpak also solves the issue in a similar manner. As does, say, Distrobox. And to an often less relevant manner, Docker/Podman.
Or maybe a little different, AppImages. (Not my favourite method though, very inconsistent and thus sadly unreliable.)
necheffa@reddit
I have had a lot of problems with Flatpak and AppImage at work since they require FUSE and I just have an unprivileged account.
whosdr@reddit
I'm maybe ignorant about how that's an issue. I didn't think FUSE required anything privileged.
Maybe there's some other security mechanism at play preventing it? Now I have another thing to research, grr.
necheffa@reddit
It has been a couple months since I last tried so the details are not fresh in my head. But I can tell you that we use SLES 12 and SLES 15.
I want to say the problem revolved around
/usr/bin/fusermount3wanting to be a suid binary (possibly to read/write to /dev/fuse). I'm not sure if SLES disables that out of the box or if we did that as part of hardening.whosdr@reddit
That makes sense. I can see why they'd do that as a policy. It's just beyond what I'd consider as a normal unprivileged account.
Moscato359@reddit
Yep, but they are all bloated, and linux people generally hate bloat.
Which leads us to per-distro-version packages.
whosdr@reddit
I use docker for a few things myself. And honestly the trade-off with Flatpak really isn't so bad. It looks terrible when you have 1-2 apps, but the amortised runtime overhead over a few dozen becomes rather benign.
Then again I've got a 100GB root partition (+snapshots) so that also helps. May be more of an issue on small disks.
VayuAir@reddit
I think you are missing forest for the trees. It is natural that majority of normal users will prefer stability over cutting edge code.
Maybe simply support these OSes.
What about Snaps? Can they work for your case? If yes you can provide them for these older distros.
King-Little@reddit (OP)
A snap, and a flat, and native builds for all distro and arch combinations. Thats simply not feasible.
DoubleOwl7777@reddit
then why not only offer flatpak?
djfdhigkgfIaruflg@reddit
LTS by definition is not EOL...
If you don't want to deal with old environments, then just don't. And release only for newer builds.
The reason for the users on LTS is simple: if I install Linux on my mother's computer I want her not having to deal with any complex update or big changes. LTS would be stable enough for that
Several_Clients@reddit
Ubuntu 6.06, released 20 years ago, was an LTS version. You're telling me it'sby definition not EOL? Canonical still supports it? You're sure about that?
djfdhigkgfIaruflg@reddit
🤦 dude. LTS specifies how long tech support will last
ionburger@reddit
keyword "was", obviously it isnt anymore. a distro that is currently under a LTS contract is by definition not EOL.
realitythreek@reddit
They didn’t specify an out of support LTS. OP was saying that an LTS distribution was “old” but it being LTS by definition means it’s supported for longer than a bleeding edge distribution.
If OP doesn’t want to support anything but last release, fine, but don’t blame users for that.
The-Nice-Writer@reddit
The other commenter obviously means that if software is within its LTS term, it’s not EOL.
gmes78@reddit
The idea that "stable" means "reliable" or that it is the best option for desktop usage has done a ton of damage to the Linux desktop.
Most people don't actually benefit from using ancient software that upstream doesn't support anymore. But they do so anyway because they're told that's what you have to do for your machine to work without issues.
Now, things are changing a bit. People are recommending up-to-date distros, such as Fedora, more and more. But I still don't think the community as a whole understands stable distros, and when they should be used.
gmes78@reddit
Side note: it also doesn't help that the stable distro, Debian, is suffering from a huge lack of manpower, and thus most of its packages are improperly maintained.
Stable shouldn't mean "leaving software outdated so that things don't get worse", it should mean "continuously integrate bugfixes from upstream to fix existing bugs". But that requires a lot of manpower to do.
hjake123@reddit
And I mean, that manpower could be used to fix the new bugs instead, so it seems kinda wasteful imo. Plus, it's open source, people are gonna work on their own projects and on shiny new things, not endless backporting truggery
gmes78@reddit
I agree. Red Hat can do it for RHEL because they pay a bunch of people to maintain packages and backport bugfixes.
testfire10@reddit
Because your average person doesn’t care about features and bug fixes. They’re not software engineers or UI designers. They want to learn how something works, once. Not relearn the new “features” and “fixes” every 3 months when someone somewhere decides to push a new version.
I look at it like this: my job as a hardware engineer is hard enough without spending my time finding the new location of a menu item, or what a keyboard shortcut changed to, or how the software I need to do my job changed since the last update. Those are in fact blockers to me doing what I need to do.
whosdr@reddit
Imagine if this was the case with cars. You get a software update and your window wiper and indicators change places, the radio always defaults to a single station instead of remembering where you left it, and the seat position is always locked in place because somebody thought it was better to streamline the options.
testfire10@reddit
Yes. We’ve flown too close to the sun with the constant updates. Security fixes are one thing, but people using these devices aren’t normally using them (unlike what Apple seems to think) to try out the latest emoji, see how cool the new rounded window edges are, trying out the new pastel color theme, or any of that other crap. It’s more effort to have to deal with those distractions when you’re just trying to open and edit a spreadsheet.
whosdr@reddit
I'm going to sound so boring and basic now, but god do I love spreadsheeting everything. I can't wait to build my own solar potential sheets, once I start getting energy usage pattern data back from my energy provider.
testfire10@reddit
An engineer. I understand.
Mountain-Age5580@reddit
Thats the point of LTS. Back in my day I lived through two botched distro ugrades, so using LTS is just less work. Who would not like that?
ionburger@reddit
people dont like change, windows 7 still has significant marketshare, let alone some lts version that is still getting full updates.
Latlanc@reddit
So many loonixers in comments bitching about how LTS is sooo great.
Stay at 5% marketshare then. Developing for linux is pain in the ass and you are not making it any easier.
whosdr@reddit
Yeees... developers should ignore what it is that people actually want because it's inconvenient to them..?
Latlanc@reddit
You don't KNOW what you want. You were psyoped into believing that LTS will solve all of your problems because the most common way of distributing linux is a shaky, repackaged mess that adds more pointless work on already burned out maintainer teams.
Image based distros for example are a way of staying close to upstream and stable - and you can customize them extensively too, before you dare to share any further myths. Are they the final form of linux? Let's hope not, but for 80% of people out there, they are more than fine.
whosdr@reddit
I do know what I want. That's how I configured my systems over the past six years. It meets all my requirements, it works predictably and doesn't require maintenance. The software is of versions I'm comfortable using, and anything I need beyond those versions are available to me through other means.
I am not ignorant to the many other distributions available and routinely run them on other machines. But I made a specific and conscious choice, with all the relevant facts and information to my disposal across more than five years, to pick an LTS distribution.
Latlanc@reddit
Looks like reddit mods got angry with the message. What a cult.
lbt_mer@reddit
Go and research: https://build.opensuse.org/
It will allow you to trivially build and distribute your packages for a huge number of versions of distros. It's a fully open source solution and they will let you use their builders.
It's what Suse use to build their entire set of distributions.
Many open source packages use it to do exactly what you describe
This may be a starter: https://build.opensuse.org/project/show/home:pbek:QOwnNotes
Disclaimer: I used it for over a decade to build entire OSS distributions myself (on private infra and on theirs) and even contributed to it a bit.
Moses_Horwitz@reddit
Application-specific. Proxmox, for example, is Debian (seven). I have one Ubuntu. Otherwise, Fedora (44). My workstation is BSD (15.x), but I don't want the disruption of conversion. And yes, I have a couple of VMs of Windows.
AppleFlavoredBees@reddit
wait i’m confused. EOL means the end-of-life so there are no security updates, but LTS is long-term-support so they’re still getting security updates and alike.
what exactly is wrong with LTS distros and what does this have to do with EOL software?
shogun77777777@reddit
Bro what? You’re develop Linux software but you don’t know that LTS does not mean EOL and you are surprised that most user are on LTS distros??
PredictiveFrame@reddit
I contribute to this problem by setting up elderly folks, and the technologically illiterate with Mint, giving them the basic rundown, and then having them use that as their daily driver. Most of them will never update their systems, despite a simple single-button press being all that is required. They are almost certainly not the users you are looking for.
AutoModerator@reddit
Hello,
Your account does not have high enough karma to make a top level post. Please feel free to comment around r/linux to get a feel of the community. Please note there are other rules, such as verified email and account age, which may not allow you to comment as well.
Please note that if you're here to post about a support question the proper subreddit is either /r/linuxquestions or /r/linux4noobs.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
stillalone@reddit
If it ain't broke, then why fix it?
DoubleOwl7777@reddit
because i dont need all the fancy new stuff. i just want my computer to work.
King-Little@reddit (OP)
If you sit on a version with an annoying bug you will have to deal with it for years then.
ionburger@reddit
cool, if theres an annoying bug il upgrade then or backport a fix, in the meantime im happy where i am.
mamaharu@reddit
A single app has an annoying bug? Oh, no! Better end it all. If it's that bad there are ways to get an updated versions.
I like Fedora, but I've also got Debian on my work/study fhinkpad and both of my parent's machines. This has been a non-issue. The stability and lack of non-critcal updates for is more than worth it.
DoubleOwl7777@reddit
or have 5 new ones every week. great!
licquia@reddit
Can you guarantee that the new version won't have a different annoying bug?
If not, why is it wrong for me to prefer the bug I know to the one I don't?
Farados55@reddit
LTS will port important fixes or if someone really cares they can try to find a port.
dasmau89@reddit
Usually Bugfixes for really bad stuff gets back ported (especially security bugs)
mrbuh@reddit
Annoying for whom?
I am not annoyed by my stable, rock solid LTS desktop.
GigaHelio@reddit
They LTS because it's stable.
PienSensei@reddit
LTS is a placebo
daxophoneme@reddit
Or aspirational
teaganofthelizards@reddit
LTS is Long Term Support, meaning it gets patches backported for a longer time than most releases specifically to allow users to avoid upgrading. How can that be placebo?
hjake123@reddit
Not if the developer simply abandons the old version, which happens often, and the distro maintainers don't bother backporting patches!
Avid_Arnieist@reddit
I don't really know tbh people say things like "its more stable" but I have been running arch for almost 2 years now and rarely if ever have I had any kind of system breaking problem.
OrangeKefir@reddit
Who is Albert? He should install Arch whoever he is. Like I did. I use Arch btw.
MikeSifoda@reddit
LTS distributiond are not "old", they're LTS.
linuxhiker@reddit
Ubuntu LTS is not EOL.
If it isn't broke don't fix it.
Why upgrade when everything works.
This isn't hard.
revilo-1988@reddit
Viele sind zufrieden wie es funktioniert und wollen sich keine neue Hardware oder können es auch nicht
daemonpenguin@reddit
What you are describing is not software that is EOL. What you are describing is software which is receiving long-term support. Which is the opposite of EOL. People are picking software that is supported for, what I would hope, are obvious reasons.
You don't.
3 to 4 years is nothing. That's barely even a full development cycle for major distributions. If you managed to break something within 3 years you're not doing software development properly.
No, it really doesn't. I maintain multiple packages which are backward compatible over 20 years and it takes almost no effort at all.
HeyMerlin@reddit
In my case it has to do with the release timing of Debian. I’m at a post-secondary institution and deeply Debian Linux to a hundred, or so, desktops. The desktops need to be stable throughout the academic year (Sept. - June). Debian typically releases late summer. Vendors will release updates to their software to support the latest Debian release around or after the same time… late summer. This means that I have to wait until the next summer before I can upgrade to the new Debian version. Releasing in August leaves no time for getting updated compatible software suites tested by our faculty and deployed prior to September. So we are always running an older version of the distro. For example, this summer I’m finally able to roll out Trixie tor replace Bookworm.
If Debian releases in early spring (e.g. March/April) then I would be able to stay more up to date. But because of their release schedule and because of the nature of Debian (stability being a priority), much of the applications the users use each day are a few major versions behind.
silenceimpaired@reddit
Have a fundamental base layer for the software that just works and can tell the user what supporting software / libraries are missing, and then have requirements for the current version written out on the app page, GitHub, etc. I would recommend support a specific distribution if you’re really burnt out. You’ll get less users … but a lot less frustrated users too.
Whole-Strawberry3281@reddit
What's wrong with Mint?
wreath3187@reddit
I'm on Cachy OS at the moment and really tempted to go back to Debian because I don't want to update my machine often. for my usage I definitely don't need the latest packages. I just want things to work without a hassle.
yuumizu@reddit
people just use windows 10 version many years ago. and LTS is intended to be used like this.
rollingviolation@reddit
sometimes, we have no choice but to run old software.
At work, I have PC's that have Windows 10 because the software/hardware vendor does not yet support Windows 11. (These are often hooked up to lab equipment with a 6 digit price tag, so replacing the equipment is not an option.)
I recently ran into a problem with updating Splunk - the new version isn't suported on Debian 13, so I had to install old Debian to install the new version of Splunk. (The irony was that this was to replace an even more outdated version of CentOS.)
crimsonscarf@reddit
An OS is like a physical space: if you don’t live in it, you don’t wanna change it for fear of unexpectedly breaking its use.
My linux laptop is just that, like my home: I’m happy to move around the furniture, repaint it, or fix the kitchen sink if it’s broke. It’s something I can tackle on my own time. My MacBook, on the other hand, is my office: when it breaks I’m gonna notice and care immediately because I need it to be functioning now.
0riginal-Syn@reddit
While I do not prefer LTS for my desktop nor have I found it to provide any more stability on that side for general use, by design it is not EOL as LTS stands for Long-Term Support. It is actively supported. You lose out on new features/enhancements and some QoL, but it is maintained for security and major bugs.
Now on servers, I absolutely prefer LTS.
Cl4p-Trap18@reddit
LTS if it's the current is not that old honestly, just 2 years and it's not like is not receiving updates is mostly the Kernel that remains the same.
whosdr@reddit
It's not receiving updates though. It gets security patches but is feature-frozen for 2 years outside of alternate packaging systems.
Cl4p-Trap18@reddit
Yeah but not EOL as OP mentions, still receiving support and repos do get updates so.. or maybe I didn't understand OPs complain
whosdr@reddit
No I agree, it's far from EOL. Support comes downstream of development and maybe they don't want to consider the software to be 'supported', but they don't really get to make that call.
deyhateuscustheyanus@reddit
Because new stuff is hot garbage that contains telemetry...
PerkyPangolin@reddit
I'm dealing with this from time to time as a maintainer with people complaining that something is not compiling with their 10-15 year old toolchain. I've never received a solid answer what is behind this.
ifq29311@reddit
just so i get this straight: you are bitching people are using 3-4 old distributions with FULL LONG TIME SUPPORT still available for next 2 years?
why tf would people update something that works?
this is linux. people pick their poison. some want new and shiny. some want install OS and dont want to touch it for the next 5 years.
herrcespedes@reddit
The guy is asking a question politely.. and on top of that he’s a maintainer. You’re bitching free software someone else provides. Unless you’re Linus himself on an alt account, you should recalibrate your tone.
Turbulent_Fig_9354@reddit
This is Reddit we don’t do that here
herrcespedes@reddit
Yup.. and that’s why we get our tree-sitter repos abandoned.. 😅
Capital_Rub213@reddit
I chose LTS for a reason
tilk-the-cyborg@reddit
You don't have to do anything, this is open source, you are giving away your software with no strings attached. You don't give any warranty or anything, your license explicitly says that. Just chill, dude.
shikkonin@reddit
The fuck? LTS is not EOL, it is current.
hjake123@reddit
I think the typical answer is that most developers don't bother backporting their changes and bugfixes to the various LTS bases and just leave those users on their old version of the software, except in, say, security vulnerability situations.
The users want stability, so... by not supporting their versions, you give them that stability.
squibby_sh@reddit
I can’t believe how many people are falling for this shit LOL
s0litar1us@reddit
Updating to a new major release is a pain.
I stick to rolling release distros for that reason.
axxond@reddit
LTS is more stable so people are going to go for it
herrcespedes@reddit
I run LTS as well. Mostly because of the time it took to set up the tool chain and get everything working “just right” that I hesitate to upgrade and break stuff.
whosdr@reddit
I abuse the hell out of Timeshift and btrfs snapshots when it's time to upgrade, too.
Between LTS releases I'll run two major versions side-by-side via mutable snapshots, selected at boot time. Until the new base has proven itself, it's a WIP and I have old reliable to fall back upon.
mbrezanac@reddit
Can't speak for the others but I prefer stability and reliability over chasing bleeding edge for the sake of flair.
Yes, I'm a boring Mint LTS user, but I like it that way, especially since Linux is my daily driver in an environment which actually benefits form stable and boring (software development).
By the way, I used to love Albert back in the day when I was still using it! Props for the effort and energy put into it!
Eleventhousand@reddit
Its perfectly fine to use LTS versions that include security updates. Back when I used Ubuntu or Kubuntu, I stayed on an LTS until the next one was released. I have too much going on in my life, including other computing-related hobbies to upgrade to every new non-LTS release.
If it causes you headaches, then don't target those distributions. Simple solution. By the way, does your software support a convenient way to turn of telemetry?
thessag@reddit
never touch a running system.
vip17@reddit
that's why MS tried force updating to make sure everyone is safe and to reduce their effort to port security patches to so many older versions. And you can see the result: they've just almost given up because people are so stubborn. Even most of my colleages are still on far more ancient Ubuntu versions
Infinity-of-Thoughts@reddit
I use Ubuntu LTS with Ubuntu Pro, currently. Security patches for all of Universe repo, while I don't have have to upgrade to a new release every 6 to 8 months, or worry about some update leaving my system in an unbootable state.
In a perfect world, there would be one single linux distro that everyone would be happy with that everyone could just target, but that's not how it is. Some of us just don't want to go through the hassle.
UdPropheticCatgirl@reddit
If doing open-source taught me anything, it’s that firing users is basically always worth it… If something is too much of a hassle to do for me, I just don’t do it… I basically stopped shipping to debian because dealing with it is too much of a headache… I test on latest major release of fedora and that’s enough in my opinion, if someone wants a backport it’s on them, it’s open-source after all.
tovento@reddit
Mint is knows to be stable and people like that. In order to achieve stability, Mint is based off of Ubuntu LTS. Many other distributions do this as well. Anything Debian or Ubuntu based will likely (by your definition) be perceived as “old”. Mint will be coming out with version 23 late this year or early next.
Yes, distributions like Fedora and Arch exist, but due to their nature tend to have bumps in the road. Things like Arch are also not as “new user” friendly.
Can something like an appimage container work for your situation? Seeing this come up with newer projects as you can package all the things you need into the appimage container and it works. Just a thought.
liquidpele@reddit
For the same reason I just use a mac now... at some point I don't want to have to reconfigure my entire desktop to my liking and fix bugs and compile drivers etc every upgrade.
LogaansMind@reddit
LTS is long term support. So effectively it will be stable.
Generally people are going to be lazy or don't want to risk dealing with broken system after an update.
That said, I assume it is open source software, if so, you are, don't put so much pressure on yourself. Pick what you want to support. Possibly put procedures (ie branches?) in place so that if people want they should help take patches and back port them.
The other thing to do is commit to a support strategy. When I used to write Windows software we had a strategy for years where we would support the last version of every major version (still on supported Windows platforms) but this became very difficult as time went on and instead we switch to the last 4 versions only (with varying levels of support). And if customers had an issue the answer was upgrade or pay through the nose for developers to fix the old version.
BiteTheAppleJim@reddit
If the distro you are using works perfectly why would you go through the trouble of upgrading?
I don't upgrade my car every three years either.
the_humeister@reddit
Manufacturers would absolutely love it of you did though.
Netaro@reddit
can you explain that one please?
INITMalcanis@reddit
Mint if great if you just want to use your PC for browsing and media and some light productivity. You set it up and then you just use it as is for up to half a decade. Some people just want their PC as a tool to do a job and don't want to be constantly climbing Mount Learningcurve.
Farados55@reddit
Because it’s not breaking
Dist__@reddit
i'd stay on winXP
popcapdogeater@reddit
For a lot of people, they need the stability.
Not everything has to be bleeding edge.
theschrodingerdog@reddit
LTS =/= EOL
Z3t4@reddit
People using LTS has no hurry to upgrade, I won't upgrade my 24.04 work laptop till September at least.
Similar-Ad5933@reddit
For stability. I need to deal with constant changes in softwares as a developer. I don't have time to deal with constant changes in os side.
Jazvav@reddit
I feel your pain, brother, feel it so much it hurts I'm tired of years sitting on outdated software and then complain some features just refuse to work (brother ditch the Ubuntu 22 FFS, the kernel is too old for your fancy laptop)... We now have to involve corp security infra to help leverage users to move to Ubuntu 24+
Electrical_Tomato_73@reddit
On my desktop I am running Ubuntu 24.04 LTS. On my laptop it's 25.10. I will upgrade both to 26.04 but I really don't need the 'latest and greatest' for what I do. Most users use software packaged with their distro.
Not sure about Albert but I have not had problems compiling software from source on 24.04, though mostly if I want a newer version of something there is an Ubuntu PPA for it.
Basically, if it works don't fix it, is how many of us think of the OS.
the_humeister@reddit
Is this a serious post?
night_fapper@reddit
dev doesnt linux as his primary, its for both macos and linux. and there are many bug reports that are filled by those with older distros, most often using an older version of python breaking extensions , i think
armitage_shank@reddit
I don't have an answer, but do have a question: which LTS versions are you talking about here?
PitiViers@reddit
LTS has never meant EOL... Precisely.
Severe_Stranger_5050@reddit
Because the users and their IT-Departments have better shit to do than run important software on untested OS’es.
LTS releases are updated and maintained for 5 years, so Ubuntu LTS 22,04 is still a “current” operating system. Sure it doesn’t have all the new and shiny things, but it is rock solid and the software that worked on it in 2022 also works on it tomorrow.
0x196@reddit
"LTS" != "Old". In fact, it means the exact opposite of that.
whiprush@reddit
Is there a link to why flathub wouldn't accept it?
whosdr@reddit
Personally I just like most of the software I'm using to be boring and stable. New features don't excite me to the degree that new layouts and removal of old features frustrate me.
Maybe I'll move to Fedora and only put things off by 6 months instead of 24.
Lagusa974@reddit
They are different type of users/ computer usage (dev, gamers, casual/simple uers etc…). Casual users and some gamers just want a PC that works with their software/games. If having a old/lts based distro doesn’t affect performance, why switch ? Why use newer software ? Old one may have prove their reliability.
On top of that, a lot of beginner based on Ubuntu like Mint or Zorin and they just works very well.
Some people are not very technical so they won’t see the benefit of newer softwares
SubjectAbalone7757@reddit
The main issue probably is, that whenever a newbie asks what distro they should use, people are going to tell them that they should use Ubuntu and Mint.
I mean, we are in 2026... People could tell them to use Nobara, CachyOS or Bazzite instead. Also, they have an nVidia option, so it would solve one of the biggest newbie issues too.
toolschism@reddit
I know specifically for myself, I've moved a bunch of my family over to Linux systems. Doing that however means I have to install something as stable as possible. I want something that they won't ever have to hit a terminal on. LTS distros are the best way to achieve that.
krumpfwylg@reddit
Your definition of "old distributions" seems incorrect.
I wouldn't say Ubuntu LTS versions are old, they're just following their release models - which is not a rolling one - to ensure stability for a couple years, until next version release. There's nothing wrong with that, unless you intend to use new hardware, which LTS distro probably won't support immediately (or maybe through backports).
Please note the kernel LTS model is 1 new release per year, usually in Dec/Jan. Does using the latest LTS kernel (currently 6.18.xx) make your distro old ?
GreenFox1505@reddit
And by "older distro" you don't out of date. You don't mean a distro that doesn't get regular security and maintenance updates. You mean an in-support LTS distro that you think isn't as cool as a rolling release?
CAT5AW@reddit
Rat race doesn't benefit me
ChocolateSpecific263@reddit
why not? no need for latest stuff perhaps. btw. what has flatpak even todo with this topic?
Classic-Rate-5104@reddit
As long as the users are on a distribution that's not EOL, it's not their fault. This is real life. If you can't handle that you have to think about the structure of your application how to make it less "version dependent"
ElectricalWay9651@reddit
As a new use they get recommended Mint/Ubuntu, combined with the fact that they're considered "stable" relative to other, newer options.
Advanced users will have their things setup how they like it and updating would likely break things so they just don't...
shortish-sulfatase@reddit
Because there's a lot of people trying to make changes and it takes effort to keep up.
JerryRiceOfOhio2@reddit
I'm just too lazy to bother upgrading.
dack42@reddit
Which versions of Ubuntu LTS are you seeing? LTS doesn't necessarily mean old - the latest Ubuntu release right now is an LTS release.
I would assume many users run LTS releases because they want a stable system, don't want to do frequent major upgrades, and aren't interested in the lastest features.
packet@reddit
Because professional users want tools that are proven to work. I think much of the issue may be with you considering LTS distros "old". They are by definition still supported and what the VAST MAJORITY of people are going to be running on their machines. Reddit is very much an outlier running arch and thinking the world runs on the bleeding edge, it very much does not.
RegretFree7723@reddit
Know that on linux no one checks which distro you use, there are more than millions of people you don't know who use arch linux.
OkCompute64@reddit
You say your analytics show most users are on LTS but then say they’re on EOL or quite old versions; so which is it? As long as it’s a current LTS that is supported then it’s not end of life. It may be old but 3-4 years backwards support is pretty normal.
mattias_jcb@reddit
Tech inertia for one.
driftless@reddit
Stability. The VAST majority of folks run LTS distros because they want the stability. There’s no reason to upgrade if the system still works.
kudlitan@reddit
No, you don't have to. If people cant access your software that means they don't want to update just to install it.
MycoFail@reddit
They aren't deliberately using EOL software, they are deliberately using LTS software. If you have a problem with it don't provide long term support 🤷
EvilVim@reddit
Stability
i_like_atla@reddit
speaking for myself, it's because I installed a distro like 4 years ago and am too lazy to update it to a new one
_-noiro-_@reddit
Because it works
mriforgot@reddit
You don't have to do anything if you don't want to. It does sound like you're limiting your target audience if it is only compatible with recent OS releases.
TheBlackCarlo@reddit
Because that is the nature of things.
At home, people have better things to do that obsessively update everything every time they can. I use a rolling distro where I can exactly to avoid having to do big upgrades when necessary.
At work, there are environments where updating at the wrong time can be catastrophic.
Debian itself keeps its packages rather old for stability reasons.
lan-shark@reddit
Because LTS is Long Term Support. Ubuntu LTS releases get security updates for 6 years, meaning the 20.04 release (April 2020) just went out of support this month. The next LTS (22.04) will be supported until May of 2027.
If you're not a very techy person, or just don't have time to fiddle with stuff, LTS releases are the ones you want to be on. You install it, run your software updates once a week, and don't have to think about upgrading for 6 years
backtogeek@reddit
I am confused, sorry. You are saying why are people using LTS distributions? or why are people using actual EOL distributions, not in your opinion, actually EOL ?
If you are saying its a pain to maintain stuff for LTS distros which most people use, then ... dont? if you are saying its a pain to maintain things for ACTUALLY EOL distros,... then also, dont, no one really does.
Or you know, just target rolling releases only like Arch.
DFS_0019287@reddit
Because it works and it's stable.
GodderDam@reddit
because it just works
evilquantum@reddit
you are in good company
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pzl1B7nB9Kc
Impossible_Army8541@reddit
I'm confused on why their use case matters? If you feel that providing back support for older versions and distros is too much, just support the new stuff that you want. If your users truly care they will upgrade to use it or find a workaround, maybe you will even get lucky and someone who uses those old versions will fork it and code something themselves.
At the end of the day it's your project, if you find something not worth the time or energy then just don't do it.
LordSkummel@reddit
Why people stay on LTS? It's stable, low effort and we don't have to do a do-release-upgrade every 6 months if we are using non LTS ubuntu versions.
rws@reddit
It’s not fun anymore. After mucking with my system for decades, I just want something that works without READMEs or recompiles. In Debian/Ubuntu LTS/etc is not EOL, it’s stable.
BradGunnerSGT@reddit
LTS means Long Term Support. A lot of users prioritize stability for work purposes over having the latest and greatest software.
jermygod@reddit
"I have to provide like 3 to 4 years backward compat"
you dont have to, tho?
just mark it as deprecate, that's normal.
S7relok@reddit
Short answer : don't break what's actually working well
yyg-linux@reddit
new users migrating from windows starting out
linux fetish for running on toasters
corporate linux owned environments
if its not broken dont fix it taken too literally
f-ranke@reddit
Because of stability
AKostur@reddit
It’s in the name: Long-Term Support. Many folk do not want to deal with bleeding-edge code.
imbev@reddit
e.g. The OEM's page has a list that says my device is supported by Ubuntu XX.XX and RHEL X.X.
Framework's documentation/support for other distributions is the exception, not the norm: https://frame.work/linux
Henrarzz@reddit
Some people don’t update because their current setup works or can’t update because their hardware is not supported with new stuff or supported poorly.