Comment Re:Kernel support (Score 1) 24
Which seems like a huge waste of effort. Why not just migrate to the next LTS when it's known and let the kernel people do the work. What keeps distros so tied to specific kernel versions? Most software doesn't give a rat's ass what kernel its on.
Along with other reasons, the kernel does not have a stable API, and some customers require staying on the same (validated) kernel due to various custom solutions (including drivers (including from 3rd parties that might even be in binary form) that may required a specific API), and regulatory requirements. The enterprise distros are responsive to their paying customers, and "if it ain't broke, don't f... with it" is what those customers want. There are often ancillary repositories (often supported by major corporations) that do provide more recent (usually LTS) kernels, but they are not officially supported by the distros themselves. It should be noted that the enterprise distros will, sometimes, backport specific fixes (that may not even be in an LTS kernel) that address a pain point by their customers.
107% agree with you, but: The Big-unn paying distros (in particular Red Hat and Android) do not use LTS kernels as their main kernels (although they give said kernels as options), let alone use CIP kernels (supported for 10 years).
I wish they did, but they do not. Why? I suspect it is more of "when we started development of the next version this was the 1st kernel that had everythig we needed" and less of "Let's NOT use an LTS kernel so that customers depend on us for backporting and patches".