Replies: 3 comments 2 replies
-
This is an amazing project and I really hope you continue supporting it. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
1 reply
-
As v2.0.2 is released, I think this vote should be extended. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
1 reply
-
Because main challenge here is kernel, one alternative which I have been thinking lately would be using kernel binaries from Debian. However, my first merge request to Debian isn’t looking too promising at the moment so fixing bugs might be tricky if we found any. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
0 replies
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
-
Please, check discussion about potential replacement in here
It's almost been four years since first Burmilla OS version 1.9.0 was released.
Most important driver for that was allow ex Rancher OS users to update their systems to versions which are still receiving security updates and we have got some new users too.
From GitHub statistics I can see that v2.0.0 ISO file have been downloaded over 600 and v2.0.1 over 500 times.
On top of that many users upgraded from earlier version/Rancher OS which is not visible on those numbers.
What worries me a bit is that Rancher OS v1.5.8 ISO file is still downloaded almost everyday. Docker and Linux kernel versions in it contains known security vulnerabilities so I can only hope that those are non-production systems.
Main components in Burmilla OS 2.0.x versions are:
Debian 12 "Bookworm" is using Linux kernel 6.1.x and is supported until June 2028 so most likely that kernel version will be supported also until that same date.
However, before starting implementing new version with those components I would like to confirmation that there is enough of those who are running production workloads on top of Burmilla OS. So please answer to poll below.
25 votes ·
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions