QUESTION: Kernel and LTS relationship

[newtusmaximus]

  A LTS is supported for 5 years from issue.    After that date the  user  is in freefall if he/she doesn't upgrade to next LTS?  However if user stays with an older LTS but keeps upgrading Kernel, does this extend the life if the original LTS.

The reverse scenario – Take for instance LL3.0 – if user down grades the Kernel to say 3.13 for hardware compatibility reasons, After 2019 ( when the LTS for LL2.8 expires; Kernel 3.13 being the standard for LL 2. 8) does the system  become vulnerable, assuming all updates are maintained??

I.e what is the relationship between Kernel and LTS re longevity/security./vulnerability. ??

Objective to keep older machines working (safely/ non vulnerable) for as long as possible.

PS , not sure where the emoji came from; can't seem to get rid of it. 

[Ottawagrant]

Thank you for posting this question, this is something I've been thinking about for a while. Is LTS supported for the OS? or only for the kernel you have on it?
I have a Netbook that I do not connect to the internet, but have Linux Lite 1.0.0 on it. The mystery to me is that this OS was released February 12th, 2012. Yet every version from 1.0.0 to 1.0.6 has no support, or fully active archives. Did LTS start with 1.0.8 or 2.0? Regardless of what anyone thinks the 1.0.x series is still an excellent system, and works extremely well for poorly performing computers. It is only 4 years old. Windows XP has been with us for 15.

[torreydale]

Perhaps this can provide some insight:
http://www.ubuntu.com/info/release-end-of-life

[newtusmaximus]

Tks Torreydale. Understand the dates windows.  My question is about the practical implications for a non techie, what can a user get away with.  Are we to assume that "attacks" are continually being made on  Ubuntu "systems" and hence updates are necessary for protection.

XP users are vulnerable. By  the virtue of their "machines" they are using older hardware.  What is the critical point for those machines' use  in the future - Hardware failure (Valhalla) or not being able to find a non-vulnerable Linux OS that has the necessary drivers for their hardware.. 

Afterthought - Or when 32 bit is not longer available?

[torreydale]

However if user stays with an older LTS but keeps upgrading Kernel, does this extend the life if the original LTS.

No.  The LTS and its corresponding software sources will no longer be supported at that point.  Because they won't be maintained, you cannot get updates to the unsupported operating system in spite of an upgrade to the kernel. 

The reverse scenario – Take for instance LL3.0 – if user down grades the Kernel to say 3.13 for hardware compatibility reasons, After 2019 ( when the LTS for LL2.8 expires; Kernel 3.13 being the standard for LL 2. 8) does the system  become vulnerable, assuming all updates are maintained??

After April 2019, updates to kernel 3.13 will not be available because that kernel will be unsupported.  Supported/maintained means security updates are available.  You cannot get kernel updates if the kernel is no longer maintained or supported.  So yes, in that reverse scenario, the system will become vulnerable. 

Are we to assume that "attacks" are continually being made on  Ubuntu "systems" and hence updates are necessary for protection.

Yes.  To have the least vulnerable system, both the LTS packages and the kernel have to be supported and maintained.  In each of your scenarios, the hope is that you can be okay with an updated kernel but an unsupported LTS, or with an unsupported kernel but an updated LTS.  Neither scenario is advised, and neither is supported.