{sigh}
No, I guess that would take too much effort, and wouldn't result in such a click-bait headline "LTS kernels are no longer supported for 6 years because it turns out no one used them." doesn't have that same fun sound...
Looking quickly at Debian, old old stable (10) uses 4.19, old stable (11) 5.10, and stable (12) 6.1. All these versions are LTS kernels.
I don't think Debian uses LTS kernel branches as is, instead cherry picking patches, but it seems they do leverage LTS branches, at least to ease the back-porting I presume.
I'm probably missing something, and looking through the Debian mailing lists, I've not seen any discussion about the end of long term LTS kernels, but it seemed they did rely on it to a degree.
Maybe it was more of a nice to have, but from the outside (I'm neither a kernel or Debian maintainer), it leaves me a bit confused.
Also: thank you for all your contributions to Linux for all these years!
Again, this would have been easy to verify if someone just asked us.
So to repeat, no "abandonment" is happening here at all, the opposite is happening, just like it has for the entirety of the LF's existence, support has grown every year.
If it gets enough attention just put a simple refutation or clarification on the foundations front page and move on.
Can you explain what this means? E.g. Debian very much sticks to LTS kernel versions in their stable releases. Were they not working with upstream, you? If they'd be doing their own maintenance, there's no need for them to stick to LTS versions, but clearly they didn't tell you. Any idea what's going on there?
I assumed companies use a lot of LTS software for servers to avoid frequent upgrades that always carry some chance of breaking stuff. Could you please elaborate more or link me to some place where I can read more about this?