They can't maintain the code so they are no longer going to maintain the code.
Yes, I don't see the point of maintaining technical debt just for the sake of it.
The security environment in 2026 is such that legacy unmaintained code is a very real security risk for obscure zero-days to exploit to gain a foot in the door.
Reading through the list I don't see it being an issue for the overwhelming majority of Linux users.
Who, for example, still uses ISDN in 2026 ? Most telcos have stopped all new sales and existing ISDN circuits will be forcefully disconnected within 3–5 years as the telcos complete their FTTP build-outs and the copper network is subsequently decomissioned.
Most TV and radio stations.
I doubt it. And as I said, telcos have ceased new sales of ISDN and will be shutting down copper networks within 3–5 years.
Therefore if there are still TV and radio stations still using it, they will be forced to stop using it by circumstance, i.e. they will find their ISDN will cease working after the telco shuts down the kit in the exchange.
Losing support in software however, does.
Since you claim to be a domain expert, give me hard named examples with independently verifiable links. At this stage I want facts, not anecdotes.
Because right now, my semi-educated guess is they are all using IP-based streaming codecs and protocols for remote contributions, outside broadcast, studio links and pretty much everything else under the sun.
I think it's also a fully switched system so you are guaranteed bandwidth with no packet drops or buffering which is clearly useful for broadcast work.
But how much is this to do with either Channel 4 not supporting (in the "assistance" sense of the word, rather than "interop") his move to IP or potentially his personal reluctance to change ("ain't broke don't fix it" mindset).
Given he is in the UK and the incumbent telco (BT) are switching off ISDN in 2027, I really suspect there is more than meets the eye to your friend's story.
I am not seeking to judge, I just feel realistically that it highly unlikely that at this late stage (1 year to go to 2027) there really is no other option other than ISDN when collaborating with Channel 4...
The reason I say this is because even the briefest of internet search throws up hard publicly-available evidence that the broadcast world have indeed moved on in the world ....
Way back in 2008 the BBC were already investigating options to move away from ISDN...[1]
... and evidence is out there the BBC are using SIP for critical things like remote Radio contributions[2]
> guaranteed bandwidth with no packet drops or buffering
You can absolutely get this on IP.
[1] https://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/whp/whp-pdf-files/WHP170... [2] https://support.inquality.com/kb/faq.php?id=144
So the TL;DR is we are not disagreeing then ? ;)
I never expressed any doubt that traditionally ISDN absolutely was the lifeblood of broadcast, there is zero doubt about that.
What I am saying is that was then and now is now. We are now sitting here in 2026 and the world of comms has moved on dramatically and the broadcast world has moved along with it and that those people still clinging on to legacy ISDN will be forced to shift to IP-based technologies because they will be forcibly disconnected by their telcos very soon (1–5 years).
The reality is also that here in 2026 we live in a world where (a) you have a 4k tv and high-end audio system in your home ... so there is a natural limitation on what utility ISDN has in this world, and (b) the general public is increasingly consuming the media produced by the broacaster via IP means (streams over 5G-IP to mobile, streams over IP to Apple TV boxes) ... so if a broadcaster can escape the un-necessary complexity (and cost) of transcoding ISDN-received content to IP and shift to an IP-to-IP environment, why would they not want to do that ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOCSIS
https://defcon.org/images/defcon-16/dc16-presentations/defco...
If you have that nickname you would already know that, for sure.
- Nobody is familiar with the code
- Almost all of the recent fixes are from static analysis
- Nobody is even sure if anyone uses the code
This feels a lot like CPython culling stdlib modules and making them pypi packages. The people who rely on those things have a little bit of extra work if they want a recent kernel version, and everyone else benefits (directly or indirectly) by way of there being less stuff that needs attention.
The overlap of bugs being found, nobody caring enough to bother read the reports or fix the code, and nobody caring that the modules are pushed out of main seems good.
In general, drivers make up the largest attack surface in the kernel and many of them are just along for the ride rather than being actively maintained and reviewed by researchers.
[0] not trivially if you want to validate if it works