I'm having trouble squaring these two statements from the article:

> the Linux kernel is catching up with its users’ wants when it comes to longevity.

> Kernel end-of-life dates mean very little for users, even at the enterprise level.

So... no one cares about longevity? Or they do? I'm confused.

It explains further down that it means little because unofficial support was already available

Enterprises that care about using a kernel for many years typically put their own resources into providing the level of maintenance they require (or getting it from a distro that maintains their own LTS kernels), rather than depending on upstream to keep the patches coming for that branch. But if the upstream kernel support timelines become more closely aligned with what those downstream users want, they may shift to tracking upstream LTS branches.