in my eyes it was definitely a wrong decision to ship a 2012 long time distribution with an old and outdated web server.
The first problem is that an LTS server ubuntu should last 5 years, but you cannot expect a software to be maintained that long if it is already outdated right now.
The second problem is that if someone needs apache 2.4 - which, after all, is not just some unimportant tool but a core server component - he has to mix in other packets and thus break the integrity of the ubuntu system.
Well,
in my eyes it was definitely a wrong decision to ship a 2012 long time distribution with an old and outdated web server.
The first problem is that an LTS server ubuntu should last 5 years, but you cannot expect a software to be maintained that long if it is already outdated right now.
The second problem is that if someone needs apache 2.4 - which, after all, is not just some unimportant tool but a core server component - he has to mix in other packets and thus break the integrity of the ubuntu system.
Very bad decision.