
 What stable kernel should I use? - KindOne
http://kroah.com/log/blog/2018/08/24/what-stable-kernel-should-i-use/
======
gerdesj
_The best solution for almost all Linux users is to just use the kernel from
your favorite Linux distribution. Personally, I prefer the community based
Linux distributions that constantly roll along with the latest updated kernel
and it is supported by that developer community. Distributions in this
category are Fedora, openSUSE, Arch, Gentoo, CoreOS, and others._

Note the lack of RedHat, CentOS, Oracle, SLES int al from this list because:

 _Lots of people seem to like the old, “traditional” model of a distribution
and use RHEL, SLES, CentOS or the “LTS” Ubuntu release. Those distros pick a
specific kernel version and then camp out on it for years, if not decades.
They do loads of work backporting the latest bugfixes and sometimes new
features to these kernels, all in a Quixote quest to keep the version number
from never being changed, despite having many thousands of changes on top of
that older kernel version._

For many years I used to roll my own and actually enjoyed going through
menuconfig. My first was make config on a Slackware distro (or was it
Yggdrasil?) kernel version 1.99-alpha or something from memory but looking at
the WP page I had an old distro then judging by the timescale. I think it was
a CDROM off the back of a book. make config took about 20-30 mins on a 2.2
kernel (from memory). I've still got a couple of Gentoo systems with kernels
that were carefully genkernel'd from around 2.4 or perhaps 2.6 32 bit through
to 64 bit systems today. They are classic examples of "Trigger's Broom":
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ship_of_Theseus_exampl...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ship_of_Theseus_examples#Television_series)

Nowadays apt and pacman and co do the job for me. However, I know I can still
always crank out the source into /usr/src/linux (symlink) and roll my own -
smashing!

~~~
twic
> Personally, I prefer the community based Linux distributions that constantly
> roll along with the latest updated kernel and it is supported by that
> developer community. Distributions in this category are Fedora

Hmm. Fedora only sort of does this. Those kernels in full:

[https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Kernel](https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Kernel)

Note that the only way to get the latest stable kernel (4.18.x) is to use
Rawhide, the development version of Fedora, which is very much not suitable
for everyone:

[https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/Rawhide#Audience](https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/Rawhide#Audience)

If you do the normal user thing of using the latest release version, currently
F28, then you get kernel 4.17.x - i think it's currently 4.17.17. That's an
EOL stable kernel, and you're not even getting the latest patch version (yet -
4.17.19 went into testing half an hour ago).

Happily, it looks like that minor version is still getting patches (kernel.org
shows the last update as being on the 24th of August, the same day as the
current stable, and the changelogs are very similar - the current stable has a
few more patches).

However, AIUI, the kernel developers could stop patching 4.17.x at any time
now, and that means that F28 would not receive any further kernel fixes.

Perhaps this is just a necessary consequence of Fedora's release model. Or
perhaps not. Is there a good reason they couldn't change minor versions of the
kernel in the updates to an existing release?

~~~
cmurf
Fedora regularly rebases to the latest stable kernel, usually by .2 or .3
release; but 4.18 has had quite a busy series of rapid fire updates, so it's
already at 4.18.5. I expect to see that in Fedora 27 and 28 updates-testing
this week.

Usually it's possible to get a build of current stable or mainline kernel in a
day or two on Fedora, through koji. And through updates-testing repo (opt in)
a few days later. And through updates (enabled by default) anywhere from 1-5
days later. The system depends on testers using updates-testing repo to give
+/\- points to each tested package, and the kernel comes with a higher than
usual minimum number of points and time delay to avoid regressions.

You can (manually) install kernels in Koji which don't always show up right
away in the updates-testing repo. So you'll see 4.18.5 there for fc29 which
can be installed on Fedora 28 (I've been doing this for weeks). And you can
also manually install 4.17.19 which is already built there, just not yet in
updates-testing.
[https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=8](https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=8)

4.17.18 has already gone stable in the updates repo, so anyone doing a 'dnf
update' now will get it.
[https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/?packages=kernel](https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/?packages=kernel)

------
zapita
Very interesting to see Greg’s perspective on upstream LTS kernels vs. what he
calls “traditional” distributions with their own downstream LTS, like RHEL,
Centos, Ubuntu-LTS etc.

Are there any good providers of enterprise-grade support for upstream LTS
kernels, the way Red Hat and Canonical support theirs? I could see that as a
viable (and perhaps cheaper?) alternative to a RHEL license in some cases.

~~~
gizmo686
What does enterprise-grade support for a kernel look like?

RedHat and Canonical provide support for a distribution. As part of that
support, they maintain a kernel.

If you are actually in a position where you need support for the kernel as a
standalone component, you probably would be better off working with the
upstream developers anyway (or hiring someone to work on the LTS release to
address your specific needs).

~~~
emmelaich
> What does enterprise-grade support for a kernel look like

Stable mature device drivers for one. You might have petabytes of data
connected and want to ensure it is stable as possible. So the vendor makes
sure that the right kernel and and right device driver works with exactly your
device firmware etc.

------
johnklos
How about a nice BSD kernel? Why fuss with all that Linux mess?

~~~
zokula
BSD kernels almost as a rule tend not to be portable between LIBC(s) and/or
userlands. The Linux kernel is more used, faster, more portable.

The BSDs had a major head start on Linux 20-25 years ago but they just sat
back became lazy & laughed at Linux, while Linux ate their lunch.

------
ishbits
Say I’m forced to use Ubuntu. But my favourite distro is Fedora, should I use
the supported Fedora kernel on Ubuntu.

;)

~~~
TheDong
Obviously not, though you don't need to hear the answer nor ask the question.

This comment adds no value. No one would seriously wonder that, nor would
anyone endorse it, nor does it need to be discussed because all of that's so
obvious.

