Hello

We are considering standardising on Debian but are concerned about Debian stable's support for new hardware toward the end of the release cycle.

AIUI (please correct if wrong):

1. It is the kernel (Linux itself) that is mostly responsible for supporting hardware.
2. Debian stable's kernel is not upgraded prior to the next stable release except for security fixes.
3. The last few Debian release cycles have been ~1.5 to ~2 years.

We install on new laptops and newly built PCs so we do need to support recently released hardware.

If my understanding is correct and this is an issue, how practicable is it to run a Debian stable release with a later kernel? Are compatibility issues likely? Does it make new installations significantly more complex?

1. Correct
2. Correct
3. Correct

Solution: Use the latest kernel from the backports repository.

1 members found this post helpful.

Thanks TobiSGD that's clear and helpful

Using your answer for search terms, I found pages that answered the compatibility and installation complexity questions:

• "Backports cannot be tested as extensively as Debian stable, and backports are provided on an as-is basis, with risk of incompatibilities with other components in Debian stable. Use with care!" (http://backports.debian.org/)
• The procedure is to install the as-released kernel and then upgrade it (would have been nice to put the later kernel into the installation .iso so installation itself was a one-step process).

While most hardware suppoort ends up in the kernel, other stuff (e.g. alsa, xorg) can often support hardware the kernel doesnt.

Another option over backporting a kernel is to use the liquorix kernel

http://liquorix.net/

1 members found this post helpful.

Alternatively, installing a freshly baked kernel from the kernel.org guys is a very effective way of dealing with the "old kernel" issue Debian has. Personally I always install a new kernel, as to enable the installation of the nVidia drivers (who need the source of the running kernel installed) Currently I'm running "old-stable" with a 3.8 kernel.

1 members found this post helpful.

Thanks cascade9

From the linked page "Liquorix is a distro kernel replacement ... for desktop, multimedia, and gaming ..." so may not be the best choice for servers. Are there advantages over backport or kernel.org kernels to justify using one kernel for personal computers and another for servers ... ?

Thanks Dutch Master

That has a nice direct simplicity. What are the pros and cons compared with Liquorix or backport kernels? AFAIK Debian developers modify the upstream kernel source for Debian use; they must believe there are benefits in doing so or they wouldn't bother.

Even Slackware's Pat, renowned for making only essential changes to upstream, say this about the kernel: "I do not patch the official kernel sources, but it's not exactly a virgin either" (reference: http://ftp.isr.ist.utl.pt/pub/slackw...14.0/source/k/).

Installing from source always works. You get to choose the options which the kernel will be build with and you have the latest hardware support at your disposal. But it also requires manually upgrading your system to a newer kernel and manually remove the old one. When you upgrade the kernel this way, any kernel dependent modules (like video drivers or Virtualbox stuff) needs manual intervention (i.e. a full recompile and build) to conform to the new kernel. DKMS may help, but may not work faultlessly every time. And most importantly: installing a new kernel from source circumvents the package manager, so it has no longer full control nor a complete overview of the installed software. However: you can, allegedly, create a kernel package containing the new kernel so the package manager has a way of controlling it, but I never got it to work. Having all the options also means you need to have at least a basic idea of what they do. Fortunately, the supplied default options are pretty d8rn good for a box-standard kernel. You'd only need to dive into the specific section your specialist hardware drivers resides to enable them and keep the rest at their default values.

There was a good tutorial by DigitalHermit, unfortunately that has now vanished. Besides, it's outdated too, dealing with 2.4 and early 2.6 kernels. I'm sure you can find others

1 members found this post helpful.

The debian kernel is pretty much configured for servers. The liquorix kernel is meant to be low latency and optimised more for desktops. Its also got some 'out of tree' stuff-

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...uorix_32&num=1

If you just want a newer kernel for hardware support on new laptops/desktops, it might be just what you are after.

I'd probably backport a kernel if you have a server that has new enough hardware that it isnt recoginsed by the stock debian 'stable' kernel.

1 members found this post helpful.

Thanks for the further information Dutch Master and cascade9

The backports kernel is a good option, but with these kernels you're relying on it being maintained and the maintainer not just skipping on to a new release. 3.10.x in backports, which is a longterm kernel, should now be safe however and should track 3.10.x in testing.

You can quite easily build a newer kernel. I would not recommend Liquorix, simply because you will be running on laptop/desktop computers and servers.

Debian's kernel config is a compromise between desktops and servers, so it's likely to be your best option to avoid maintaining two different kernel types. I would suggest getting the kernel source for 3.10.x from testing or upstream and building a newer kernel against that. Do not just install a kernel binary package from testing/unstable.

If you build from the debianised kernel source it's pretty much just a case of building the kernel "the debian way" with no config changes and installing the resulting deb packages.

If you build from upstream, you'll want to copy over 3.2's config and then "make oldconfig" to update the config (To avoid this I would recommend using the debianised source from testing).

The downside of building from source is that you will of course have to maintain you own kernels. This means rebuilding and installing when there is an update - and managing the distribution of the kernel updates to all your boxes.

1 members found this post helpful.

Thanks cynwulf

Given all this helpful information on the pros and cons of various solutions and aiming for a policy which minimises the administrative work while meeting the imperative of supporting the hardware, the policy could be "Use backport kernel packages; if they do not support the hardware, build from debian testing source the debian way and use those packages".

I think that liquorix on desktops/laptops and backporting on servers is the way I would go. But if you want or your ogranisation needs a single rule, and you will be running on new hardware servers, that is the easiest way.

If you are a gamer I would think twice about using the Liquorix kernel.
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...1_kernel&num=1

Apologize if this is a hijack. Read over the thread as I'm in a similar situation only home use, not enterprise. Am I right in reading that backporting a kernel best option on brand new hardware? New desktop & laptop in a couple months, would prefer to go straight debian. Just worried about supporting hardware.

(Building my own desktop, buying laptop likely from xoticpc.com without an OS)

... well, without a good kernel, you are in troubles. So you should compile and compile over to get all hardware working.
Tricky.

Look an old machine with a Sarge Debian. All is into the kernel, otherwise it would never work:
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...3&d=1374855525