SlackwareThis Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
Meh, I never understood the fuss with LTS kernels. As long as it works, what difference does the label make?
That is rather the point. Some version of a non-LTS kernel is more likely to have bugs at some point than the late versions of an LTS kernel, because the LTS kernel absorbs more debug/deploy cycles without large (and proportionately bug-inducing) changes being introduced.
On the other hand, this perhaps matters less now than it once did. A little over two billion users are pounding their use-cases against a Linux kernel, daily. That kind of tree-shaking exposes bugs fast, and the kernel has more contributors fixing those bugs than ever. It isn't the 1990s anymore, when Linux had a paucity of users and a paucity of contributors.
Possibly by the time a kernel is a year old, it's about as debugged as it ever will be? Then LTS wouldn't matter at all. You could hop from one year-old release to the next year-old release without sacrificing reliability.
Until such time that someone can empirically measure that, though, I'll be happy to stick with LTS kernels.
Slackware Linux provides new and experienced users alike
with a fully-featured system, equipped to serve in any capacity
from desktop workstation to machine-room server.
Also I'd have P.V. rather pondering over it than communicating in detail each and every nuisance, and for the time i peeked in there there was quite some.
OTOH the kernel development might have spiraled out of control a little bit, so one can only have a great desktop or a reliable server at one point in time, but is ever less likely to have both, as time goes on and the code base continues to grow?
Distribution: Slackware64-current with "True Multilib" and KDE4Town.
Posts: 9,153
Original Poster
Rep:
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwizardone
Linux x86/x86_64 Will Now Always Reserve The First 1MB Of RAM
Written by Michael Larabel in Linux Kernel on 6 June 2021 at 08:01 AM EDT.
..........The motivation now for Linux 5.13 in getting that 1MB unconditional reservation in place for Linux x86/x86_64 stems from a bug report around an AMD Ryzen system being unbootable on Linux 5.13 since the change to consolidate their early memory reservations handling. Just unconditionally doing the first 1MB makes things much simpler to handle............
The full story can be found here, https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pa...ys-Reserve-1MB
What makes you, people, to believe that the next LTS kernel will be in a better shape than the 5.10.x ?
I for one I do not believe this, because the LTS kernels are just made for enterprise servers and industrial appliances.
Yes, they will fix the bugs which affects the servers, BUT I highly doubt that they will do the same with the ones which affects the desktops.
In fact, I believe that everything is reduced to this question: what is the target audience of Slackware?
IF the target audience is the home desktop, we will need the latest kernels, with the best hardware support and most responsive on fixing bugs.
IF the target audience is the enterprise servers, we will probably need those LTS kernels with theirs many years of maintenance.
BUT, shipping LTS kernels to home users is just like the RedHat trying to sell RHEL to them, instead of Fedora.
How many times do I need to ask you this?
What makes you, people, to believe that the next 5.13.x kernel will be in a better shape than the 5.10.x ?
Absolutely nothing. Every new kernel is a roll of the dice. The developers might do a pretty good job of maximizing the chance that the roll will be a positive outcome, but it's by no means guaranteed. With Pat putting the next kernel into testing/, hopefully it will get the bugs knocked out, but if it ends up being a crap version, we're either stuck with a broken version until it's either fixed in newer updates or the next release comes out or stick with an EOL version.
I have absolutely no problem rolling my own kernel (I've ran 4.4, 4.9, 4.13, 4.14, 4.18, 4.19, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, and 5.10 on my 14.2 system, most with my own config) if some update breaks my system or I want extra functionality found in a kernel not included by my Slackware version, but not everyone is comfortable with tinkering with their kernel.
[B]like the RedHat trying to sell RHEL to them, instead of Fedora.
People who use Fedora are assumed by RH to be TESTERS. RHEL is for USERS.
Among other reasons, I choose Slackware because I don't want to be a tester of hal/systemd/other short-living policykits invented and deprecated by genius RH developers every 6 months. Besides, RHEL is a primary target for (proprietary) software prebuilt by developers and distributed in a binary form. Not Fedora.
If I had to decide between Fedora and RHEL on my desktop, my decision would be very far from a simple "Let's just use Fedora".
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.
