I wonder if he has any insight on why the ubuntu kernel is so heavily patched. How much of it is legitimate customization for things like ZFS, and what are in his opinion unnecessary changes?
Stable Linux mainline builds for Ubuntu
41–50 of 59 posts
Re: Stable Linux mainline builds for Ubuntu
#42How is this different than xanmod, liquorix or pf-kernel? I see zfs mentioned, is zfs not included in the gaming/performance project kernels?
No offense to the maintainers of the 'performance' and 'gaming' kernels, but they're usually not that well maintained. TBF, I haven't tried ALL of them, but a lot of the popular ones. They usually configure 'odd' defaults that risk stability (in the 'staying up' sense, as well as data integrity sense).
Re: Stable Linux mainline builds for Ubuntu
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was also confused since to my understanding "mainline" is usually the release candidates, i.e. Linus's master branch. Here "(stable) mainline" appears to mean the latest stable release without distribution-specific patches, what I'd call a "vanilla kernel".
"Mainline kernels" also gets used to refer to kernels built from Linus's repo in general, as a way to distinguish them from kernels built from the OS vendor's / hardware vendor's branch. For example when people talk about phones or tablets having mainline support, they mean that Linus's tree has all the drivers etc for that hardware and using the hardware vendor's arbitrary kernel drop isn't needed. They don't necess…
The thing is you don't want Linus's kernels unless you are a kernel developer or testing something. Greg KH maintains the stable kernels. You want his branch.
Re: Stable Linux mainline builds for Ubuntu
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
Another option for NixOS is bootspec-secureboot, I'm using it with no real complaints: https://github.com/DeterminateSystems/bootspec-secureboot
Wait, wtf. There's this in addition to lanzaboote? But no mention of it? (And at one point there was another new list with bootspec support, maybe still is) Please, people, if you release software that overlaps or competes with another existing in the space, take the 3 minutes to write a comparison note or "why this exists". Please.
Why should any project have to justify it's existence? Maybe it just scratches an itch?
Re: Stable Linux mainline builds for Ubuntu
#45Coming from windows, I’m a little confused how this works, is he reinstalling Linux/Ubuntu every week on all his machines? Or is it possible to “upgrade in place” just the kernel and leave your files/data alone, if the latter, is there a good guide for how to do that and for a homelabber would that be a good idea to avoid security bugs?
As the other replies to this state, yes it's standard practise to update a kernel by installing the newer one without having to re-install or update all the other packages. Kernel updates are handled the same as any other package update but with the only difference being that a system reboot is required. (There's also the possibility of performing live kernel patching so that a reboot isn't needed, but that's typical…
> but that's typically a paid for service with enterprise linux
Ubuntu Pro is free for five machines and includes live-patches for security updates. Non-security updates still require a reboot.
Re: Stable Linux mainline builds for Ubuntu
#46How is this different than xanmod, liquorix or pf-kernel? I see zfs mentioned, is zfs not included in the gaming/performance project kernels?
No offense to the maintainers of the 'performance' and 'gaming' kernels, but they're usually not that well maintained. TBF, I haven't tried ALL of them, but a lot of the popular ones. They usually configure 'odd' defaults that risk stability (in the 'staying up' sense, as well as data integrity sense).
Same. I tried some, and even in games they didn't provide much of an improvement. Sometimes performing worse, even.
I just put some niceties like irqbalance and add a few lines to sysctl.conf for better latency at a cost of throughput (doesn't matter if you're just using the system as a desktop and not as a server). And that gives me a very nice experience overall.
Edit: Please, be careful. This is under a very well performing machine, take a look at replies for more information.
Re: Stable Linux mainline builds for Ubuntu
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wait, wtf. There's this in addition to lanzaboote? But no mention of it? (And at one point there was another new list with bootspec support, maybe still is) Please, people, if you release software that overlaps or competes with another existing in the space, take the 3 minutes to write a comparison note or "why this exists". Please.
Why should any project have to justify it's existence? Maybe it just scratches an itch?
I will admit though, it being from Determinate Systems makes me wonder why they built it. They're not some hobbyists, they're a company built around making Nix tooling - and one of their most publicized tools, the Determinate Nix Installer, is actually a tool that, obviously, overlaps with existing tools, but has a very clearly stated objective and reason to exist. It seems very likely to me that there is, in fact, a reason for why they built this. If I had to guess, it's probably meant to be simpler, more robust, more elegant, etc. but I'd love to hear about it.
Unfortunately, unlike many of their projects, they don't seem to have a blog post yet for it.
Re: Stable Linux mainline builds for Ubuntu
#48Can anyone see how these Debian packages are being built? Asking because the last time I looked at Canonical's packaging, it was a little hairy.
It's quite trivial actually. It's just `make deb-pkg`. It may complain about a cert. https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/scripts/packag...
Ah, yes, I'm familiar with this. That's how "vanilla" kernel source supports Debian packaging. Lintian predictably complains, but I suppose that's to be expected.
Re: Stable Linux mainline builds for Ubuntu
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
No offense to the maintainers of the 'performance' and 'gaming' kernels, but they're usually not that well maintained. TBF, I haven't tried ALL of them, but a lot of the popular ones. They usually configure 'odd' defaults that risk stability (in the 'staying up' sense, as well as data integrity sense).
Same. I tried some, and even in games they didn't provide much of an improvement. Sometimes performing worse, even. I just put some niceties like irqbalance and add a few lines to sysctl.conf for better latency at a cost of throughput (doesn't matter if you're just using the system as a desktop and not as a server). And that gives me a very nice experience overall. Edit: Please, be careful. This is under a very well…
How do you improve the latency? Especially reacting to mouse and keyboard, I have an old PC which could use that.
Re: Stable Linux mainline builds for Ubuntu
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
Same. I tried some, and even in games they didn't provide much of an improvement. Sometimes performing worse, even. I just put some niceties like irqbalance and add a few lines to sysctl.conf for better latency at a cost of throughput (doesn't matter if you're just using the system as a desktop and not as a server). And that gives me a very nice experience overall. Edit: Please, be careful. This is under a very well…
How do you improve the latency? Especially reacting to mouse and keyboard, I have an old PC which could use that.
By decreasing latency, you decrease throughput. Thus if you have a slow and old computer, you could end up dropping inputs entirely by decreasing latency, or make it feel sluggish/laggy due to it processing a queue.