Hacker News Reader

Comment by SCdF | Hacker News Reader

OK so let's say that I want to run a relatively stable linux install (so not the arch bleeding edge methodology), but I do want to run the latest linux kernel, or as close to it as possible.

What are my choices? Or is the only choice to alter my interpretation of the word "stable"? :-)

View on HN

Fedora is the distro you want. It's not bleeding edge, but everything is up-to-date and the kernel is 1-2 releases old. It has a 6 month release cycle and 13 month support window iirc.

I find it a lot more stable than arch and Debian Sid.

I use Fedora with dnf automatic[1] on all of my machines. Only problem is my Desktop PC, which has a nvidia gpu with the official nvidia driver installed. Every few weeks there is a new kernel version which often only works with the brand new nvidia driver version. I use grub to choose the previous working kernel version until I take the time to download and install the new nvidia driver.

[1]https://dnf.readthedocs.io/en/latest/automatic.html

I find NixOS is good for this - but it depends partly on what userspace programs you need.

You can run NixOS Stable, which is on a six-monthly release and testing schedule, and add the latest kernel, very easily.

+1. NixOS benefits especially, because a broken kernel/nvidia update never renders your system unusable. You can make changes to all your heart's desire, and if something does break, all you have to do is reboot and select previous configuration

See if your preferred distribution has a kernel backport available. Most have backports of the kernel because it has relatively few dependencies and is backwards compatible, making it easy to backport.

E.g. Debian currently has a 5.5 kernel in buster-backports[1]. However, Debian's backported kernel doesn't get the same level of attention and isn't subject to the same security policies as stable releases, so may be lacking some security patches that the stable kernel has.

[1]: https://packages.debian.org/buster-backports/linux-image-amd...

> Or is the only choice to alter my interpretation of the word "stable"? :-)

I'm not experienced enough to give you an answer, but a hearty "bravo" for recognizing this as an option. Too many do not.

Debian testing is on 5.6 right now. If you can handle a high update volume and are comfortable managing occasional packaging issues, it’s a rather nice “not arch but newish” experience.

Agreed. I was following Debian mainline releases but grew tired of out of date packages and putting my hopes and dreams into *-backports. After migrating to testing, it's been smooth sailing for well over a year and I've grown to appreciate a rolling release cycle.

Use the distribution of your choice, but with the most recent mainline kernel. The releases are already gated by the LKML process, so don't worry about actual, non-pre kernel releases being too unstable for any normal desktop/workstation usage.

If you don't lack the skills, and are ok with the system telling you when you need to spend some time on transitioning configurations/library versions, consider using Arch Linux. It will demand manual configuration to some extend, but that's mostly just enabling (and rebooting/manually-starting) systemd units for things like a GUI login manager. The benefit is, that you don't rely on backports for bug fixes, allowing things like youtube-dl (interacting with uncooperative websites by ~scraping) to work from the official repositories.

For my own systems, I use CentOS + the ElRepo [1] ML kernel which is about a week behind upstream and uses the same compile options as Redhat uses. I would consider it stable for hobby use. I would not use the ML kernel in production systems unless you had a very specific niche need for it. It's assume you are updating the kernel weekly with ML.

[1] - https://www.elrepo.org/tiki/tiki-index.php

Why not Arch? It’s been super stable for me over the past months I’ve been using it, and I configured to have Btrfs take snapshops on every pacman update, for peace of mind.

Haven’t had to roll back once.

I would recommend the latest Fedora release. The kernel is updated frequently, seem to be only a couple weeks behind upstream. Fedora has been incredibly stable for me.

So I run Linux mint on my personal laptop, but boot a mainline kernel built from source (so more stable userspace, but cutting edge kernel, as I do a fair amount of kernel development). I think that sounds like they setup your asking about?

Building and installing your own kernel isn't too bad. If you want to give it a shot:

1. download mainline, ie torvalds/linux 2. make -j localmodconfig olddefconfig 3. make -j 4. make -j modules_install install

and reboot.

If you apply the appropriate Debian[1] or Ubuntu kernel patch sets, you can build .deb packages of your kernel and ensure that the appropriate kernel settings and integrations are set for your system.

[1] https://salsa.debian.org/kernel-team/linux/tree/master/debia...

Upstream kernel has make deb-pkg target for creating deb packages. no need for patching.

I don't know enough about Linux to offer a complete answer, but I can offer the distribution I use as a suggestion. I've been using Solus (getsol.us/) for a few years and I think it comes close to what you're asking for. The kernel version is currently 5.6.13.

There's no i3 flavor installation image, but you can grab it from the software center/eopkg.

On Debian/Ubuntu, you can just download and configure the kernel as normal, and then run "make deb-pkg" to get a .deb that plays nicely with dpkg. You can run whatever kernel you want without having to upgrade any user-space packages or depend on third-party repositories.

Ubuntu should have a PPA for that

Yup:

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Kernel/MainlineBuilds

https://kernel.ubuntu.com/~kernel-ppa/mainline/?C=M;O=D

Technically, it's not a "PPA" and isn't usable as a source, but you can download builds and install them.

https://github.com/pimlie/ubuntu-mainline-kernel.sh is a decent script that wraps managing updates and installs.

Piggybacking on this, do any of the modern distributions treat kexec as a first-class thing? I would prefer to never reboot, but I also don't want to keep running ancient kernels.

Ubuntu + the latest Ubuntu kernel patch sets. I have a script that downloads the latest kernel source, applies the appropriate patches and builds it if you're interested.

I update CentOS boxes kernel using "ElRepo" and works out fine, for my use case (webservers, etc)

Ubuntu HWE?

> Or is the only choice to alter my interpretation of the word "stable"?

Depends, if your "stable" means has been tested by tens of thousands of users under different scenarios, then running 5.7 right now is by definition not stable.

But if stable means that it is unlikely to cause problems, then even Arch fits that definition, which honestly is also suitable for Windows 10 and macOS at this point.

Anecdotally, I have an Arch install going strong on 5 years now, so even Arch isn't unstable, but it does require paying attention to the announcements.

I'd say a good compromise may be to wait a couple 5.7 point releases in. By then, practically any distro should have it.

Manjaro is a little behind Arch to offer more "stability", there's the OpenSUSE rolling-release option, Solus, Sabayon...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com