From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 2/6/26 12:02, Marc Haber wrote:

c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:

On 2/5/26 05:17, Marc Haber wrote:

Lawrence D-|Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

On Thu, 05 Feb 2026 08:12:24 +0100, Marc Haber wrote:

There is no reason for a distribution to stay with the bleeding edge >>>>> kernel in their user-facing release other than marketing and hybris.

ArenrCOt there also rCLhardware-enhancedrCY kernels, which are kind of >>>> long-term stable but also include newer hardware support (drivers
mainly, I think)?

As far as I know, not on kernel.org. Some Distributions to things like
that, yes.

MX, my fave, does have an AHD ... HAD to use it
on a new BMax mini-box, but generally I put it
on everything these days, doesn't hurt.

So you asked your distribution to use the bleeding-edge kernel and
then complain that said bleeding-edge kernel is a moving target???

Not against 'edge' kernels, preferably not 'bleeding'
but close.

The concern was SO many updates in SO short a period.
That's abnormal for MX and probably many other distros.

Distrowatch says there's a new MX fork called 'iDeal'
which is more into security/privacy issues. You can
get it, but it's like a 5+gb download. This made me
wonder if the regular MX people suddenly realized
they were a few version behind the times so they
are trying to make up for it in a hurry.

I have shitty bandwidth ... and I'll wait for
some 1.0.x version of iDeal, more likely a
1.x.x version. Initial releases are infamous
for lots of little bugs.

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:

Not against 'edge' kernels, preferably not 'bleeding'
but close.

The concern was SO many updates in SO short a period.
That's abnormal for MX and probably many other distros.

If you use the "stable" kernel from the mainline repo, you don't get information which of the fixes is security relevant and which not.
Tha's why upstream says "all users of older versions MUST upgrade".

I think it's unrealistic to expect a small distro as MX to have the
needed number of competent kernel people to judge which patch to take
and which not. It's just easier to package everything that Upstream
releases, it can even be automated.
-- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Rhein-Neckar, DE | Beginning of Wisdom " |
Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 6224 1600402
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

On Fri, 06 Feb 2026 18:05:51 +0100, Marc Haber wrote:

rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

On Thu, 05 Feb 2026 08:12:24 +0100, Marc Haber wrote:

Current long-term kernels are 6.12 (currently 68), 6.6 (currently
122),
6.1 (currently 161), 5.15 (currently 198) and 5.10 (currently 248).

https://kernel.org/category/releases.html

6.18 is a long term kernel. Fedora 43 updated to 6.18.8 yesterday. Arch >>>is still at 6.18.7.

https://kernel.org/ doesnt say so.

Greetings Marc

The link I provided to kernel.org says it is.

You're right. Thank you for pointing that out.

I am not happy about that decision, no mainline kernel in the last
decade has given me so much trouble on mainstream hardware than the
6.18 line.

I can't help it if
kernel.org can't keep their shit sorted.

I can just guess that the web site layout doesn't have the possibility
to declare a line both as "stable" and "longterm".

Greetings
Marc
-- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Rhein-Neckar, DE | Beginning of Wisdom " |
Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 6224 1600402
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On Sat, 07 Feb 2026 10:41:25 +0100, Marc Haber wrote:

I am not happy about that decision, no mainline kernel in the last
decade has given me so much trouble on mainstream hardware than the 6.18 line.

I've been lucky. The Fedora 43 box is an old Dell with a 4th gen Intel.
Fedora hung onto 6.17.x and I was surprised to see it rolling out 6.18.x before the 44 release tentatively in April.

The Arch box is a Lenovo T480, again not cutting edge. I haven't seen
problems with either. The laptop sometimes gets in a strange state but I
think that is from the sleep/suspend getting its wires crossed.

What problems are you seeing with 6.18?


--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On Sat, 07 Feb 2026 10:38:46 +0100, Marc Haber wrote:

I think it's unrealistic to expect a small distro as MX to have the
needed number of competent kernel people to judge which patch to take
and which not. It's just easier to package everything that Upstream
releases, it can even be automated.

Even after Ubuntu decided to stay a little more current with the kernel
25.10 is still 6.17. I don't have any particularly new hardware and no
Nvidia so kernel updates are mostly a non-event.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

What problems are you seeing with 6.18?

the first two or three versions crashed on my KVM virtualization hosts
and even in some VMs, on some boxes right when booting, on other after
a couple of hours. The kernel oops suggested some function, but I
didnt investigate this any further after 6.18.3 fixed the issue.

The APU that does most of my home network routing and is hosting a
couple of infrastructure VMs (dhcp, dns, radius) throws about 80
megabytes of

|[50800.497177] gpio-keys-polled gpio-keys-polled: failed to get gpio state: -52

per day, even in 6.18.9.

Greetings
Marc
-- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Rhein-Neckar, DE | Beginning of Wisdom " |
Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 6224 1600402
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2