There are a couple of reasons why the chosen kernel is used.
1. At the time that early development began, 4.9 was a stable kernel. Though newer kernels are available (and there’s a good chance that at least one or more newer kernels will be provided in the final release), it’s good to have a solid kernel available during the testing of a lot of software that is being evaluated for stability.
2. Debian provides many other kernels; so does kernel.org. Much of the effort during development goes into integrating new applications and newer application software releases, and the kernel is generally updated to a newer version by the time of release.
Chances are good that the released version of antiX 19 will be available soon. If the observed defects are resolved, there is a chance that it will be released later this month; if not, there is a very good chance that the release will occur between now and the end of this calendar year, and by that time there will almost certainly be newer kernels used, possibly even a Version 5+ kernel, if they pass stability and integration testing.
I tested the antiX 19 b3 full 64 bit and tested upgrading the kernel to 5.2.8 on the flashdrive and remastering it, the other day and the process worked fine, and 5.2 worked fine as much as I used it, as well.
anticapitalista has been doing well choosing what kernels to default, as well as what else to include, since 13.2 when I started running antiX as a daily driver, and that’s a pretty good track record in my book. There are a lot of different people on a wide variety of hardware running antiX, so its probably wise as a default to stay off the bleeding edge, and let those who want to try the newest code add it themselves.
This reply was modified 11 months, 1 week ago by BobC.