Which kernel default for antiX-19 (buster)?

Forum Forums antiX-development Development Which kernel default for antiX-19 (buster)?

  • This topic has 15 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated Mar 29-6:23 am by SamK.
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 16 total)
  • Author
  • #19755
    Forum Admin

    As the title asks.

    Basically it is between these 3 IMO since 4.20 is EOL.

    4.9 series
    4.19 series
    5.0 series


    Personally I’m thinking of keeping 4.9 as the default kernel, but providing 4.19 and 5 in the repos.

    Philosophers have interpreted the world in many ways; the point is to change it.

    antiX with runit - leaner and meaner.


    4.9 is OK on the old hardware.


    You’re the kernel builder here.
    I have full confidence in your’re decision. So, do as you suggest.


    same as the above


    4.9 2016-12-11 Jan, 2023 This has the longest life of all them.
    And a lot of users run old computers.

    5 runs so so under manjaro.

    T430 i7-3632QM 16gb with antiX-19 runit Base X64 & MX-19.


    I agree with everyone. I’m still with 4.9 and with your idea we have choice.

    Forum Admin

    I like 4.9 too. It is the only one on the list that avoids a possible kernel bug:

    OTOH, what happens to people with newer processors? Do they get a blank screen? Should we try to automatically use the vesa driver for older kernels and newer graphics hardware?

    Can we (do we already) offer an easy way to upgrade to a kernel that works better for them? Can/should this be done in the cli?

    Crazy-talk: should we offer an additional full iso with a recent kernel??? OTOH this may cause more harm than good.

    I probably missed a lot of the discussion about which kernels do what with recent hardware.

    Context is worth 80 IQ points -- Alan Kay


    I use a lot of old hardware. But I have no idea about kernels. But I do hope to keep a few of these old systems working on antiX for awhile longer. Speaking for myself, I want whatever kernel is going to keep me on antiX on an old P-III or P-4 with between 512MB and 1GB RAM.



    4.9 works fine on my 2 10-year-old netbooks, as well as my 2 new(er) x64 laptops. 4.19 runs fine on the new(er) x64 laptops (not sure the age on these – bought used). Haven’t tried 4.19 on the 10-year-olds (no reason), but if it helps, I can test (or test higher kernels).

    • This reply was modified 1 year, 6 months ago by christophe.

    4.9.146 (17.4) is working on all my machines without any problems.

    Oldest I have nowadays is my 2008 Toshiba Satellite 12″ notebook, (it runs from an 8GB SDHC card).

    Newest, (a design of about 2~3 years ago), an MSI Cubi-N.

    (My only laptop that has given me any problems is a HP-G62, (the wifi doesn’t always load on booting), this started with 17.3 I think, but it’s no biggie.)

    I’ve had a 5.0 kernel running, testing another distro, on a couple of machines without any problems,(2010/2011 laptops).

    So, if a lot of people might have a problem with a 5.0 kernel, perhaps offer the option of both when booting live, & only install the one chosen when installing to disk.

    N.B. All mine are 64bit systems.

    Linux (& BSD) since 1999

    Forum Admin

    So, if a lot of people might have a problem with a 5.0 kernel, perhaps offer the option of both when booting live, & only install the one chosen when installing to disk.

    We tried putting two kernels on one of the MX iso files a few years back. It wasn’t a disaster but it caused complications that I don’t think anyone is looking forward to repeating. Plus, on antiX, we are trying very hard to keep the size of our iso files down. Adding a kernel blows those efforts out of the water.

    I agree though, that given these constraints, we should try to make it as easy as possible for people to change to the kernel they need. IIRC, most of the problems are with the graphics drivers but I really didn’t stay up on the conversations so I don’t know for sure.

    Context is worth 80 IQ points -- Alan Kay


    I just tested 4.19 with my mini-9 netbook (2009), and the gaming performance suffers compared to the really good performance on the 4.9. I you go with something else… please keep patching 4.9 & keep it in the Package Installer (if possible).


    4.9 works on all the machines I’ve tried it on.

    Its pretty safe to say we trust you will provide good choices

    Forum Admin

    By design, antiX works well on modern and elderly hardware.

    Rightly or wrongly, the wider perception of antiX is it is best suited to use on old kit.

    Based on that it is reasonable to presume that owners of the latest hardware will initially choose a different distro in preference to antiX, whereas users of slightly older kit are more likely to favour antiX as a first choice.

    It follows that, in terms of hardware, the majority of antiX users will see little or no benefit from using the latest and greatest kernel. Using a non bleeding edge kernel seems the appropriate choice for most.

    Widening the discussion slightly, I would like us to offer three forms of kernel, broadly corresponding to the age of the hardware antiX supports. Each form will receive security updates if/when required.

    Very modern kit
    The most recent kernel available.

    Recent kit a few years old
    The kernel that is suited to the majority of antiX users.
    Ideally this kernel will be able to be supported long term.

    Elderly kit
    This kernel will be one that is known to work well on older hardware.

    The concept seems to fit well with the antiX philosophy of flexibility and choice. Of course there remains the question of how we make these easy to choose by users at the point of antiX installation be it conventionally to hard disk, frugal, or live USB.


    @samK : I love that idea but is it consistent with Bitjam concerns about ISO size ?

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 16 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.