Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #81707 > unrolled thread

Concern ? THREE Kernel Updates in TWO Weeks

Started byc186282 <c186282@nnada.net>
First post2026-02-02 22:59 -0500
Last post2026-02-04 22:46 -0500
Articles 10 on this page of 30 — 7 participants

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc

Contents

  Concern ? THREE Kernel Updates in TWO Weeks c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-02-02 22:59 -0500
    Re: Concern ? THREE Kernel Updates in TWO Weeks rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-02-03 19:47 +0000
      Re: Concern ? THREE Kernel Updates in TWO Weeks Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> - 2026-02-03 20:41 +0000
      Re: Concern ? THREE Kernel Updates in TWO Weeks c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-02-03 22:12 -0500
        Re: Concern ? THREE Kernel Updates in TWO Weeks rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-02-04 06:12 +0000
          Re: Concern ? THREE Kernel Updates in TWO Weeks c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-02-04 02:00 -0500
        Re: Concern ? THREE Kernel Updates in TWO Weeks Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2026-02-04 08:21 +0100
          Re: Concern ? THREE Kernel Updates in TWO Weeks c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-02-04 02:45 -0500
            Re: Concern ? THREE Kernel Updates in TWO Weeks Anssi Saari <anssi.saari@usenet.mail.kapsi.fi> - 2026-02-04 09:58 +0200
              Re: Concern ? THREE Kernel Updates in TWO Weeks c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-02-04 21:39 -0500
                Re: Concern ? THREE Kernel Updates in TWO Weeks Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2026-02-05 08:12 +0100
                  Re: Concern ? THREE Kernel Updates in TWO Weeks c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-02-05 02:24 -0500
                  Re: Concern ? THREE Kernel Updates in TWO Weeks Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-02-05 09:18 +0000
                    Re: Concern ? THREE Kernel Updates in TWO Weeks Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2026-02-05 11:17 +0100
                      Re: Concern ? THREE Kernel Updates in TWO Weeks c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-02-05 18:32 -0500
                        Re: Concern ? THREE Kernel Updates in TWO Weeks Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2026-02-06 18:02 +0100
                          Re: Concern ? THREE Kernel Updates in TWO Weeks Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-02-06 20:17 +0000
                          Re: Concern ? THREE Kernel Updates in TWO Weeks c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-02-06 21:51 -0500
                            Re: Concern ? THREE Kernel Updates in TWO Weeks Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2026-02-07 10:38 +0100
                              Re: Concern ? THREE Kernel Updates in TWO Weeks rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-02-07 20:58 +0000
                    Re: Concern ? THREE Kernel Updates in TWO Weeks c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-02-05 18:29 -0500
                      Re: Concern ? THREE Kernel Updates in TWO Weeks Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2026-02-06 18:03 +0100
                  Re: Concern ? THREE Kernel Updates in TWO Weeks rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-02-05 16:55 +0000
                    Re: Concern ? THREE Kernel Updates in TWO Weeks Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2026-02-06 18:05 +0100
                      Re: Concern ? THREE Kernel Updates in TWO Weeks rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-02-06 18:25 +0000
                        Re: Concern ? THREE Kernel Updates in TWO Weeks Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2026-02-07 10:41 +0100
                          Re: Concern ? THREE Kernel Updates in TWO Weeks rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-02-07 20:54 +0000
                            Re: Concern ? THREE Kernel Updates in TWO Weeks Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2026-02-08 21:26 +0100
            Re: Concern ? THREE Kernel Updates in TWO Weeks rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-02-04 18:23 +0000
              Re: Concern ? THREE Kernel Updates in TWO Weeks c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-02-04 22:46 -0500

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#81786

Fromc186282 <c186282@nnada.net>
Date2026-02-05 18:29 -0500
Message-ID<P8acnYery-FQuhj0nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to#81762
On 2/5/26 04:18, Lawrence D’Oliveiro 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.
> 
> Aren’t there also “hardware-enhanced” kernels, which are kind of
> long-term stable but also include newer hardware support (drivers
> mainly, I think)?

   MX offers, and I use, an Advanced Hardware Distribution
   which does include newer drivers.

   But, really, unless there's an emergency, there's no
   reason for a distro to use THE latest kernel. They've
   all been pretty damned good.

>> There are rumors that those are related.
> 
> Never! Surely companies that are so good at persuading their customers
> how wonderful they are would not start swallowing their own hype ...
> would they?
> 
> ... would they ... ?

   Heh heh ...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#81797

FromMarc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us>
Date2026-02-06 18:03 +0100
Message-ID<10m56ss$2iv51$1@news1.tnib.de>
In reply to#81786
c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
>   MX offers, and I use, an Advanced Hardware Distribution
>   which does include newer drivers.
>
>   But, really, unless there's an emergency, there's no
>   reason for a distro to use THE latest kernel. They've
>   all been pretty damned good.

I guess that MX probably doesn't have the personpower to juggle and
test subdirectories between kernel trees and thus just use the latest
kernel which happens to update a couple of times per month.

You got what you asked for.

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#81778

Fromrbowman <bowman@montana.com>
Date2026-02-05 16:55 +0000
Message-ID<muk0csFk2oiU2@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#81760
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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#81798

FromMarc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us>
Date2026-02-06 18:05 +0100
Message-ID<10m571g$2j02k$1@news1.tnib.de>
In reply to#81778
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
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#81799

Fromrbowman <bowman@montana.com>
Date2026-02-06 18:25 +0000
Message-ID<mumq15F3tfsU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#81798
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.  I can't help it if 
kernel.org can't keep their shit sorted. 

Fedora and Arch haven't pushed 6.18.9 -- yet.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#81816

FromMarc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us>
Date2026-02-07 10:41 +0100
Message-ID<10m71c5$2oshd$1@news1.tnib.de>
In reply to#81799
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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#81829

Fromrbowman <bowman@montana.com>
Date2026-02-07 20:54 +0000
Message-ID<mupn4tFim0mU3@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#81816
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?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#81866

FromMarc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us>
Date2026-02-08 21:26 +0100
Message-ID<10marh1$25af$1@news1.tnib.de>
In reply to#81829
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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#81738

Fromrbowman <bowman@montana.com>
Date2026-02-04 18:23 +0000
Message-ID<muhh5pF7jauU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#81728
On Wed, 4 Feb 2026 02:45:22 -0500, c186282 wrote:

> On 2/4/26 02:21, Marc Haber wrote:
>> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
>>> On 2/3/26 14:47, rbowman wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 22:59:56 -0500, c186282 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> MX Linux
>>>>>
>>>>> Had to do 'full-update' to install three kernel updates in just the
>>>>> past two weeks.
>>>>>
>>>>> This SEEMS excessive.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is there some nasty security problem with DebiVerse kernels of late
>>>>> ?
>>>>
>>>> Which kernel? Both the Arch and Fedora boxes have been at 6.18.7 for
>>>> a while.  6.19 is still a rc.
>>>
>>>    Yesterdays is "6.18.8-1-liquorix-amd64"
>>>
>>>    Previous were 6.18.6-2 and 6.18.6-1
>>>
>>>    Usually kernel version updates are infrequent, but the past couple
>>>    weeks ....
>> 
>> Why would MX Linux, a distribution that praises itself for being stable
>> and frugal, use bleeding edge kernels?!? Don't they have more important
>> things to do?
> 
>    Well, this is part of My Concern ... this behavior suggests some
>    MAJOR security problem that they and others are patching as fast as
>    possible without raising a General Alarm.

https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git/
commit/?id=204f0729f92861aa2a89e79f081f4732c94cd959

You can search for other commits.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#81755

Fromc186282 <c186282@nnada.net>
Date2026-02-04 22:46 -0500
Message-ID<05Odnf8BZIUtjxn0nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to#81738
On 2/4/26 13:23, rbowman wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Feb 2026 02:45:22 -0500, c186282 wrote:
> 
>> On 2/4/26 02:21, Marc Haber wrote:
>>> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
>>>> On 2/3/26 14:47, rbowman wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 22:59:56 -0500, c186282 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> MX Linux
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Had to do 'full-update' to install three kernel updates in just the
>>>>>> past two weeks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This SEEMS excessive.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is there some nasty security problem with DebiVerse kernels of late
>>>>>> ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Which kernel? Both the Arch and Fedora boxes have been at 6.18.7 for
>>>>> a while.  6.19 is still a rc.
>>>>
>>>>     Yesterdays is "6.18.8-1-liquorix-amd64"
>>>>
>>>>     Previous were 6.18.6-2 and 6.18.6-1
>>>>
>>>>     Usually kernel version updates are infrequent, but the past couple
>>>>     weeks ....
>>>
>>> Why would MX Linux, a distribution that praises itself for being stable
>>> and frugal, use bleeding edge kernels?!? Don't they have more important
>>> things to do?
>>
>>     Well, this is part of My Concern ... this behavior suggests some
>>     MAJOR security problem that they and others are patching as fast as
>>     possible without raising a General Alarm.
> 
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git/
> commit/?id=204f0729f92861aa2a89e79f081f4732c94cd959
> 
> You can search for other commits.

   I found a note on DistroWatch about an MX fork, 'iDeal OS'
   that's more focused on 'security'. This is recent. It could
   be that MX decided to do a bunch of upgrades to help, or
   keep up with, this new fork.

"The developers of iDeal OS, an MX Linux-based desktop
distribution with focus on privacy and security, have announced
the availability of a new major release, version 2026.01.31.
This release marks a merger of the project's two previously
available editions into one product: "The release of iDeal
OS 4.1 introduces a significant system update - a single
ISO image for both the 'Emerald' and 'Diamond' editions."

   MX is still my (and MANY peoples) fave. Not TOO big or
   TOO small - and has a lot of neat-o tools that make
   common needs much easier. MX XFCE/LXDE - just about
   my idea of perfection and balance.

   Mephis was good, AntiX is good, MX kinda combines the
   best philosophies of both. (ok, AntiX is writ by very
   depressed Greek socio/communists ... I think the
   phrase 'anti-capitalista' is still in there).

   Anyway, enough advertisement ....

   Gonna download iDeal and put it into a VM for
   some testing. 1st-impressions report soon.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc

csiph-web