Why is 3.2 still the latest kernel in unstable??

News and discussion about development of the Debian OS itself

Re: Why is 3.2 still the latest kernel in unstable??

Postby vbrummond » 2013-04-30 01:24

andrewrogers wrote:I'm about to reboot with some more SNS I just built!! I now have 3.9! Built in less than five minutes with the "-j4" argument (for quad-core). :P

Nice, it takes a bit less than an hour on mine. :)

Anyways, back to the topic: Debian definitely works quite well. The only Arch-like configuring I had to do was for my fstab and alsa. The rest of my config files and scripts have been made for my pleasure, because of the free time Debian has given me! :mrgreen:

Yes, Debian seems to try really hard to make an administrators life easier. A lot of maintainers take the annoying initial setup of some software and automate it for you. :)
Always on Debian Testing
vbrummond
 
Posts: 4468
Joined: 2010-03-02 01:42

Re: Why is 3.2 still the latest kernel in unstable??

Postby andrewrogers » 2013-04-30 01:52

vbrummond wrote:Yes, Debian seems to try really hard to make an administrators life easier. A lot of maintainers take the annoying initial setup of some software and automate it for you. :)


But they only do the essentials, which is key. It doesn't go overkill like Ubuntu does. :roll:
#BOXES
Ivy Bridge 3570K + 32GB of RAM (INTEL 4000)
Core 2 Extreme (X9100!) Latitude E6400 + 8GB of RAM (Quadro NVS 160M)
Northwood P4 Latitude + 1.25GB of RAM (Radeon 7500)
Mac Mini G4 (1.5GHz!) + 1GB of RAM (Radeon 9200)
TiBook G4 + 1GB of RAM (Rad 9200)
User avatar
andrewrogers
 
Posts: 136
Joined: 2013-04-22 15:52

Re: Why is 3.2 still the latest kernel in unstable??

Postby handheldCar » 2013-04-30 08:08

andrewrogers wrote:
vbrummond wrote:Debian seems to try really hard to make an administrators life easier. A lot of maintainers take the annoying initial setup of some software and automate it for you. :)


It doesn't go overkill

In some cases, e.g., Apache, it did.
handheldCar
 
Posts: 221
Joined: 2009-11-27 02:31
Location: North Cackalack

Re: Why is 3.2 still the latest kernel in unstable??

Postby andrewrogers » 2013-04-30 12:20

handheldCar wrote:
andrewrogers wrote:
vbrummond wrote:Debian seems to try really hard to make an administrators life easier. A lot of maintainers take the annoying initial setup of some software and automate it for you. :)


It doesn't go overkill

In some cases, e.g., Apache, it did.
#BOXES
Ivy Bridge 3570K + 32GB of RAM (INTEL 4000)
Core 2 Extreme (X9100!) Latitude E6400 + 8GB of RAM (Quadro NVS 160M)
Northwood P4 Latitude + 1.25GB of RAM (Radeon 7500)
Mac Mini G4 (1.5GHz!) + 1GB of RAM (Radeon 9200)
TiBook G4 + 1GB of RAM (Rad 9200)
User avatar
andrewrogers
 
Posts: 136
Joined: 2013-04-22 15:52

Re: Why is 3.2 still the latest kernel in unstable??

Postby AnInkedSoul » 2013-04-30 12:55

thanatos_incarnate wrote:Granted, it would still be nice if Debian had a more active Sid or at least Backports team.

or an experimental archive with lots of new goodies
AnInkedSoul
 
Posts: 461
Joined: 2010-06-11 05:05

Re: Why is 3.2 still the latest kernel in unstable??

Postby thibaut » 2013-05-15 09:43

Hi,

For the record, at the time of this thread, 3.8 was in experimental and worked like a charm on Wheezy. It's now in unstable and presumably works at least as well. Chances are it will be backported soon.

Regards, Thibaut.
thibaut
 
Posts: 1
Joined: 2013-05-15 08:35

Re: Why is 3.2 still the latest kernel in unstable??

Postby mfelker » 2013-05-19 00:43

If you would like to try kernel 3.8 (which works great!) just change your sources.list to sid instead of unstable. Then install synaptic (that what I do anyway) and searh for "3.8" <no quotes of course>. You will find the headers and image for linux 3.8. Install and enjoy.

Why Debian defaults is kernel 3.2 (even in sid) is because "It's Debian" and therefore ultra-conservatitve.
mfelker
 
Posts: 2
Joined: 2012-01-31 02:26

Re: Why is 3.2 still the latest kernel in unstable??

Postby dilberts_left_nut » 2013-05-19 01:02

unstable==sid
AdrianTM wrote:There's no hacker in my grandma...
User avatar
dilberts_left_nut
 
Posts: 5077
Joined: 2009-10-05 07:54
Location: enzed

Re: Why is 3.2 still the latest kernel in unstable??

Postby dasein » 2013-05-19 02:43

mfelker wrote:If you would like to try kernel 3.8 (which works great!) just change your sources.list to sid instead of unstable. Then install synaptic (that what I do anyway) and searh for "3.8" <no quotes of course>. You will find the headers and image for linux 3.8. Install and enjoy.

Why Debian defaults is kernel 3.2 (even in sid) is because "It's Debian" and therefore ultra-conservatitve.


Wow. So much misinformation in one post...

As d_l_n has already pointed out, sid==unstable, and its current kernel is 3.8

And seemingly "stale" software in sid has absolutely nothing to do with "conservatism."

Posts that misinform don't actually contribute to the forum.
User avatar
dasein
 
Posts: 7775
Joined: 2011-03-04 01:06
Location: Terra Incantationum

Re: Why is 3.2 still the latest kernel in unstable??

Postby bwat47 » 2013-05-19 02:56

When will 3.8 be available in wheezy backports? Wheezy is currently unusable on ivybridge graphics because of constant random freezes due to its ancient kernel.
bwat47
 
Posts: 34
Joined: 2013-03-17 22:33

Re: Why is 3.2 still the latest kernel in unstable??

Postby andrewrogers » 2013-05-19 04:59

bwat47 wrote:When will 3.8 be available in wheezy backports? Wheezy is currently unusable on ivybridge graphics because of constant random freezes due to its ancient kernel.


agreed. That's why I compiled 3.9
#BOXES
Ivy Bridge 3570K + 32GB of RAM (INTEL 4000)
Core 2 Extreme (X9100!) Latitude E6400 + 8GB of RAM (Quadro NVS 160M)
Northwood P4 Latitude + 1.25GB of RAM (Radeon 7500)
Mac Mini G4 (1.5GHz!) + 1GB of RAM (Radeon 9200)
TiBook G4 + 1GB of RAM (Rad 9200)
User avatar
andrewrogers
 
Posts: 136
Joined: 2013-04-22 15:52

Re: Why is 3.2 still the latest kernel in unstable??

Postby Bulkley » 2013-05-19 06:08

Why not get a Liquorix kernel? Easy to install and easy to remove if you don't like it. Liquorix is up to 3.8.13.
Bulkley
 
Posts: 6000
Joined: 2006-02-11 18:35

Re: Why is 3.2 still the latest kernel in unstable??

Postby bwat47 » 2013-05-19 11:36

Bulkley wrote:Why not get a Liquorix kernel? Easy to install and easy to remove if you don't like it. Liquorix is up to 3.8.13.

I tried that, but after installing I got a bunch of missing firmware errors about realtek (and I did have firmware realtek insalled)

andrewrogers wrote:
bwat47 wrote:When will 3.8 be available in wheezy backports? Wheezy is currently unusable on ivybridge graphics because of constant random freezes due to its ancient kernel.


agreed. That's why I compiled 3.9

I'm trying to stay away from 3.9 because of an annoying regression :( https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgr ... 3frXHFh_GM
bwat47
 
Posts: 34
Joined: 2013-03-17 22:33

Re: Why is 3.2 still the latest kernel in unstable??

Postby andrewrogers » 2013-05-23 19:01

agreed. That's why I compiled 3.9[/quote]
I'm trying to stay away from 3.9 because of an annoying regression :( https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgr ... 3frXHFh_GM[/quote]

I use USB speakers on my Ivy Bridge, so I haven't noticed any problems.
#BOXES
Ivy Bridge 3570K + 32GB of RAM (INTEL 4000)
Core 2 Extreme (X9100!) Latitude E6400 + 8GB of RAM (Quadro NVS 160M)
Northwood P4 Latitude + 1.25GB of RAM (Radeon 7500)
Mac Mini G4 (1.5GHz!) + 1GB of RAM (Radeon 9200)
TiBook G4 + 1GB of RAM (Rad 9200)
User avatar
andrewrogers
 
Posts: 136
Joined: 2013-04-22 15:52

Re: Why is 3.2 still the latest kernel in unstable??

Postby christoff522 » 2013-06-14 12:53

mfelker wrote:If you would like to try kernel 3.8 (which works great!) just change your sources.list to sid instead of unstable. Then install synaptic (that what I do anyway) and searh for "3.8" <no quotes of course>. You will find the headers and image for linux 3.8. Install and enjoy.

Why Debian defaults is kernel 3.2 (even in sid) is because "It's Debian" and therefore ultra-conservatitve.


Yes, unstable is sid, you can use either name in your sources.list

Debian defaulted to kernel 3.2 was because it had been thoroughly tested - on experimental, on sid, on testing, and made its way to stable, where it was then frozen. 3,2 made its way into wheezy becasuse that is what reached it by the time it was frozen, not because of ultra conservatism. had 3.8 been in testing at the point of the freeze, 3,8 would have been the kernel in wheezy.

programs, and features are in wheezy:
1.because they've been thoroughly tested in sid and testing.
2.because the bugs have been ironed out to a point where they can be considered 'stable'.

this doesn't however mean that sid is in any way 'buggy', I sit here typing from sid.
christoff522
 
Posts: 9
Joined: 2013-05-09 12:28

Previous

Return to Debian Development

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

fashionable