Debian User Forums

Posted: **2013-04-25 03:09**

I am not trolling... I am simply curious...

Is the primary motivation for including an older kernel with Debian security?? I've been building and using the latest stable kernel on each of my Debian boxes (all on unstable) for quite some time, without any stability issues whatsoever. I haven't really looked into their security in detail, however (I'm no penetration tester). I've built the kernels with forced premption (esp. great for the older machines).

All of my "boxen" run Fluxbox and can run OpenGL reasonably well.

Posted: **2013-04-25 03:12**

Learn about the Debian release process:

http://www.debian.org/releases/
http://wiki.debian.org/DebianReleases

You'll get all the SNS you want, along with all the breakage you could possibly hope for, some time next month.

Posted: **2013-04-25 03:38**

dasein wrote:You'll get all the SNS you want, along with all the breakage you could possibly hope for, some time next month.

Sounds like fun!!!

Posted: **2013-04-25 03:44**

Is Thunderbolt support a possibility? My Ivy Bridge box runs with an ASUS P8Z77-V PRO/Thunderbolt.

lspci shows:

Code: Select all

someuser@somehostname:~$ lspci
00:00.0 Host bridge: Intel Corporation Xeon E3-1200 v2/3rd Gen Core processor DRAM Controller (rev 09)
00:01.0 PCI bridge: Intel Corporation Xeon E3-1200 v2/3rd Gen Core processor PCI Express Root Port (rev 09)
00:02.0 VGA compatible controller: Intel Corporation Xeon E3-1200 v2/3rd Gen Core processor Graphics Controller (rev 09)
00:14.0 USB controller: Intel Corporation 7 Series/C210 Series Chipset Family USB xHCI Host Controller (rev 04)
00:16.0 Communication controller: Intel Corporation 7 Series/C210 Series Chipset Family MEI Controller #1 (rev 04)
00:19.0 Ethernet controller: Intel Corporation 82579V Gigabit Network Connection (rev 04)
00:1a.0 USB controller: Intel Corporation 7 Series/C210 Series Chipset Family USB Enhanced Host Controller #2 (rev 04)
00:1b.0 Audio device: Intel Corporation 7 Series/C210 Series Chipset Family High Definition Audio Controller (rev 04)
00:1c.0 PCI bridge: Intel Corporation 7 Series/C210 Series Chipset Family PCI Express Root Port 1 (rev c4)
00:1c.2 PCI bridge: Intel Corporation 7 Series/C210 Series Chipset Family PCI Express Root Port 3 (rev c4)
00:1c.3 PCI bridge: Intel Corporation 7 Series/C210 Series Chipset Family PCI Express Root Port 4 (rev c4)
00:1c.4 PCI bridge: Intel Corporation 82801 PCI Bridge (rev c4)
00:1c.7 PCI bridge: Intel Corporation 7 Series/C210 Series Chipset Family PCI Express Root Port 8 (rev c4)
00:1d.0 USB controller: Intel Corporation 7 Series/C210 Series Chipset Family USB Enhanced Host Controller #1 (rev 04)
00:1f.0 ISA bridge: Intel Corporation Z77 Express Chipset LPC Controller (rev 04)
00:1f.2 SATA controller: Intel Corporation 7 Series/C210 Series Chipset Family 6-port SATA Controller [AHCI mode] (rev 04)
00:1f.3 SMBus: Intel Corporation 7 Series/C210 Series Chipset Family SMBus Controller (rev 04)
03:00.0 USB controller: ASMedia Technology Inc. ASM1042 SuperSpeed USB Host Controller
04:00.0 SATA controller: ASMedia Technology Inc. ASM1062 Serial ATA Controller (rev 01)
05:00.0 PCI bridge: ASMedia Technology Inc. ASM1083/1085 PCIe to PCI Bridge (rev 03)
07:00.0 Network controller: Atheros Communications Inc. AR9485 Wireless Network Adapter (rev 01)

I'm not sure which is the Thunderbolt controller. My board was literally the first one on the market with the new tech (of the PC boards).

Posted: **2013-04-25 04:04**

andrewrogers wrote:My board was literally the first one on the market with the new tech (of the PC boards).

So, by the time it becomes common enough for the stuff to be affordable, the spec will have changed and your "1st gen" board won't work with anything ...

Posted: **2013-04-25 04:09**

dilberts_left_nut wrote: So, by the time it becomes common enough for the stuff to be affordable, the spec will have changed and your "1st gen" board won't work with anything ...

Probably... It would just be nice... It's not like I have a shortage of PCIe slots, but a cool gizmo, nonetheless... I should still be able to use it for Mini DisplayPort.

BTW my kernel now is 3.8.4-vanillaice (with forced preemption *trolololo*).

I'll build a new kernel soon-ish... It's not like it takes me that long, lol.

Posted: **2013-04-25 23:17**

To be honest, I do not get it either. I mean, it is not that the Linux kernel version 3.2 has long term support. The kernel version 3.4 was released in May 2012, it has support for two years and yet was not chosen by the Debian Developers. Go figure.

Posted: **2013-04-26 03:58**

emariz wrote:To be honest, I do not get it either. I mean, it is not that the Linux kernel version 3.2 has long term support. The kernel version 3.4 was released in May 2012, it has support for two years and yet was not chosen by the Debian Developers. Go figure.

If it's for security patches, I wouldn't mind, but still...

Also, why are you still a blue user? You've posted sooo much! Were you once a part of the forum team?

Posted: **2013-04-26 04:08**

dasein wrote:You'll get all the SNS you want, along with all the breakage you could possibly hope for, some time next month.

Lol, I just got the SNS remark. A new kernel can often fix many hardware issues, though.

Posted: **2013-04-26 16:52**

andrewrogers wrote:If it's for security patches, I wouldn't mind, but still...

Here is the answer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_kernel#Maintenance
The kernel version 3.2 will be maintained by Ben Hutchings until 2015. I only remembered that version 3.4 had long term support; probably because I had been following the news from Greg Kroah-Hartman. My mistake.

andrewrogers wrote:Also, why are you still a blue user? You've posted sooo much! Were you once a part of the forum team?

Well, I am not kosher.

Posted: **2013-04-27 13:57**

The reason is more due to time than anything else. The decision to use the 3.2 kernel was made back in January of 2012.

http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-an ... 00012.html

While Wheezy wasn't frozen yet, the 3.4 kernel didn't come out until May 2012.

Right now, everything is still frozen, but once Wheezy is releases, a torrent of packages are going to be flooding testing and unstable. So, if you can wait 2 weeks, new stuff will be coming in soon.

You can also compile your own as well.

Posted: **2013-04-27 23:11**

In addition to the explanations above, Unstable is also partially frozen, e.g., Iceweasel.

dasein wrote:Learn about the Debian release process:

http://www.debian.org/releases/
http://wiki.debian.org/DebianReleases

I don't see anything that answers the original poster's question.

Posted: **2013-04-28 08:25**

I'd rather have more people work on ironing out those 3.2 kernel bugs and exploits than unwrap a new kernel.
Granted, it would still be nice if Debian had a more active Sid or at least Backports team.
But there are so many distros that can offer bleeding edge.

Posted: **2013-04-28 10:27**

thanatos_incarnate wrote:I'd rather have more people work on ironing out those 3.2 kernel bugs and exploits than unwrap a new kernel.

+1 I couldn't agree more.
It's not every day that I purchase a new computer with the latest hardware

so I'm not so sure what advantages a shiny new kernel might bring me; I find current stable - squeeze 6.0.7 - is blazing fast as it is even with its "antiquated" ext3 file system. "Upgrade from old stable to current stable" is my motto although I've recently started using wheezy on my main desktop computer. But I'm quite happy,for example, with the 2.6.32-5-amd64 kernel for my 2 laptops and server until I move on to the 3.2 one. Compiling kernels is certainly a way to optimize certain features in a system but in general, I find the stock Debian kernel is suitable for most purposes.

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

Stable plus backports - soon to become wheezy + backports - is, imo, the ideal combination for the majority of non-technical users like me

who run self-administered Desktop environments. But since Debian Backports can't do everything, newer packages can be built by SimpleBackportCreation with a view perhaps to contributing by BuildingFormalBackports oneself.

thanatos_incarnate wrote:But there are so many distros that can offer bleeding edge.

They race on ahead like the proverbial Hare; but I - for one - like the Tortoise, am content to plod on wth Debian.

Posted: **2013-04-30 00:59**

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).

I'm running off of the Wheezy, on the Ivy Bridge, ATM... The other two in the signature are unstable. I'll have to update my signature to correct this oversight...

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!

I haven't had any kernel panics in quite some time and my current uptime on my desktop is 7d 6h and 20m, only restarting when I want to test some SNS.

BTW, Google Drive is down at the time of writing.

Posted: **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).

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!

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.

Posted: **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.

Posted: **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.

Posted: **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.

Posted: **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

Debian User Forums

Why is 3.2 still the latest kernel in unstable??

Why is 3.2 still the latest kernel in unstable??

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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