3 ms·

I really dislike that Linux proper doesn't by default have x.xx-server, x.xx-workstation, x.xx-laptop and x.xx-desktop kernel variants. Or just doesn't have def

by jorvi 11mo ago

I really dislike that Linux proper doesn't by default have x.xx-server, x.xx-workstation, x.xx-laptop and x.xx-desktop kernel variants. Or just doesn't have defaults, requiring distros to think about what to set during compilation. A lot of the current defaults stem from the 90s, and often were eyeballed by the creator of said code. They're not good defaults for modern servers nor workstations nor laptops nor desktops. And all of those devices work best with different defaults. It doesn't seem (yes, appearances can be deceiving) to be that much work, because no extra code needs to be written. For each variant, just set different default parameter values for stuff like swappiness, lazy RCUs and what not. Make it a thing to revisit the defaults every 10 years. CachyOS and some other distros already do this, but a big chunk of distros doesn't because they think the defaults are well-thought out.

bflesch 11mo ago
I love the separation of concerns. It provides an amazing terminal-first kernel and everything graphical is maintained by various different organizations, and you can choose between many different options. Maintaining a large distro is extremely difficult and every decision has several trade-offs.
embedding-shape 11mo ago
> CachyOS and some other distros already do this, but a big chunk of distros doesn't because they think the defaults are well-thought out. Based on what I saw 1-2 years ago last time I looked at it, most distributions to customize and don't use the defaults straight up. From memory, so someone correct me if I'm wrong: - RHEL/SLES - Lots of patches to kernels - Arch - Closer to just using defaults, some config choices and downstream adjustments (so the opposite of CachyOS almost, which is why we have CachyOS in the first place) - Ubuntu - Probably the most patched distribution compared to upstream components, also includes a lot of Canonical-specific stuff on top of that. - Fedora - Has some bleeding edge bits and bobs - Debian - Bit more conservative than Ubuntu, but still has patches for stability, security and backports. In my experience, distributions changing the defaults and customizations seems to be the norm rather than the exception.
- dabockster 11mo ago
  > In my experience, distributions changing the defaults and customizations seems to be the norm rather than the exception. Which makes each and every one of those totally different operating systems that can run similar code to each other. We need to stop thinking of these as Linux "distros" and start thinking of these as totally separate and distinct operating systems that are based around the Linux kernel. Sort of like a business cooperative model.
  - thewebguyd 10mo ago
    I agree, doubly so when you consider different packaging formats and package managers also, along with different release models. I've been preaching for a long time that "distro" is the wrong term. Each "distro" is absolutely it's own, standalone operating system. There is no universal "Linux OS" outside of the kernel. Even userland can be swapped out.
- lazylizard 11mo ago
  yes. i use rhel+derivatives in the datacenter and ubuntu+derivatives outside it. in general. theres an OS for every purpose..or something like that...
malwrar 11mo ago
Why would you want different kernels for different device types? Genuine question! I maintain my own Linux distro (upstream Linux + portage) for all my devices and haven’t found much reason to go beyond kernel per arch. I’m curious if there’s something I could be missing.
- jorvi 11mo ago
  Well, for the two examples I named: vm.swappiness defaults to 60, which is default from when everyone was still running spinning rust with a swap partition. Servers these days usually have very specific storage+memory configurations, whereas the usual desktop or laptop has an SSD and 16GB+ of RAM with RAM compression expanding it. Lazy RCU loading is good on a laptop because you only lose about 10% performance and only with specific workloads, but your idle and light load energy consumption improves. Most laptops spend like 95%+ in light or idle load scenarios. Conversely, on a desktop you don't care (much) about idle and light load energy consumption, you only care about keeping max load consumption low enough so that your fans stay quiet. And on a workstation you don't care about a system being whisper quiet so you can go nuts with the energy consumption.
  - malwrar 11mo ago
    I totally missed that part of your comment, my bad. Thanks for elaborating on those, I feel inspired to experiment! So far my kernel journey has been about making my hardware work + enabling features, and that’s mostly how I’ve been discovering config options. Do you have any suggestions on where one aught to read further on this sort of kernel tuning? EDIT: doing some further research, couldn’t you just set those options via sysctl w/o needing to build a separate kernel?
    - jorvi 11mo ago
      Yes you can adjust them via sysctl or directly as kernel parameter arguments. That isn't my point. My point is that Linux has some horrible defaults :+)
      - 11mo ago

by jorvi 11mo ago

bflesch 11mo ago

I love the separation of concerns. It provides an amazing terminal-first kernel and everything graphical is maintained by various different organizations, and you can choose between many different options. Maintaining a large distro is extremely difficult and every decision has several trade-offs.

embedding-shape 11mo ago

> CachyOS and some other distros already do this, but a big chunk of distros doesn't because they think the defaults are well-thought out. Based on what I saw 1-2 years ago last time I looked at it, most distributions to customize and don't use the defaults straight up. From memory, so someone correct me if I'm wrong: - RHEL/SLES - Lots of patches to kernels - Arch - Closer to just using defaults, some config choices and downstream adjustments (so the opposite of CachyOS almost, which is why we have CachyOS in the first place) - Ubuntu - Probably the most patched distribution compared to upstream components, also includes a lot of Canonical-specific stuff on top of that. - Fedora - Has some bleeding edge bits and bobs - Debian - Bit more conservative than Ubuntu, but still has patches for stability, security and backports. In my experience, distributions changing the defaults and customizations seems to be the norm rather than the exception.

dabockster 11mo ago
> In my experience, distributions changing the defaults and customizations seems to be the norm rather than the exception. Which makes each and every one of those totally different operating systems that can run similar code to each other. We need to stop thinking of these as Linux "distros" and start thinking of these as totally separate and distinct operating systems that are based around the Linux kernel. Sort of like a business cooperative model.
- thewebguyd 10mo ago
  I agree, doubly so when you consider different packaging formats and package managers also, along with different release models. I've been preaching for a long time that "distro" is the wrong term. Each "distro" is absolutely it's own, standalone operating system. There is no universal "Linux OS" outside of the kernel. Even userland can be swapped out.
lazylizard 11mo ago
yes. i use rhel+derivatives in the datacenter and ubuntu+derivatives outside it. in general. theres an OS for every purpose..or something like that...

malwrar 11mo ago

Why would you want different kernels for different device types? Genuine question! I maintain my own Linux distro (upstream Linux + portage) for all my devices and haven’t found much reason to go beyond kernel per arch. I’m curious if there’s something I could be missing.

jorvi 11mo ago
Well, for the two examples I named: vm.swappiness defaults to 60, which is default from when everyone was still running spinning rust with a swap partition. Servers these days usually have very specific storage+memory configurations, whereas the usual desktop or laptop has an SSD and 16GB+ of RAM with RAM compression expanding it. Lazy RCU loading is good on a laptop because you only lose about 10% performance and only with specific workloads, but your idle and light load energy consumption improves. Most laptops spend like 95%+ in light or idle load scenarios. Conversely, on a desktop you don't care (much) about idle and light load energy consumption, you only care about keeping max load consumption low enough so that your fans stay quiet. And on a workstation you don't care about a system being whisper quiet so you can go nuts with the energy consumption.
- malwrar 11mo ago
  I totally missed that part of your comment, my bad. Thanks for elaborating on those, I feel inspired to experiment! So far my kernel journey has been about making my hardware work + enabling features, and that’s mostly how I’ve been discovering config options. Do you have any suggestions on where one aught to read further on this sort of kernel tuning? EDIT: doing some further research, couldn’t you just set those options via sysctl w/o needing to build a separate kernel?
  - jorvi 11mo ago
    Yes you can adjust them via sysctl or directly as kernel parameter arguments. That isn't my point. My point is that Linux has some horrible defaults :+)
    - 11mo ago