7 ms·

For anyone else wondering, RHEL 6.4 has the 2.6.32-358 kernel. Zenwalk 7.2 has the 3.2.5 kernel. What's the point of citing the kernel shipped with another di

For anyone else wondering, RHEL 6.4 has the 2.6.32-358 kernel. Zenwalk 7.2 has the 3.2.5 kernel. What's the point of citing the kernel shipped with another distro here?

jckt 13y ago
It's an interesting fact I suppose. It's interesting to see why certain distros chose certain kernel versions.
- IanChiles 13y ago
  Debian has a long release cycle and uses the stablest versions available - and I believe that 3.2 is a "long term support" kernel, like 2.6 - getting large numbers of patches, and stability updates backported.
  - jckt 13y ago
    I'm aware of that. Not sure about Zenwalk, though (admittedly, I've never heard of that distro till today).
will1000 13y ago
I was under the impression that a newer kernel ment more hardware support. Am I wrong?
- oinksoft 13y ago
  Of course. The tone of the top-level comment, I think, is "woah, Debian, you call this kernel updated?" Rock-solid distros like RHEL/CentOS and Debian are deliberately conservative. Some folks don't like that.
  - danieldk 13y ago
    But Red Hat used to (they probably still do) continuously backport a lot of drivers an functionality from newer kernels to their older, stable, kernel for the first 5.5 years after a release: https://access.redhat.com/support/policy/updates/errata/ https://access.redhat.com/support/policy/updates/errata/ So I don't think RHEL/CentOS can be compared here to Debian.
  - ra 13y ago
    Also more hardware support is less important on a server. Even less important on a virtualised server.
- IanChiles 13y ago
  RHEL often backports hardware support. Their kernel is heavily modified - its not really fair to call it 2.6.xx
- JoshTriplett 13y ago
  Debian's 3.2 kernel includes backported support for much newer hardware from more recent kernels. Debian's primary kernel maintainer, Ben Hutchings, also serves as the upstream maintainer of the 3.2 stable kernel series.
  - petsos 13y ago
    And that I think is the biggest problem of Debian. They aim stability but how can you possibly claim that your custom backports are stable when e.g. the original developers have stopped supporting it? They may be able to pull it off with the kernel, but they can't possibly do it for all their packages. As an example: How are the Django backports to 1.2 more stable than upgrading to 1.3 when the official Django project has stopped supporting 1.2?
    - rogerbinns 13y ago
      Who says the original developers stopped supporting it? Head on over to http://www.kernel.org http://www.kernel.org and you'll see that 3.2 has longterm support (ie the kernel developers backport relevant fixes and patches). There are more details at https://www.kernel.org/releases.html https://www.kernel.org/releases.html including end of life dates. Given the time span between Debian releases, 3.2 is an excellent choice, if not the only one.
      - petsos 13y ago
        Right, this may be true for the kernel, but it can't be and it is not true for all of Debian's packages. Case in point Django: https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/1.5/internals/security/ https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/1.5/internals/security/ Since the release of Django 1.4, version 1.2 stopped receiving security fixes by the Django development team. What that means is that a Debian maintainer (which probably is not a Django developer) would have to hack any new security fix into the unsupported 1.2. And this is deemed more stable than say, upgrading to 1.3. Note that Django is just an example, obviously there are many more packages with the exact same problem.
verroq 13y ago
Shows how unbearably slow Debian's release cycle is. Wheezy ships with all the latest packages from 2 years ago.
- oinksoft 13y ago
  So then run ArchLinux on your servers, and godspeed? Debian is not aimed at having the latest and greatest, but its packages do tend to be more up-to-date than RHEL/CentOS, which is its main competition in the "stable server distro that doesn't get you fired" category.
  - petsos 13y ago
    So our options are either bleeding edge versions or prehistoric ones?
    - tls 13y ago
      Forgot option 3: roll your own. (e.g apt-pinning, freeze pkgs etc...etc..)
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
  - new299 13y ago
    Or you can just run debian testing, which is many cases is at least as stable as other distros.
- twstws 13y ago
  This is silly. Debian also provides rolling releases, testing and unstable. The release cycle is slow only if you ignore the constant development of Debian Sid.
  - mappu 13y ago
    Right now in unstable/sid, you get the same Linux 3.2 and GNOME 3.4.

For anyone else wondering, RHEL 6.4 has the 2.6.32-358 kernel. Zenwalk 7.2 has the 3.2.5 kernel. What's the point of citing the kernel shipped with another distro here?

jckt 13y ago

It's an interesting fact I suppose. It's interesting to see why certain distros chose certain kernel versions.

IanChiles 13y ago
Debian has a long release cycle and uses the stablest versions available - and I believe that 3.2 is a "long term support" kernel, like 2.6 - getting large numbers of patches, and stability updates backported.
- jckt 13y ago
  I'm aware of that. Not sure about Zenwalk, though (admittedly, I've never heard of that distro till today).

will1000 13y ago

I was under the impression that a newer kernel ment more hardware support. Am I wrong?

oinksoft 13y ago
Of course. The tone of the top-level comment, I think, is "woah, Debian, you call this kernel updated?" Rock-solid distros like RHEL/CentOS and Debian are deliberately conservative. Some folks don't like that.
- danieldk 13y ago
  But Red Hat used to (they probably still do) continuously backport a lot of drivers an functionality from newer kernels to their older, stable, kernel for the first 5.5 years after a release: https://access.redhat.com/support/policy/updates/errata/ https://access.redhat.com/support/policy/updates/errata/ So I don't think RHEL/CentOS can be compared here to Debian.
- ra 13y ago
  Also more hardware support is less important on a server. Even less important on a virtualised server.
IanChiles 13y ago
RHEL often backports hardware support. Their kernel is heavily modified - its not really fair to call it 2.6.xx
JoshTriplett 13y ago
Debian's 3.2 kernel includes backported support for much newer hardware from more recent kernels. Debian's primary kernel maintainer, Ben Hutchings, also serves as the upstream maintainer of the 3.2 stable kernel series.
- petsos 13y ago
  And that I think is the biggest problem of Debian. They aim stability but how can you possibly claim that your custom backports are stable when e.g. the original developers have stopped supporting it? They may be able to pull it off with the kernel, but they can't possibly do it for all their packages. As an example: How are the Django backports to 1.2 more stable than upgrading to 1.3 when the official Django project has stopped supporting 1.2?
  - rogerbinns 13y ago
    Who says the original developers stopped supporting it? Head on over to http://www.kernel.org http://www.kernel.org and you'll see that 3.2 has longterm support (ie the kernel developers backport relevant fixes and patches). There are more details at https://www.kernel.org/releases.html https://www.kernel.org/releases.html including end of life dates. Given the time span between Debian releases, 3.2 is an excellent choice, if not the only one.
    - petsos 13y ago
      Right, this may be true for the kernel, but it can't be and it is not true for all of Debian's packages. Case in point Django: https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/1.5/internals/security/ https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/1.5/internals/security/ Since the release of Django 1.4, version 1.2 stopped receiving security fixes by the Django development team. What that means is that a Debian maintainer (which probably is not a Django developer) would have to hack any new security fix into the unsupported 1.2. And this is deemed more stable than say, upgrading to 1.3. Note that Django is just an example, obviously there are many more packages with the exact same problem.

verroq 13y ago

Shows how unbearably slow Debian's release cycle is. Wheezy ships with all the latest packages from 2 years ago.

oinksoft 13y ago
So then run ArchLinux on your servers, and godspeed? Debian is not aimed at having the latest and greatest, but its packages do tend to be more up-to-date than RHEL/CentOS, which is its main competition in the "stable server distro that doesn't get you fired" category.
- petsos 13y ago
  So our options are either bleeding edge versions or prehistoric ones?
  - tls 13y ago
    Forgot option 3: roll your own. (e.g apt-pinning, freeze pkgs etc...etc..)
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- new299 13y ago
  Or you can just run debian testing, which is many cases is at least as stable as other distros.
twstws 13y ago
This is silly. Debian also provides rolling releases, testing and unstable. The release cycle is slow only if you ignore the constant development of Debian Sid.
- mappu 13y ago
  Right now in unstable/sid, you get the same Linux 3.2 and GNOME 3.4.