I’m writing with a question, if you finding it possible to include kernel 3.6 as an option in next release?
I am on 2008 year machine (dell 1525), and have to say there are some issues with running the 4.* kernels on it. There a couples of them, and using 3.6 just solves all the problems.
Just considering the ArchLabs is meant to be a low-resources compatible distro it should be nice to have a better support for ‘low-resources’ (legacy) hardware.
Are there any technical issues against adding some more choice, like kernel 3.6? (3.9?)
The kernels you are requesting have reached their EOL or “End Of Life,” and are no longer maintained on kernel.org. If you wish to use a kernel that is not maintained, there is a way to add this on your own, but I would advise against this, as it is not good practice.
I agree with AvnSgt. ArchLabs is conscientiously developed to be light on resources but can’t be everything to all people and what you ask can have lasting detrimental effects upon your system. As an alternative, have you considered BunsenLabs? Their current release ‘Deuterium’ is based on Debian Jessie, which is supported until April 2020 and uses Kernel 3.16.0-5. Additionally, they offer i386 downloads which when installed on your 64bit system will be even lighter on system resources. The trade off, of course will be package availability but it may be a worthy compromise to consider.
Thanks for reply,
@anon37345411, well I am currently on Wheezy, so BL should be a nice alternative. Surprisingly most what I need works here, besides Ive kinda get to GTK3 last time, and this is missing here. A question to you.
You want to say, that i386 applications are running faster than x86_64 binaries on the _64 platform? I always thought that is opposite
@AvnSgt, i give a 3.6 as an example (cause Im running this one in this moment), I just checked some list and 3.16 seems to not have the EOL flag. Does it mean that using the 3.16 with current up to date arch install would be safe, or are there some incompatibilities any way?
Yes. Now, please keep in mind my answer was intended to be in the context of your original question as it pertains to legacy hardware. If you install a 32bit system on 64bit hardware and expect from that the ability to crunch a solution to the rate of the expanding Universe, extreme gaming or other graphics intensive activities, then no because you’re obviously not utilizing the full potential of your 64bit hardware. For ‘daily driver’ low demand computing on legacy hardware, it’s been my observation, system resources can be dramatically conserved… Particularly memory.
@Nhhn21 Since I don’t maintain a kernel, I will point you to the FAQ section on Kernel.org. There is an excerpt that explains what happens, see below the horizontal rule. 3.16 has an EOL date of 04/2020, so this kernel would likely suit your needs well, as 3.2 will reach its EOL on 05/2018. The Linux Kernel lifespan can be seen under the Release section of the kernel.org website, as well as more detailed information.
What does "stable/EOL" and "longterm" mean?
As kernels move from the “mainline” into the “stable” category, two things can happen:
- They can reach “End of Life” after a few bugfix revisions, which means that kernel maintainers will release no more bugfixes for this kernel version, or
- They can be put into “longterm” maintenance, which means that maintainers will provide bugfixes for this kernel revision for a much longer period of time.
If the kernel version you are using is marked “EOL,” you should consider upgrading to the next major version as there will be no more bugfixes provided for the kernel version you are using.
Please check the Releases page for more info.
Why is an LTS kernel marked as “stable” on the front page?
Long-term support (“LTS”) kernels announced on the Releases page will be marked as “stable” on the front page if there are no other current stable kernel releases. This is done to avoid breaking automated parsers monitoring kernel.org with an expectation that there will always be a kernel release marked as “stable.”