Clarification: The linux-lts kernel is aimed at Server usage by its maintainer

Because of some recent discussion (found here) I decided to fact check my knowledge with the only one who really can: The Maintainer of the linux-lts package.
He confirmed that the linux-lts kernel package has server usage in mind:

The mainline kernel doesn’t tell you it’s better suited for desktop use as well. Not a bug.

Feel free to add hints to their wiki pages.

With that in mind, I think we here at EndeavourOS need to adjust how the linux-lts kernel is recommended and sort-ordered in systemd-boot

@dalto I think your guide here needs modification: How to run a stress-free EndeavourOS
@mbod I think that is the ultimate answer to your question from here
@fred666 confirmation


It’s the number one recommendation.

I think it should be second only to not breaking your own computer.

It should be no lower than the second most important recommendation for all desktop users.

Where do you think it should go?

recommend it like it is intended: Have it installed as a fallback option in case the regular kernel doesn’t boot. Don’t recommend it as a valid desktop-usage kernel.


I wouldn’t say that it’s intended to be a fallback option, but that’s a very good and very popular way to utilize the lts kernel.


This is kinda confusing for me.
First question that comes to my mind: Arch on Servers? Rolling Release on Servers? Sure, one could do that, but I think the majority of use cases tells you “Pls don’t”.
Second: Which config settings are specifically tailored towards servers, and does this tailoring mean it is (config wise) less good for non-servers? What is the difference between a server and desktop here?

You see me confused…


Refer to the (Low-Latency Desktop) section.


you are right. That is a better wording.

Very much possible, Arch uses it’s own distribution in servers, too.
I wouldn’t want to run an extremely uptime-relevant enterprise server on Arch, but there are several use cases where Arch can be run as server OS.
If you install Arch the arch way, you simply skip all the desktop packages and have a server OS. It is only that the EndevaourOS package selection is clearly aimed at Desktops :wink:

workloads have different priorities performance-wise, latency vs. throughput. Extreme multitasking on servers, vs usually only 1 or 2 applications in the focus on desktops etc.
The most prominent difference in configs is discussed in the topic by @mbod in my opening post.


I can’t not not recommended it. Whatever it’s intended case is, assuming that it’s true that it’s solely designed for server use, we call that a fringe benefit, or maybe even an unintended consequence. It is still overwhelmingly the best option for almost everyone.

Obviously not everyone, because many folks have a want or good reason to use latest.

But almost everyone.

I can’t forbid anyone to still recommend it, the only thing I want is that the knowledge of it being aimed at servers is spread.
It should at least be mentioned in the official guides that there are config options that hurt desktop performance in the lts Kernel package and it would only be good practice if anyone recommending the lts kernel would also mention that.

The fact is now also visible in the Arch Wiki with a reference to the issue where it is confirmed:


Cool. I mean being an lts kernel, it would have been more suitable for servers even if it didn’t say it in the wiki.

The wiki now clearly mentions the config options, which is not intuitive and apparently not general knowledge.

I will note it being more suitable for servers if they ask about servers. We generally deal with desktop users here though, so that doesn’t come up much.

When i checked that wiki that line wasn’t there as it is now
So i’m thinking out loud why is suddenly changed now @BS86 mentioned it here?

And yes LTS is sure the best option for server use with or without any configs like @milkytwix mentioned

Why would Arch config a LTS kernel specific for Server use while a rolling distro the last would be to use as a server?
Ubuntu has different versions for server or desktop so i would/could expect changes optimized for either use

This still doesn’t make any sense to me

so you have no problems recommending a server kernel to desktop users without mentioning that fact?

read what AndyRTR wrote in the issue …

Because @BS86 added the information to the wiki.

yeah, because the maintainer asked me to do that.

1 Like

Ah okay that make sense, i didn’t know that

1 Like

I wasn’t complaining - just answering the question (in an admittedly possibly over-literal fashion :laughing:).

yeah, and I made it clear before someone can turn the words around in my mouth or implies that I manipulate wikis with false information.

1 Like


Just because you added one blip to the wiki doesn’t change anything lol. Anyone can change anything there. That doesn’t actually change anything else though. It’s still the best recommendation barring specific circumstances that most folks know and why they choose to use latest.

Server kernel or whatever, the rest of us just called it the lts. And it’s fantastic on desktops too. It would probably also be good on servers, but I don’t have one, do I can’t verify that.

I also think we should petition to change the kernel name to linux-server instead of lts.