Stay on LTS kernel or update to 6.7

General system Kernel, boot, graphics & hardware
1

Wondering what the consensus is for staying longer on the 6.6 LTS kernel and delaying upgrading to 6.7 kernel.

Also, what might the CLI instruction or package modification be to stay on 6.6 LTS and allow updates for it?

thanks

1 Like
2

I don’t use lts kernels myself. Do you have both the lts and current kernels installed or just the lts? I’m on the latest with NVIDIA and Wayland.

3

Nothing other than your regular system update command.
If you have the LTS installed, you’ll be getting updates to the LTS kernel for the entirety of its support lifetime.

1 Like
4

You can have both kernels installed.
At boot time you simply select which one to use.

1 Like
5

As others have said, I too am running both (choose at Boot, with LTS being the default)). Updated to the current 6.7 last night, but due to a recent thread by @dalto (How to run a stress-free EndeavourOS - #109 by dalto), I’ve added the LTS, which I’m actually on now (6.6.11-2-lts).

6

I use the zen kernel and have the LTS kernel (of course) installed. If there is any problem I switch to the LTS kernel.

2 Likes
7

Just saw this thread and ran yay on my two boxes. One got the 6.7 kernal, the other didn’t even after I updated my mirrors? I didn’t think endeavouros did staggered releases, what gives?

8

Well I have a bias towards bleeding edge experiences on Linux unless it’s my business laptop which uses Debian Stable, so I would say yes upgrade.

Something breaks? Sweet. I love fixing broken stuff. That’s half the fun :grin:

1 Like
9

There is no consensus. My advice is always use the LTS kernel unless you have a compelling reason not to.

2 Likes
10

Am I hearing blasphemy here? Are you suggesting to always use LTS kernel on Arch unless there’s a “compelling” reason not to? :melting_face:

1 Like
11

yep, yep – dalto’s advice to run the LTS kernel sparked my interest.

1 Like
12

Yes, definitely.

It is my number one tip for increasing system stability.

It is very rare that there is something that makes a material difference to your performance or functionality in a new kernel. However, it is very common for new kernels to introduce issues. Especially when they are first released.

Also, the LTS kernel isn’t some ancient kernel from 10 years ago. It is also rolling so it is relatively new. Just not “brand new” and filled with risk.

I want my applications to be filled with the latest features, not the all the latest unpatched bugs from the kernel.

1 Like
13

Fair enough. I generally recommend LTS users to just pack their bags and move on over to Debian Stable, but that’s just me.

I feel like Arch is not Arch when it’s not bleeding edge. We could also eliminate the need for LTS entirely if EOS shipped with btrfs snapshots out of the box like Tumbleweed does. I have never once had an issue on rolling release because of snapshots.

1 Like
14

Why do you need a bleeding edge kernel? What benefits does it give you? I like having access to bleeding edge applications but why would need a bleeding edge kernel? What would it change about my daily use? When was the last time you got the new kernel and thought, “Wow this is so much better”? Most people don’t even realize the difference until something breaks with their shiny new kernel.

The primary reason I don’t use Tumbleweed is the lack of an option for an LTS kernel.

Except for the when the kernel has a Btrfs bug and corrupts your filesystem. Then you lose the snapshots too.

4 Likes
15

Great question. You’re actually right that most people won’t notice anything, but there certainly are noticeable improvements consistently released on latest kernel updates. For example, my external sound card. On the LTS kernel it has some issues but on the latest kernel it runs flawless, so that’s one example of why I prefer bleeding edge because sometimes the hardware is more recent and warrants it.

Another anecdotal example on my end is my GPU. I run an Intel ARC A770M, and I am noticing with each kernel update there are slight improvements in performance.

So it certainly is noticeable in certain circumstances like I outlined with newer hardware, but for the masses, you’re probably right. Usually they won’t notice much if anything at all.

I still do want to emphasize that the LTS kernel could just be scrapped altogether if snapshots were forced on the users. I personally think it’s the better way to go, but I’m not a developer, so it’s just an opinion. I really do like Tumbleweed’s approach to ensure stability. I think that’s one of their key features that sells the distro to business users as well, instead of just casual users. Also, I’ve never seen a btrfs bug report that’s corrupted a Tumbleweed system, but I suppose it’s not impossible since btrfs is newer than ext4.

16

I couldn’t disagree more. There are benefits to this approach but also downsides. Also, snapshots aren’t magic. There are lots of issues that snapshots can’t help you recover from.

Those are what I would call “compelling reasons”. If you have specific hardware that is better supported on the latest kernel than it makes perfect sense. I just don’t think that is all that common.

3 Likes
17

Fair enough. It’s just my observation and experience from using Tumbleweed for years now on one of my systems. I feel like they do this part very right.

You’re a developer, and I’m not, so I won’t argue further on that :slightly_smiling_face:

1 Like
18

The only reasons to NOT use the LTS is because you fit into one of these:

  1. hardware limitation
  2. specific want or need not provided by it/bug tester
  3. you’re a fool and just like to have things possibly break

Otherwise, everyone else that can use LTS, should use LTS

3 Likes
19

You forgot:

#4. You’re an advanced user who can fix your OS without asking for help if it breaks.

20

I would put that under 2.

Testers are needed. If you like finding bugs, then you’re the type who should use it.