Not sure where you got this from but in my quick search it came up a mix of debian, arch and suse
searched this exact term
So is EOS unless you select to install additional kernels during installl and arch
Yes, people do have strong opinions on these sorts of subjects, and thatâs okay. Itâs just conversation.
The only reason I push back on this topic is that the evidence is smack-dab in front of people. Tumbleweed is doing just fine without LTS kernels, and theyâve managed to get a lot of users to praise them as #1 rolling release model, so I find it interesting when their model is shouted down or criticized. Iâm pretty sure they carefully considered their options before deciding on their current model, and it wasnât a decision based off ignorance. Theyâve been around a very, very long time. I would say the biggest criticism one can speak of them is that theyâre corporate backed.
Thatâs been the results Iâve come up with most of the time Iâve looked into what the Linux community has to say. Not ranking websites, but specifically users such as those on Reddit and forums who discuss the topic.
Which linux community? I would love to see a source. And are we refering to SUSE or openSUSE?
Not a good source for anything
openSUSE
Whatâs wrong with considering what other users have to say on reddit? I think itâs better to consider the thoughts of users rather than a ranking website that is likely sponsored.
Consider it but experiment for yourself, in my opinion openSUSE was a horrible expeirnece, others will have different opinions. For me Arch/EOS and other dertitives are better. Every opinion comes from what the user expects. I canât explain further and know that your opinions are just as valid as mine, I donât mean to create any argument
1 Like
I agree these sites are terrible and easily identified
1 Like
I donât take anything anyone says here as arguing. I look at it as passionate users just voicing their opinions, even when I receive facepalm reactions. I welcome it. 
No matter what is voiced here on this topic, itâs all opinions whether itâs coming from me or anyone else. Thereâs no absolutes in this topic.
1 Like
Cool, my paranoid brainâŚ
ooops. did not know this was a hornetâs nest question. thank you all for your attention.
dalto called it quite well, âThere is no consensus.â
thank you jake99 for bringing Greg Kroah-Hartman"s view to the roundtable.
I do not, however, notice on my system in the grub menu an option to boot different kernels.
3 Likes
Thatâs because you most certainly donât have more than one kernel installed. If you did the option would be presented during a bootup.
Now that the LTS has rolled over to 6.6, I might change over to that for the default boot
1 Like
You have to install the kernels first and then run sudo grub-mkconfig -o /boot/grub/grub.cfg
1 Like
Hi there,
Whatâs your opinion on a zen-kernel? I tried using it for a while, but couldnât figure out any benefits.
You might want to look into researching on these featureus.
I should be doing it too 
1 Like
Itâs simple: If you want a stable Linux, use the lts kernel. Itâs solid and stable, and thatâs what I need for work. The regular kernel will surprise you when you least want to be surprised, like refusing to go to sleep when you want to leave work, or refusing to wake up when youâre trying to get into that $%*@ virtual meeting in a hurry. I have both kernels installed, booting the LTS kernel by default, and the regular kernel when I am in the mood for visiting the low-life side of Linuxtown.
This has been working well for me. LTS as Default, with mainline as backup.
1 Like
I always use the update kernels and all seems to work fine.
currently running 6.6.10-arch1 which was installed 05-Jan-2024.
In my case the LTS is just fine. My 12-year-old Sandy Bridge era P-7 hardly needs the latest hardware support. In fact if I could install Kernel 3.5 is would run just fine.