I’ve heard LTS kernels offer more stability, but lack the latest features. How likely is my system to break with the standard kernel?

  • @Peasley@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    3228 days ago

    LTS kernels aren’t more or less stable. Rather, they have been selected by the kernel maintainers to get security fixes backported to them for a certain time.

    Ubuntu does the same thing for the kernels on their LTS versions (technically they usually are not LTS kernels since canonical supports them instead of kernel team)

    Overall I’d suggest going with what the distro provides unless you have very new hardware, in which case a newer kernel may be required

  • NaN
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1928 days ago

    At home it probably isn’t worth it. Servers where changes can break things or is qualified against a specific configuration, more worth it. Often whatever your distro is providing is fine, even things like Ubuntu and soon Mint will be using non-LTS kernels by default.

  • @catloaf@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1628 days ago

    How likely is my system to break with the standard kernel?

    Unlikely. Standard releases are still pretty stable.

  • ShaunaTheDead
    link
    fedilink
    1228 days ago

    LTS just means Long Term Support in case you weren’t aware. It means no new development is happening, but security exploits will be patched as soon as they arise.

    If you just want stability, LTS is the way to go. If you want all the cutting edge bells and whistles and are okay with potentially some instability (but probably not much) then use the latest version.

    If your device isn’t connected to the internet during general use then I wouldn’t worry too much about updating anything. Security fixes aren’t important if there’s no way to connect to your device.

  • @pastermil@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    1028 days ago

    Depends on the hardware you have. The fact you’re asking this means these latest features wouldn’t mean anything to you. I doubt you’d actually notice any difference.

    My advice: use the LTS kernel if that’s what your distro provides, only change if you find some hardware not working.

  • @TCB13@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    7
    edit-2
    28 days ago

    If you want stability use the latest Debian. The point of those LTS kernels is more and more supporting IoT and other devices you can’t simply upgrade, but you want to keep secure… regular use cases can just usa a stable disto like Debian and you’ll never notice any kernel related issues.

  • @Guenther_Amanita@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    628 days ago

    Stability isn’t the same as unbreakability. It just means the update cycle is prolonged.

    If you’re worried about your system breaking, go for Fedora Atomic (Kinoite, Bazzite, uBlue, etc.).
    It offers a very recent kernel (-> better hardware support, better performance, etc.) and because it’s an image based distro, you can always roll back, so you’ll always have a working and pretty much unbreakable system.

  • @calcopiritus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    528 days ago

    Do you need those features? If not, go LTS. LTS means you’ll have to update the distro less frequently than latest.

    If you want those features, go non-LTS, there’s no other choice. If you don’t want them, go LTS, it’s less of a hassle.

    • And “those features” could very well include “able to use recent hardware”

      Built a new PC and had to upgrade to a newer kernel to get my video working correctly; without it, was only getting 1 monitor at embarrassingly low resolution

  • @governorkeagan@lemdro.id
    link
    fedilink
    English
    428 days ago

    I’m running an LTS kernel on my desktop and a non-LTS on my laptop (both machine are running EndeavourOS). Both have been rock solid.

    The only instability I’ve had is when I tried running a customised kernel (linux-cachyos)

  • tla
    link
    fedilink
    428 days ago

    It depends on your priorities, hardware, use cases etc. Honestly it’s unlikely to be the determining factor. Available hardware and software support and your attitude to risk are probably more important. Fedora is a cutting edge distro with good reliability and is feature rich. It’s upstream of Red Hat Enterprise Linux so has massive support behind it and a large user base. There are multiple spins if you want GNOME or KDE or an immutable OS etc. Adding additional repos such as RPMfusion make adding Nvidia and other proprietary drivers a breeze. As with most things GNU/Linux you need to be prepared to put in the effort to take control of your digital life. It’s not easy but well worth it.

  • mfz
    link
    fedilink
    328 days ago

    Don’t worry too much about it if it doesn’t make sense to you. It can be really valuable if you’re deploying a substantial amount of IoT devices on the edge with no to little possibility to do over the air upgrades reliably or when the cost of failure is high (i.e. a technician has to be on site to fix it). So, sometimes you just want it to be running as stable as possible for as long as possible without management.

  • @loops@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    328 days ago

    I used to always go with Ubuntu LTS for dat stability. One day I had to upgrade to non-LTS version for some reason (that I completely forget) and I’ve never looked back. IME it’s the same as LTS but with all the cool features you wish you had. Which I can’t list rn because I forget.

    …Who am I even. idk.

  • Dr Jekell
    link
    fedilink
    English
    228 days ago

    I have an LTS kernel as a backup in case something doesn’t work with my main kernel.

    Just recently I had an issue where my main kernel had a bug where snap’s can’t start up, so I just restarted into the LTS kernel to use it then restarted back into my main kernel.

  • Avid Amoeba
    link
    fedilink
    228 days ago

    It depends on whether you like your OS to be boring or not. If you like it boring and the LTS kernel works for you, use it.