• Removing kernel


    In my system, both Linux 4.12 kernel and Linux 4.9lts are installed. But why multiple kernels ? I want to keep only the LTS and remove the non-LTS one. How to do this ?

  • @umarekanto said in Removing kernel:

    How to do this ?

    There is a series of commands for it of course, but I would suggest installing antergos-kernel-manager from Pamac. This will allow you to add, remove, or downgrade any kernel you wish to with ease! Just my suggestion : )

    Hope this helps!

    Keep trying, never give up. In the end, you will find that it was all worth it

    Community ISO: https://antergoscommunityeditions.wordpress.com
    Linux Basics: https://linuxbasicssite.wordpress.com

  • @umarekanto said in Removing kernel:

    I want to keep only the LTS and remove the non-LTS one.

    Also, when you do this, please make sure you are running the LTS kernel. If you are running the other one while uninstalling it, well, things could go wrong I would imagine. It would be like attempting to uninstall chromium while surfing the web!

    Thanks!

    Keep trying, never give up. In the end, you will find that it was all worth it

    Community ISO: https://antergoscommunityeditions.wordpress.com
    Linux Basics: https://linuxbasicssite.wordpress.com

  • @umarekanto said :

    I want to keep only the LTS and remove the non-LTS one.

    It is not a wise thing to do IMHO. Current kernel gets upgated mote often and includes all latest stuff. On the other hand, the lts kernel is of a more conservative nature. It is preffered as a more stable option in case an update of the current kernel screws things up and have to wait for a fix, or, in case of running an relatively older hardware.
    Lts kernels are also used in lts versions of distros (eg Ubuntu XX.XX lts) but Antergos is a rolling release, it s not the same case here.
    Cheers

    1.Antergos Linux KDE plasma / Gnome 2.Ubuntu 17.10 64bit Unity
    Intel Core2 Duo CPU P8400 2.26GHz‖ RAM 3908 MiB ‖ Dell Inc. 0F328M - Dell Inc. Latitude E6500
    Intel Mobile 4 Series Chipset Integrated Graphics [8086:2a42] {i915

  • @anarch ,

    Whoa, Whoa! I disagree entirely. What are you even saying?

    Non LTS kernels are experimental kernels for the most part. Hence not being Long Term Support. It is a stability risk running anything other than a LTS kernel. Since you even admit this on your post, why do you then suggest the user to prefer a non-LTS kernel?

    A non LTS kernel is only preferable for users running hardware that is being supported by the kernel version, users who participate in kernel development, users in dire need of a specific kernel feature that is not being currently supported by other versions, or the curious users.

    So, please do not advise users to use non-LTS kernels as a default, when even the kernel developers don’t do that! And do not confuse the rolling release model of Arch with the Linux kernel development model (or that any other software for that matter). Both models are not comparable since they apply to completely distinct aspect of software maintenance and have different target users. And even if you wanted to stretch them enough to make such a comparison, remember that even the Arch rolling release model does not offer pre-release versions of any software on its distros. So rolling release does not mean “bleeding edge, yey!”. It means “bleeding edge, but with care”.

  • Completely agree with you @Krugar!

    Keep trying, never give up. In the end, you will find that it was all worth it

    Community ISO: https://antergoscommunityeditions.wordpress.com
    Linux Basics: https://linuxbasicssite.wordpress.com

  • @Krugar said

    Non LTS kernels are experimental kernels for the most part.

    Hi, would you please give some evidence on that? Does vanilla Arch come with experimental kernels, too? At least, the Arch wiki itself calls it mainland kernel, not experimental. :)
    “There are various alternative kernels available for Arch Linux in addition to the mainline Linux kernel. This article lists some of the options available in the repositories with a brief description of each”.
    See here
    https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Kernels

    @Krugar said

    So, please do not advise users to use non-LTS kernels as a default, when even the kernel developers don’t do that!

    Besides the Arch devs, you should also blame the Antergos @developers for providing an “experimental” kernel as default, leaving the lts kernel as as an option.

    Remember, please, it s not the testing repo we re talking about, here. That s for testing purposes and one should be aware of the risks one takes on.
    Everything that Arch Linux releases through their stable repos are well tested for quite a long time before they actually get released to users. But even in this case, something might go wrong to some specific hardware.
    So, it is wise (and that was my recommendation) to have the more conservative lts kernel installed as a backup.
    Cheers

    1.Antergos Linux KDE plasma / Gnome 2.Ubuntu 17.10 64bit Unity
    Intel Core2 Duo CPU P8400 2.26GHz‖ RAM 3908 MiB ‖ Dell Inc. 0F328M - Dell Inc. Latitude E6500
    Intel Mobile 4 Series Chipset Integrated Graphics [8086:2a42] {i915

  • By the way…Arch Linux is not bleeding edge .It actually is cutting edge. There s a difference between the two meanings. As I have said above, everything is being tested thoroughly enough in the testing repo before it is actually released.
    Take gnome 3;26, for example. It s officially been released and you can try it. But you will only see it in about a month landing the safe Arch repo. After it reaches its first point release, 3.26-1, that is. All this time, it will be tested.
    But even after its landing to the Arch stable repo, that doesn t necessarily mean it will come out without any bugs.
    I hope it is clearer now.

    1.Antergos Linux KDE plasma / Gnome 2.Ubuntu 17.10 64bit Unity
    Intel Core2 Duo CPU P8400 2.26GHz‖ RAM 3908 MiB ‖ Dell Inc. 0F328M - Dell Inc. Latitude E6500
    Intel Mobile 4 Series Chipset Integrated Graphics [8086:2a42] {i915

  • @anarch said in Removing kernel:

    So, it is wise (and that was my recommendation) to have the more conservative lts kernel installed as a backup.

    Sorry then. I misunderstood your earlier post then as I thought you were recommending to get rid of the LTS kernel completely and only use the other. Now however, your advice is making sense to me. I think what led to my misunderstanding was your last sentence:

    but Antergos is a rolling release, it s not the same case here.

    and I took it as meaning that with Antergos, using the LTS kernel is not recommended like it would be elsewhere. You’re post makes a lot more sense now though!

    Keep trying, never give up. In the end, you will find that it was all worth it

    Community ISO: https://antergoscommunityeditions.wordpress.com
    Linux Basics: https://linuxbasicssite.wordpress.com

  • That’s similar to Login Managers, i have 2 at least here in case some fail after upgrades.
    I have also the standard kernel and LTS in case some kernel update breaks something i can switch to LTS.

    Antergos (default OS) - WIN10 (abandoned)
    I3wm - Mate desktop
    AMD - A4 7300 Radeon graphics
    16 GB ram
    HD 1 TB
    Linux newbie since 06/2016

  • @fernandomaroto said in Removing kernel:

    That’s similar to Login Managers, i have 2 at least here in case some fail after upgrades.

    Same here! : )

    Keep trying, never give up. In the end, you will find that it was all worth it

    Community ISO: https://antergoscommunityeditions.wordpress.com
    Linux Basics: https://linuxbasicssite.wordpress.com

  • I think kernel selection is just a practical choice of what you want to accomplish with your hardware.

    If you have very new hardware, you may need the newest kernel available if the LTS kernel doesn’t have enough support for the hardware.

    But if you don’t have very new hardware, the LTS kernel is a good choice because it is designed to keep things stable for a long time.

    In either case you can have both kernels installed, and maybe others if you will.
    As I don’t have the latest hardware, I’ve been using the LTS kernel for quite a long time now without any problems. In the beginning I used the latest kernel, but later, after testing that LTS kernel works with my hardware, I switched to LTS. And, for practical reasons, removed the latest kernel (kernel updates are faster with only one kernel, especially with several machines).

  • @anarch said in Removing kernel:

    I want to keep only the LTS and remove the non-LTS one.

    It is not a wise thing to do IMHO.

    I m sorry if i wasn t clear in my 1st comment. My point was at the very 1st sentence:It is not a wise thing to do IMHO. with which I replied to: I want to keep only the LTS and remove the non-LTS one.
    I meant it is not wise to keep the lts kernel removing the mainland one. The rest of my comment was the reason why both kernels should be kept.
    And fearing that there was a missunderstanding from an ex-LTS distro user, used to lts kernels, I also made a point that in Arch Linux the current kernel doesn t mean it is something extra, exotic, experimental or risky, explaining the differences between the two. :)

    1.Antergos Linux KDE plasma / Gnome 2.Ubuntu 17.10 64bit Unity
    Intel Core2 Duo CPU P8400 2.26GHz‖ RAM 3908 MiB ‖ Dell Inc. 0F328M - Dell Inc. Latitude E6500
    Intel Mobile 4 Series Chipset Integrated Graphics [8086:2a42] {i915

  • @anarch said in Removing kernel:

    I m sorry if i wasn t clear in my 1st comment.

    No worries! I understand what you meant now.

    I meant it is not wise to keep the lts kernel removing the mainland one.

    I sure agree with that! But just out of curiosity, what kernel do you use by default, @anarch? I have both installed, but usually use the non-LTS one.

    Keep trying, never give up. In the end, you will find that it was all worth it

    Community ISO: https://antergoscommunityeditions.wordpress.com
    Linux Basics: https://linuxbasicssite.wordpress.com

  • @Keegan , when using Gnome, I always went with the lts.
    Now, with plasma, I use either because plasma sometimes crashes after updates.
    After the latest lts & mainland kernel updates, a day or two ago, the lts keeps crashing. So, the lts kernel is a no-go for me, at the moment.

    1.Antergos Linux KDE plasma / Gnome 2.Ubuntu 17.10 64bit Unity
    Intel Core2 Duo CPU P8400 2.26GHz‖ RAM 3908 MiB ‖ Dell Inc. 0F328M - Dell Inc. Latitude E6500
    Intel Mobile 4 Series Chipset Integrated Graphics [8086:2a42] {i915

  • Interesting! But why does Plasma always seem to be crashing here on Antergos? I don’t understand…

    Keep trying, never give up. In the end, you will find that it was all worth it

    Community ISO: https://antergoscommunityeditions.wordpress.com
    Linux Basics: https://linuxbasicssite.wordpress.com

  • @anarch said in Removing kernel:

    Hi, would you please give some evidence on that? Does vanilla Arch come with experimental kernels, too? At least, the Arch wiki itself calls it mainland kernel, not experimental. :)

    I used the term experimental loosely and not literally, to remind you that releases in between LTS versions are where new features are introduced and tested. For which reasons they are not advisable for anyone wanting to maintain a stable system.

    We can thank the kernel developers for keeping such high quality non-LTS versions. But they are under no obligation to do so and there’s plenty of incidents with kernel updates to demonstrate just that.

    “There are various alternative kernels available for Arch Linux in addition to the mainline Linux kernel. This article lists some of the options available in the repositories with a brief description of each”.
    See here
    https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Kernels

    I don’t know why you are linking this or what it has to do with what is being discussed. I trust you didn’t just go link-hunting, and can instead help me understand what is the point you are trying to make here.

    Besides the Arch devs, you should also blame the Antergos @developers for providing an “experimental” kernel as default, leaving the lts kernel as as an option.

    Do not bring irony to the discussion. We are having a good discussion. The decision to not make LTS the default option during installation by either Arch or Antergos has nothing to do with you choosing to advise people not to use the LTS kernel by default. I hope you can understand the difference.

    Remember, please, it s not the testing repo we re talking about, here. That s for testing purposes and one should be aware of the risks one takes on.
    Everything that Arch Linux releases through their stable repos are well tested for quite a long time before they actually get released to users. But even in this case, something might go wrong to some specific hardware.
    So, it is wise (and that was my recommendation) to have the more conservative lts kernel installed as a backup.

    But just now you gave an argument to install it as your main kernel!

    I’m sure you are aware of the significant difference in failed kernel updates between LTS and non-LTS versions among Linux users. Regardless of how many tests Arch maintainers can make to new Kernel versions, the very nature and the inherent complexity of this particular subsystem of your operating system, means that they can’t possibly test the vast majority of conditions. This means the Arch team must move to stable with a much lower level of confidence than, say, the LibreOffice package.

    So, you cannot claim that because a kernel version is on Arch stable, it is guaranteed to be as stable as a kernel the kernel developers themselves called LTS. That makes non sense and is in fact contradicted by the facts.

    I can fully support the idea of running whatever kernel you want. And that includes the current non-lts version. But what I criticized was you advising someone against their desire to remove a non LTS version. That is not good advice. Sorry. But it isn’t.

  • @Krugar , I really cannot understand why you are so aggressive.

    1. you choosing to advise people not to use the LTS kernel by default
      Where exactly have I done that??? In another comment I said Im using the lts as default!!!
    2. .But just now you gave an argument to install it as your main kernel!
      Again…where??? It is the other way round. Mainland was default on installation and I installed the lts myself, afterwards.
      And why do you mention it with the unstable repo???
      Besides, you ll find numerous guidance by me on how to install the lts kernel post-istallation, all three years I ve been with Antergos.
    3. Do not bring irony to the discussion. We are having a good discussion
      No, we re not. You re being aggressive towards me from the beginning. And I reacted humorously.
      But come to think of that. Arch Linux, Antergos, whatever product you may name, ship with something “exrerimental”, or unstable, as you later corrected yourself. At the same time they ignore, or give as an option, the solid, stable version. You find this claim logical? Why would they choose the unstable over the stable for their product? What do they want to gain out of this? A bad name? The pleasure to give theit customers (talking genarally about products) hard t;imes? What?
    4. *So, you cannot claim that because a kernel version is on Arch stable, it is guaranteed to be as stable as a kernel the kernel developers themselves called LTS. That makes non sense.

    Since you mentioned my last comment, you forgot to mention that I now use the mainland kernel, not the lts. Because the lts crashes plasma shell. I also mentioned that I use either, because sometimes the one does not work. Isn t this proof that you need both of them? Why can t I use the lts, now? Because the mainland is more stable and the lts not?
    @fernandomaroto , above made a good point, with having two logging managers and change between them accordingly. So do with having both kernels

    1. But what I criticized was you advising someone against their desire to remove a non LTS version. That is not good advice. Sorry. But it isn’t.
      Again, nowhere will you find such recommendation by me. It was already pointed out by others above. I also came back with an explanation of what I meant. How come you didn t see those and still arguing about things never said???
    2. I don’t know why you are linking this or what it has to do with what is being discussed. I trust you didn’t just go link-hunting, and can instead help me understand what is the point you are trying to make here.
      We re discussing kernels, right? So, I linked to the right place, the Arch wiki. I may say whatever I like and the same goes for you, too. But the wiki clearly states that the mainland (as its name suggests) is the prime Arch kernel. Not experimental, not unstable, not risky. All other kernels are options which one may or may not choose to install.
      And it is NOT link-hunting. It s the most complete documentation out there, where I always resort for reliable info and troubleshooting before I ask for or give some assistance.
    3. I used the term experimental loosely and not literally, to remind you that releases in between LTS versions are where new features are introduced and tested. For which reasons they are not advisable for anyone wanting to maintain a stable system.
      No documentation about this, though I asked for such.
      Arch lts kernel is 4.9.xx. My Ubuntu 17.10 is using 4.12.xx. And in 18.04 LTS release (this April) is scheduled to run a 4.13 lts kernel.
      Does that mean Arch is left well behind or that Ubuntu is unstable?
    4. We can thank the kernel developers for keeping such high quality non-LTS versions. But they are under no obligation to do so
      We already discussed that. Mainland is the prime. It gets the most attention, priority and thus updates. All other kernels come behind.

    ***May I ask you how long you ve been using Arch Linux or its derivatives? Nothing nasty in my question. I m just under the impression that this discussion should be fit for a Ubuntu/Mint & the like forums.

    1.Antergos Linux KDE plasma / Gnome 2.Ubuntu 17.10 64bit Unity
    Intel Core2 Duo CPU P8400 2.26GHz‖ RAM 3908 MiB ‖ Dell Inc. 0F328M - Dell Inc. Latitude E6500
    Intel Mobile 4 Series Chipset Integrated Graphics [8086:2a42] {i915

  • @anarch said in Removing kernel:

    Do not bring irony to the discussion. We are having a good discussion
    No, we re not.

    Couldn’t say it clearer myself! While it’s just fine to (and encouraged) to voice your opinions, lashing out at others is not. Please reign it in @Krugar! This discussion certainly has been interesting (at least to me) in that I have learned a lot about various kernels, however it is becoming quite heated.

    How come you didn t see those and still arguing about things never said???

    While we appreciate your opinions and welcome them, please take the time to thoroughly read all of the previous posts @Krugar. Much of what you’re bringing up has already been discussed.

    Thank you!

    Keep trying, never give up. In the end, you will find that it was all worth it

    Community ISO: https://antergoscommunityeditions.wordpress.com
    Linux Basics: https://linuxbasicssite.wordpress.com

  • I trust you didn’t just go link-hunting, and can instead help me understand what is the point you are trying to make here.

    And now I’m thoroughly confused… That article covers much of what we’re talking about here.

    Keep trying, never give up. In the end, you will find that it was all worth it

    Community ISO: https://antergoscommunityeditions.wordpress.com
    Linux Basics: https://linuxbasicssite.wordpress.com

kernel74 removing7 Posts 26Views 318
Log in to reply