We ALL used to compile our own kernels back in the early days of Linux because we could control what hardware support was compiled into the kernel. But now that kernel modules are a thing and almost all hardware support and features are built as dynamically loaded as kernel modules, it really not necessary anymore at all.
To add to this, back in the late 90s/early 2000s, computers had in the neighborhood of 16mb, 32mb, 64mb etc of RAM, so compiling OUT stuff you didn't need really did have a performance benefit so all that junk didn't have to stay resident in memory - your applications had more room to be resident and not get swapped out. Nowadays with most PCs having gigabytes, the savings is negligible.
As you asked : I use a custom kernel, but it is shipped by my distro. Not "custom" in the sense that I customized it and compiled it myself, but in the sense that Garuda ships with Zen. I've chosen Garuda because, at the time of this choice, I read that Garuda was well fitted to run games. Happy new year Matt and thank you for your videos !
There used to be a purpose for things like real-time audio. Now all the interesting patches for that (and most other things that actually matter) are upstreamed into the main kernel. There is no real reason for a custom kernel anymore. 😊
I used a custom kernel in the 90's, because you pretty much had to in order to get support for the hardware and filesystems you had. As far as I recall, configuring and compiling your kernel was actually part of the Slackware install process. These days I wouldn't bother, unless it was some super specific use case, like trying to squeeze more performance out of a limited system. As for why they tell everybody about it? "I use arch, btw."
I use Zen because I'm a Linux Gamer & liked the optimized approach. I personally haven't seen the evangelizing of Custom Kernels, then again I'm not a huge community guy.
People like to have/do things that make them unique or somehow, different. That's why someone would be so eager to tell others about their custom kernel, at least in most cases I think. Nothing wrong with it, just is how some people tend to be. You are right though, I'm not sure it's something that needs to be evangelized because it could wind up nudging someone toward doing it when there's absolutely no real reason for them to.
I used to compile my own kernel simply because my distribution's kernel was very old. Things would happen like my keyboard backlight would not work without the lastest kernel.
i use the zen kernel because it was the one arch wiki recommends for desktop use and that was what i chose for my first install. apparently there are improvements but i never looked into it lol. in any case i haven't had any problems with it so i just use when i get the chance to decide. tbh i didn't even know there was debate on this but it makes sense lol
Gentoo and a specifically configured & compiled kernel makes it so that my 16yo Acer notebook is still usable, like for some browsing the web, reading and sending emails, and even programming in Neovim.
Back when I first started with Gentoo in the early 00's, you basically had to compile a custom kernel. Nowadays I just use the stable generic gentoo-kernel and worry about customizing other things. I have 64gb of RAM, a few mb of bloat won't hurt me.
It was the first Linux I started with in 2003. Because the CD was included with the magazine. I build the entire OS in 66 hours without sleeping in between. As soon as I had KDE running and no more errors I fell asleep about 15 minutes later.
Next day I compiled Wine so it could run battlefield 1942, immediately. There was almost no difference in frame rate between windows and Gentoo. But the ping time was way shorter about 12 ms then on cable internet with Linux. And 30ms on Windows so online gaming went smoother. Other games were more troublesome with Wine.
Yes, I use Gentoo and create a Unified Kernel Image (UKI) that builds with all the firmware blobs I need and that will boot directly to it from my system's UEFI prompt, so I don't use a bootloader.
Back in the day, I started compiling the kernels as part of learning linux in general, and the habit just stuck. Probably it was also affected by the fact that I had just left windows, and wanted my linux experience to be a complete opposite of how it was there. Also, in early days I used to have some driver issues with my hw that (at least by how it looked to me with my limited linux eperience) were most straight forward to solve by just creating a custom kernel.
For keeping maintainance and troubleshooting easy, I always stick to the defaults where possible. No reason to tinker with kernel stuff as long as everything works fine. At the moment I'm using 6.1 LTS on my Debian/MX machines and 5.15 LTS on Ubuntu-based systems.
I only use a custom kernel on my Surfacebook 2, which is required for things such as touchscreen support, although most of the things it used to do have been upstreamed over the years to the standard kernel thankfully
I don't use Discord, so sadly miss out all the great interactions you guys have. For the custom Kernel, I never needed it on my main PC. And I can't think of any reason why I would do that, other than just for the experience and learning. If performance is the reason, how do you measure this and how impactful is such a custom Kernel at all? If for compatibility with newest hardware, well I can see that. But usually newest hardware is pretty quickly supported, even before the hardware is out there yet. May someone tell me a story when this was really needed? If you are not a driver developer, why would you need to compile your own Kernel? Happy New Year, we just gone through it in Germany.
Ein kleiner Kernel, nur mit den nötigen Komponenten, ist erheblich sicherer als das was wir momentan benutzen. Stell dir es so vor: jede Hardware, egal ob Jahrzente alt, wird von einem Betriebssystem unterstützt dass nur auf deinem Laptop läuft. Nvidia, Intel, AMD, obwohl du Intel hast. Jedes komische Motherboard, obwohl du halt deins hast. Das ist ein riesiges Problem, weil du jeder Zeile Code im Kernel 100% vertrauen musst. Der Kernel kann alles machen, ist komplett uneingeschränkt. Aber da kann man auch bei der Firmware anfangen... Coreboot!
With the eevdf scheduler, my need to use a custom kernel is shrinking by the release on supported hardware. For a purpose-built machine where modularity is not needed (arcade cabinet, etc), or for very old hardware, I would still tailor the kernel modules and hardware support to what it needs and nothing else.
Yeah. I'm using Endeavouros on a macbook with the t2 security chip (macbook 15,2), and thus I need a custom kernel with the drivers shipped out of box or otherwise I can't get squat done.
I run a custom kernel, with a custom patch for the audio drivers on this one laptop that the OEM does not include proper UEFI ACPI _DSD on, also more uptodate than what the distro provides. That said, I am in the middle of modifying that patch to work with recent kernel changes in how those audio drivers work. That said, not really not much point, it is all modular mostly these days, most of the kernel is not loaded most of the time these days. I used to run Gentoo, and well, I've failed to boot enough custom kernels I know how to fix most issues now for it not to be a brick.
Oddly enough, years ago, I was surprised to learn that in the BSD community, building your own Kernel is even less of a thing then it is in the Linux community
The only customization I've done to my kernel on Fedora was to switch KVM from monolithic to modular -supposed to give a small improvement in KVM based VMs
I use a Microsoft Surface. I use the Linux Surface Kernel to have better functionality. But with other laptops I usually just use the default kernel since it works completely fine on most devices.
Matt, I like your style and you're the kind of guy I could sit down on the porch with, bring out some cold drinks, and chat for a couple hours. You're good people. Happy new year to you, sir, and I hope the best for all your upcoming plans! I could care less about the pride factor in any of my Linux setups. I just want to get stuff done, and Linux is a tool, not my life's obsession. I do run Liquorix/Zen simply to speed up my old, slow hardware, but I've never been interested in engineering my own particular kernel recipe, and I really can't imagine ever caring that much to endure the aggravation lol. Running cutting edge(?) kernels on old machines may be counter-intuitive and risky, but I never have problems and frankly I'm looking for any life-extension points (read: performance enhancing) I can find for my equipment.
i use standard kernel but my linux laptops are very very old, and i don't play games on them. if i used my linux machines for modern gaming, i'd probably go with zen or xanmod for fsync reasons.
I'm not gonna mess around setting up custom Kernels. In my opinion the Linux iso installer should give user an choice between energy efficiency kernel, speed kernel, various choices betveen Nvidia drivers, or AMD drivers removed completely from Kernel, because the various apps keep requesting on-demand drivers that are disabled on Kernel level by GPU switcher. Maybe you are travelin and want to boot up Kernel with only 2 CPU cores enabled limited to 400-1200 Mhz, but the Auto-CPUFreg isn't even working together with amd-pstat driver.
I run Slackware on their Huge kernel that has all the drivers installed that they have you start with but then they request that you compile a custom kernel more directly suited to your own system. But I've never bothered to do that, primarily because I've never had any problem using the Huge kernel, so why change it. But now I want to see about getting Slackware ARM installed on my old Raspberry Pi Zero-W, which it has never been released for. I plan to try to use the old installer they have to install Slackware ARM onto the original Raspberry Pi, which I used to have but lost in a move five years ago. This might work, but I'm thinking I might have to modify the kernel to get it to work with the RPi Zero-W. Love the show!
I run a custom kernel as I also run Gentoo but I don't force customization of the kernel onto others same as I don't push others to use Gentoo. My reason for a custom kernel is due the hardware that I use and will not find in any main stream kernel including zen kernels. So yea I have to do my own drivers at times but that's my choice. This video sounds like an I use Arch BTW video. No disrespect for those using Arch but they will let you know all the time that they are using Arch BTW.
Well, secureboot and not signing it can be a bit of a pain to recover from, I've also managed no hard disk drivers and no filesystem drivers... Wait I shouldn't admit these things. But yeah, it is more new users and such. That said, anyone who wants to start down this line, I would recommend they pull the distro's kernel config and learn to compile with that first before doing full custom or worse, from scratch config of the kernel.
Liquorix. Gives me semi-realtime audio recording with no XRuns and the ability to load the Nvidia kernel modules on Debian. Performance suffers with Audio recording using the standard Debian LTS Kernel but I can game. The Debian Real-time Kernel gives me great performance with audio recording but I can't load the Nvidia module into it. Liquorix is halfway between these. Yes performance in other areas suffers but sacrifices have to be made.
A custom Kernel? Why not? Let them have their fun feeling superior to us ordinary people. I myself couldn't be bothered with such, it wouldn't make my distro run better in any noticeable way. But if you wanna make your life more complicated, be my guest.
What if i said that all users needs a custom kernel? If you run a default kernel it has a large attack vector.. Most "hacks" against "Linux" use scripts that are designed with the default kernels as their target. There is some distros that have somewhat added randomness that makes it harder to attack it, thou id argue none of the default kernels are safe for long time running if you run a exposed system (connected to the internet..). Also making a custom kernel for your system means you read up on your systems capabilitys, what it needs and so on.. Usually this makes your system better, and teaches you new stuff. The main issue with compiling a custom kernel is the configuring of the kernel. If your distro of choise does not have a good design it could be a hassle to apply the same settings when you upgrade your kernel. I vote NixOS for the 1st possition when doing this. The Gentoo/Funtoo real strength with custom kernel is not the use flags, it is local portage overlay with a custom kernel ebuild for your hardware. I still preffer the NixOS way, declaring your config with nix flakes for each hardware config is so strong.
I don't compile any more period, its a waste of life and its hard on the hardware. I let others do the work, trust your professionals LOL. Have a Happy New Year 2024!!!
I use a TKG pached Kernel with some things I disabled to shrink the kernel size, I am proud because it took me some time and tries to realise what was necesary or not in the kernel and my hardware
Everybody should use a custom Kernel. Having a single root binary that has ALL the drivers with binary blobs and horrible code from every manufacturer is a security desaster. Distro installers should use the standard "runs everywhere" Kernel, and then build the fitting one for your hardware, for your actual use case. I hope for a future with a microkernel like Redox, and the drivers actually running in userspace, doing what they should and that is it. Just dumping in random code into the huge blob that is the Linux Kernel is so stupid. Literally, Linux itself is the problem. And there currently is no hardening to prevent that, and building a custom Kernel for your hardware (which basically every Windows and Mac user will have as not every driver for every 30yo printer is in the damn kernel) makes so much more sense.
The reason why this is a thing is that Distros suck at having standards. If every distro has different things in userspace, drivers may break. Some use Apparmor, some use SELinux. Its just a mess, and do the easiest way to avoid problems is dumping your shitty code into the one most privileged process on the entire system, the Kernel.
And that is perfectly fine! I do recommend compiling the kernel once at some point in your life, but there is nothing saying you should use it. Throw it away after it's finished; all that matters is experiencing how its done and getting an appreciation for all the work that's been put in.
You forgot to take 2sec to mention custom kernel performance in this video, it's like talking about sport cars without ever mentioning speed. A reasonable person is likely to think this a meme/parody video because of that. I'm assuming what the video actually expressed wasn't the original intent. I'm sending this comment in hope it would be helpful for future videos.
![ละลาย (LALALYE) - DAOU PITTAYA ต้าห์อู๋ พิทยา [OFFICIAL MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wo6r9TgausI/mqdefault.jpg)
Help support the channel and get MERCH! shop.thelinuxcast.org
"I use Arch with a custom kernel btw"
😂 for you sir, best comment ✨🏆
That's next level.
The radical vegan of the Linux world.
@@iamperplexed4695lol yes, they just have to tell you 😂
"i use custom kernel NixOs by the way"
We ALL used to compile our own kernels back in the early days of Linux because we could control what hardware support was compiled into the kernel. But now that kernel modules are a thing and almost all hardware support and features are built as dynamically loaded as kernel modules, it really not necessary anymore at all.
To add to this, back in the late 90s/early 2000s, computers had in the neighborhood of 16mb, 32mb, 64mb etc of RAM, so compiling OUT stuff you didn't need really did have a performance benefit so all that junk didn't have to stay resident in memory - your applications had more room to be resident and not get swapped out. Nowadays with most PCs having gigabytes, the savings is negligible.
As you asked : I use a custom kernel, but it is shipped by my distro. Not "custom" in the sense that I customized it and compiled it myself, but in the sense that Garuda ships with Zen. I've chosen Garuda because, at the time of this choice, I read that Garuda was well fitted to run games. Happy new year Matt and thank you for your videos !
I also use Garuda (Sway). I like it.
There used to be a purpose for things like real-time audio. Now all the interesting patches for that (and most other things that actually matter) are upstreamed into the main kernel. There is no real reason for a custom kernel anymore. 😊
I used a custom kernel in the 90's, because you pretty much had to in order to get support for the hardware and filesystems you had. As far as I recall, configuring and compiling your kernel was actually part of the Slackware install process. These days I wouldn't bother, unless it was some super specific use case, like trying to squeeze more performance out of a limited system.
As for why they tell everybody about it? "I use arch, btw."
I use Zen because I'm a Linux Gamer & liked the optimized approach. I personally haven't seen the evangelizing of Custom Kernels, then again I'm not a huge community guy.
"I run a custom kernel BTW" was "I run arch BTW" before arch
People like to have/do things that make them unique or somehow, different. That's why someone would be so eager to tell others about their custom kernel, at least in most cases I think. Nothing wrong with it, just is how some people tend to be. You are right though, I'm not sure it's something that needs to be evangelized because it could wind up nudging someone toward doing it when there's absolutely no real reason for them to.
When I used Arch I used zen but I'm on Fedora now.
Custom kernel here as well. Only need to strip it once for one piece of hardware and once done compile times go way down so not a bother.
I've never compiled my own kernel, and I'm not willing to pretend to acquire a bit of stolen valor.
Haha 🥂
I used to compile my own kernel simply because my distribution's kernel was very old. Things would happen like my keyboard backlight would not work without the lastest kernel.
My man just described LaTeX users, Emacs users, Arch users... just linux users in general
i use the zen kernel because it was the one arch wiki recommends for desktop use and that was what i chose for my first install. apparently there are improvements but i never looked into it lol. in any case i haven't had any problems with it so i just use when i get the chance to decide. tbh i didn't even know there was debate on this but it makes sense lol
Gentoo and a specifically configured & compiled kernel makes it so that my 16yo Acer notebook is still usable, like for some browsing the web, reading and sending emails, and even programming in Neovim.
Back when I first started with Gentoo in the early 00's, you basically had to compile a custom kernel. Nowadays I just use the stable generic gentoo-kernel and worry about customizing other things. I have 64gb of RAM, a few mb of bloat won't hurt me.
It was the first Linux I started with in 2003. Because the CD was included with the magazine. I build the entire OS in 66 hours without sleeping in between. As soon as I had KDE running and no more errors I fell asleep about 15 minutes later.
Next day I compiled Wine so it could run battlefield 1942, immediately. There was almost no difference in frame rate between windows and Gentoo. But the ping time was way shorter about 12 ms then on cable internet with Linux. And 30ms on Windows so online gaming went smoother. Other games were more troublesome with Wine.
Matt and all The Linux Cast subscribers, Happy and Healthy New Year! I"m looking forward to more excellent and witty content in the coming year.
size de 07
Yes, I use Gentoo and create a Unified Kernel Image (UKI) that builds with all the firmware blobs I need and that will boot directly to it from my system's UEFI prompt, so I don't use a bootloader.
Back in the day, I started compiling the kernels as part of learning linux in general, and the habit just stuck. Probably it was also affected by the fact that I had just left windows, and wanted my linux experience to be a complete opposite of how it was there. Also, in early days I used to have some driver issues with my hw that (at least by how it looked to me with my limited linux eperience) were most straight forward to solve by just creating a custom kernel.
For keeping maintainance and troubleshooting easy, I always stick to the defaults where possible. No reason to tinker with kernel stuff as long as everything works fine. At the moment I'm using 6.1 LTS on my Debian/MX machines and 5.15 LTS on Ubuntu-based systems.
I only use a custom kernel on my Surfacebook 2, which is required for things such as touchscreen support, although most of the things it used to do have been upstreamed over the years to the standard kernel thankfully
I use the zen kernel, but I think it counts in my case cause it's the default kernel for the distro I use.
It's Garuda btw
Same here actually. I also have an LTS kernel installed too, you know, just in case. lol
just the basic mainline Arch kernel for me, with the LTS as backup
I have on many situations in the past but I often don't bother anymore.
Nothing beats a tightly integrated custom kernel without modules. Monolithic master race.
I was using custom linux kernel, but today I mainly use the stock NT kernel.
I don't use Discord, so sadly miss out all the great interactions you guys have.
For the custom Kernel, I never needed it on my main PC. And I can't think of any reason why I would do that, other than just for the experience and learning. If performance is the reason, how do you measure this and how impactful is such a custom Kernel at all? If for compatibility with newest hardware, well I can see that. But usually newest hardware is pretty quickly supported, even before the hardware is out there yet. May someone tell me a story when this was really needed? If you are not a driver developer, why would you need to compile your own Kernel?
Happy New Year, we just gone through it in Germany.
Ein kleiner Kernel, nur mit den nötigen Komponenten, ist erheblich sicherer als das was wir momentan benutzen.
Stell dir es so vor: jede Hardware, egal ob Jahrzente alt, wird von einem Betriebssystem unterstützt dass nur auf deinem Laptop läuft. Nvidia, Intel, AMD, obwohl du Intel hast. Jedes komische Motherboard, obwohl du halt deins hast.
Das ist ein riesiges Problem, weil du jeder Zeile Code im Kernel 100% vertrauen musst. Der Kernel kann alles machen, ist komplett uneingeschränkt.
Aber da kann man auch bei der Firmware anfangen... Coreboot!
With the eevdf scheduler, my need to use a custom kernel is shrinking by the release on supported hardware. For a purpose-built machine where modularity is not needed (arcade cabinet, etc), or for very old hardware, I would still tailor the kernel modules and hardware support to what it needs and nothing else.
Yeah. I'm using Endeavouros on a macbook with the t2 security chip (macbook 15,2), and thus I need a custom kernel with the drivers shipped out of box or otherwise I can't get squat done.
Off Topic - What's your thoughts about Cachy Os ? It's a Arch based distro.
I run a custom kernel, with a custom patch for the audio drivers on this one laptop that the OEM does not include proper UEFI ACPI _DSD on, also more uptodate than what the distro provides. That said, I am in the middle of modifying that patch to work with recent kernel changes in how those audio drivers work.
That said, not really not much point, it is all modular mostly these days, most of the kernel is not loaded most of the time these days. I used to run Gentoo, and well, I've failed to boot enough custom kernels I know how to fix most issues now for it not to be a brick.
Oddly enough, years ago, I was surprised to learn that in the BSD community, building your own Kernel is even less of a thing then it is in the Linux community
The only customization I've done to my kernel on Fedora was to switch KVM from monolithic to modular -supposed to give a small improvement in KVM based VMs
I use basic vanilla debian w/awesomewm. Simple and robust. Easy peasy.
I have been using tkg kernel for gaming. Latency is better and 1% lows are higher. Is there a real difference? Depends on how sweaty gamer you are.
I use a Microsoft Surface. I use the Linux Surface Kernel to have better functionality. But with other laptops I usually just use the default kernel since it works completely fine on most devices.
Xanmod and I can't even remember why I initially started using it. But I've been using it for so long and never had any issues so I'll keep using it.
Matt, I like your style and you're the kind of guy I could sit down on the porch with, bring out some cold drinks, and chat for a couple hours. You're good people. Happy new year to you, sir, and I hope the best for all your upcoming plans!
I could care less about the pride factor in any of my Linux setups. I just want to get stuff done, and Linux is a tool, not my life's obsession. I do run Liquorix/Zen simply to speed up my old, slow hardware, but I've never been interested in engineering my own particular kernel recipe, and I really can't imagine ever caring that much to endure the aggravation lol. Running cutting edge(?) kernels on old machines may be counter-intuitive and risky, but I never have problems and frankly I'm looking for any life-extension points (read: performance enhancing) I can find for my equipment.
i use standard kernel but my linux laptops are very very old, and i don't play games on them.
if i used my linux machines for modern gaming, i'd probably go with zen or xanmod for fsync reasons.
Not exactly custom, but I usually pull and build newer version of the kernel than what the distro ships with
Happy new year bro 🎈 ( even if you don't have a custom kernel )
I'm not gonna mess around setting up custom Kernels. In my opinion the Linux iso installer should give user an choice between energy efficiency kernel, speed kernel, various choices betveen Nvidia drivers, or AMD drivers removed completely from Kernel, because the various apps keep requesting on-demand drivers that are disabled on Kernel level by GPU switcher. Maybe you are travelin and want to boot up Kernel with only 2 CPU cores enabled limited to 400-1200 Mhz, but the Auto-CPUFreg isn't even working together with amd-pstat driver.
I run Slackware on their Huge kernel that has all the drivers installed that they have you start with but then they request that you compile a custom kernel more directly suited to your own system. But I've never bothered to do that, primarily because I've never had any problem using the Huge kernel, so why change it.
But now I want to see about getting Slackware ARM installed on my old Raspberry Pi Zero-W, which it has never been released for. I plan to try to use the old installer they have to install Slackware ARM onto the original Raspberry Pi, which I used to have but lost in a move five years ago.
This might work, but I'm thinking I might have to modify the kernel to get it to work with the RPi Zero-W.
Love the show!
I run a custom kernel as I also run Gentoo but I don't force customization of the kernel onto others same as I don't push others to use Gentoo. My reason for a custom kernel is due the hardware that I use and will not find in any main stream kernel including zen kernels. So yea I have to do my own drivers at times but that's my choice. This video sounds like an I use Arch BTW video. No disrespect for those using Arch but they will let you know all the time that they are using Arch BTW.
I used to, but I'm not willing to invest more time on it, and since I'm barely tech savvy, if it breaks I couldn't fix it.
I might be trying Zen because I'm intrigued to try Waydroid someday.
no, last time I did, I was running Gentoo and the game was no modules support and still have everything working 😎
I don’t use one unless I’m using gentoo honestly. I have no reason to do so unless I want to compile the entire system..
I just wanted a different scheduler.
I haven’t compiled a Kernel since Debian 9. No need. No desire.
Happy New Year! 🌟
My life survives on top of a custom kernel
Yes I use zen kernel and it works perfectly fine
How does one brick their system by messing with kernel? It's not some firmware that cannot be replaced if damaged
I think probably brick was the wrong word to use. Mess up their distro.
Well, secureboot and not signing it can be a bit of a pain to recover from, I've also managed no hard disk drivers and no filesystem drivers... Wait I shouldn't admit these things. But yeah, it is more new users and such. That said, anyone who wants to start down this line, I would recommend they pull the distro's kernel config and learn to compile with that first before doing full custom or worse, from scratch config of the kernel.
Can anybody explain to me what a Kernal is?? Is it just what contains the hardware drivers??
I am pretty sure you can google it yourself.
I Had a Lot of Trouble because of using zen Kernel. I will Stick to the normal, tested Kernel and live with those minimal downsides completely happy
Yeah, tries to get me to do a custom kernel... Ain't nobody got time for Dat. 😅
Have you changed your studio?
Same place but cleaner
I do use a custom kernel on Ubuntu/fedora
creating a custom kernel is fun :D
I have indeed configured and compiled my own kernel :) good learning experience but i also tgink its wholely unnecessary
Love the new poster! Much nicer than Angry Birds🎉
Happy new year matt
And to you. 🎊
Not proud, I have the standard Linux kernel and the zen kernel (zen helps with virtualization)
Love your videos man. 🎉 agree with you on this one.
Liquorix. Gives me semi-realtime audio recording with no XRuns and the ability to load the Nvidia kernel modules on Debian. Performance suffers with Audio recording using the standard Debian LTS Kernel but I can game. The Debian Real-time Kernel gives me great performance with audio recording but I can't load the Nvidia module into it.
Liquorix is halfway between these. Yes performance in other areas suffers but sacrifices have to be made.
I use arch btw
Happy new year btw
Happy new year
You convinced me to brake my system with a custom kernel! (I'ma do a backup before :rofl)
Have fun 😀
Those who develop Linux are all custom Kernel users themselves, I'd think
If someone can create a custom kernel for their machine, more power to them lol. I do not possess that sort of skill.
A custom Kernel? Why not? Let them have their fun feeling superior to us ordinary people. I myself couldn't be bothered with such, it wouldn't make my distro run better in any noticeable way. But if you wanna make your life more complicated, be my guest.
I use a custom kernel.....
On my pixel phone (cuz my rom uses one)
This intro is Gold nerd status.
no, i use only regualr and stable kernal
What if i said that all users needs a custom kernel?
If you run a default kernel it has a large attack vector..
Most "hacks" against "Linux" use scripts that are designed with the default kernels as their target.
There is some distros that have somewhat added randomness that makes it harder to attack it,
thou id argue none of the default kernels are safe for long time running if you run a exposed system (connected to the internet..).
Also making a custom kernel for your system means you read up on your systems capabilitys,
what it needs and so on..
Usually this makes your system better,
and teaches you new stuff.
The main issue with compiling a custom kernel is the configuring of the kernel.
If your distro of choise does not have a good design it could be a hassle to apply the same settings when you upgrade your kernel.
I vote NixOS for the 1st possition when doing this.
The Gentoo/Funtoo real strength with custom kernel is not the use flags,
it is local portage overlay with a custom kernel ebuild for your hardware.
I still preffer the NixOS way,
declaring your config with nix flakes for each hardware config is so strong.
I don't compile any more period, its a waste of life and its hard on the hardware. I let others do the work, trust your professionals LOL. Have a Happy New Year 2024!!!
i like that dude
Happy New Year, kiddo. Hope you find more things to get angry about in 2024 :)
I use a TKG pached Kernel with some things I disabled to shrink the kernel size, I am proud because it took me some time and tries to realise what was necesary or not in the kernel and my hardware
I use Pop os by the way hahah
Everybody should use a custom Kernel. Having a single root binary that has ALL the drivers with binary blobs and horrible code from every manufacturer is a security desaster.
Distro installers should use the standard "runs everywhere" Kernel, and then build the fitting one for your hardware, for your actual use case.
I hope for a future with a microkernel like Redox, and the drivers actually running in userspace, doing what they should and that is it.
Just dumping in random code into the huge blob that is the Linux Kernel is so stupid. Literally, Linux itself is the problem. And there currently is no hardening to prevent that, and building a custom Kernel for your hardware (which basically every Windows and Mac user will have as not every driver for every 30yo printer is in the damn kernel) makes so much more sense.
The reason why this is a thing is that Distros suck at having standards. If every distro has different things in userspace, drivers may break. Some use Apparmor, some use SELinux. Its just a mess, and do the easiest way to avoid problems is dumping your shitty code into the one most privileged process on the entire system, the Kernel.
Nope. Not in any of my 4 Linux laptops.
And that is perfectly fine! I do recommend compiling the kernel once at some point in your life, but there is nothing saying you should use it. Throw it away after it's finished; all that matters is experiencing how its done and getting an appreciation for all the work that's been put in.
no
It is easy to compile the kernel on all platforms..
custom kernels are as useful as "windows distros" yes, they exist. If you're brave enough to download a sketchy iso that is.
Vanilla kernel is fine
You forgot to take 2sec to mention custom kernel performance in this video, it's like talking about sport cars without ever mentioning speed.
A reasonable person is likely to think this a meme/parody video because of that.
I'm assuming what the video actually expressed wasn't the original intent.
I'm sending this comment in hope it would be helpful for future videos.