or in other words, if i installed antix, and then installed the debian stable kernel, would stuff break all over the place?

what if i used the debian testing kernel instead? i know this isnt a best practice, and i know what a bad idea it is in other distros, but what about this one? anything in particular to watch for?

i would almost definitely use the relevant debian(refracta) initrd as well, which means it wouldnt have the rocket-like bootup of antix (sadly.) id rather use the antix kernel and initrd really, but not with a kernel with blobs (like antix base,) and not with a kernel that blocks blobs from loading either.

im not really asking anyone to predict the actual outcome (it might work a lot better than youd think) but **perhaps someone can tell me any significant differences between the kernel antix uses and the one debian uses.**

i know this post seems to ask a few things, but that specific question is the main theme here-- i tried to provide context also.

========= SCRAPER REMOVED AN EMBEDDED LINK HERE ===========
url was"3-14-4-kernel-t5066-s15.html#p35654"
linktext was:"Thu May 22, 2014 -- topic"3.14.4 kernel""
====================================

skidoo wrote:Is there an antix documentation page which enumerates the antix kernel"differences, compared to stock debian kernel(s)" ?

If no doc is available, how about a post mentioning any remarkable omissions (present in stock Debian kernels but removed for antiX kernels)

In the linked topic, you can see where I asked similar... was ignored... persistently asked again, using slightly less offensive (?) wording... and was handed a link to"kernelnewbies.org".

From reading kernelnewbies, I learned that we can see full details regarding the configuration parameters of the installed kernel. My takewaway, from skimreading the
/boot/config-exact-kernel-name-here file, was that antiX kernel apparently enables support for a lot of legacy stuffs which are NOT supported in the"stock debian stable" kernel. Yay, except we (all) wind up with a comparatively bloated kernel, for the sake of accommodating the least common denominator?

FWIW, folks have repeatedly mentioned swapping in liquorix kernel in place of the antiX (and MX inherits same?) kernel.

If you copypaste your (devuan?) /boot/config-exact-kernel-name-here file to pastebin.com and share the link, I'm curious to diff that against my antiX config.

if youre really curious about the kernel in fig os i will gladly assist you, but fig os comes from refracta, refracta comes from devuan and devuan comes from debian jessie, and no one in that chain touches the kernel--

its stock debian. the initrd is different for reasons you can surely guess, but the kernel is untouched. nonetheless look for a listing as a pm.

There was a time when we didn't make our own kernels and relied on Debian and other kernels.  Then we hit problems where we needed a newer kernel to fix some bug or to work on some newer system and we were stuck.  We used to need the aufs patch to boot live but overlayfs is in the main branch so the aufs patch is no longer needed.  Now we also use the fbcondecor patch to get background images on the virtual consoles.   I also remember a time when we were able to make our kernel significantly smaller than the stock Debian kernel which lowered our RAM footprint.

As skidoo said, all of the differences can be seen in a visual diff of the /boot/config-* files but this is usually way too much information.  Although it may help illustrate why there may be no simple and easy answer to your question.

Our sister distro, MX (which we also work on), uses stock Debian kernels so a stock Debian kernel should be fine unless you need features or bug fixes, or hardware support from a more recent kernel.  The antiX distro is closer to the bleeding edge than MX is which is why it makes sense for us to have the flexibility of building our own kernels instead of waiting for others to build something that might work for us.   It is like we are the R&D distro or the staging distro and MX is the production distro.   This sort of echoes Debian's"testing" and"stable" but we also add a lot of value.   MX is based on Debian stable but they have a large"community repo" where they backport a bunch of packages from testing.   The antiX distro follows Debian testing.  The latest antiX release got delayed because we needed to fix a bunch of bugs in testing in order to make our release more stable.    The Debian testing repo periodically becomes Debian stable so I may not have the details exactly right but I've given you the gist.

If you want to try to use different kernels then you may want to try it out on the live system.  Install several kernels and then run live-kernel-updater.  It will force you to run live-remaster and then let you select the kernel you want to use.  If booting with the new kernel  totally fails, you can plug the usb into a different system (that has live-kernel-updater) and switch back to the original kernel or a different one.

For installing kernels, I suggest you use cli-aptiX instead of Synaptic.  I think cli-aptiX is better at this but YMMV.

Here are the directions for using live-kernel-updater on just about any Linux distro.  First install git.  For Debian based distros this is"sudo apt-get install git".   Then do:

thank you both, my question is very much answered and im very pleased with the answers as well.