This does not really apply to those using antiX-Wheezy ie with stable repos.

For those using testing or sid repos which kernel do you think we should ship antiX with and why?

I have been testing things with BitJam to get other kernels to work LIVE and frugally from hd or usb device and so far we have manged to get the Debian kernel and liquorix kernels to work correctly. At the moment the siduction kernel is not working frugally or from usb, but I'm sure we can get this to work.

In my tests, antiX testing with the JWM alpha2 build, this is what I get. VB=Virtualbox.

antiX-3.12.3-486 kernel VB:28.5MB FRUGAL: 58.9MB USB: 58.4
Debian-3.2-486 kernel VB:29.1MB FRUGAL: 43.0MB USB: 41.6
liquorix-3.12.4-686 kernel VB:30.1MB FRUGAL: 45.2MB USB: 44.2

antiX-3.12.3-amd64 kernel VB:42.6MB FRUGAL: 105.4MB USB: 105.0
Debian-3.2-amd64 kernel VB:42.0MB FRUGAL: 84.6MB USB: 83.2
liquorix-3.12.4-amd64 kernel VB:41.5MB FRUGAL: 74.9MB USB: 73.7

antiX and antiX-debian kernels total iso size is almost the same, but with liquorix kernel it is c15MB bigger.

That is a toughy, because to folks like me. The best kernel is the one that powers my hardware and is not missing any firmware.

Low ram usage is fine and all. It kinda screws the pooch though if a wireless module is missing. So the best Huh?

Going by:

but with liquorix kernel it is c15MB bigger.

liquorix-3.12.4-686 kernel VB:30.1MB FRUGAL: 45.2MB USB: 44.2

liquorix-3.12.4-amd64 kernel VB:41.5MB FRUGAL: 74.9MB USB: 73.7

Of course. Better more educated minds than mine may recommend some other which would be par for the course for me.
I figure the bigger size means more hardware can be enabled. If I am wrong. Oh well. It won't be the 1st time.
Edit:
Here I go. Backing up and regrouping
Never thought of what SamK mentioned about being able to download and install other kernels through smxi.
Which is funny because on my emachine. That was exactly what I had to do as well as on my M&A Companion Netbook
while testing kernels. So plus 1 from me on what SamK stated. As long as a land line can hit the net.

anticapitalista wrote:...which kernel do you think we should ship antiX with and why?

I favour shipping with the antiX kernel.

* Because you know exactly how it is configured, it is a known reference point. Troubleshooting from a known position is much easier than trying to work from a completely unknown position.

* I've seen the other two kernels (Debian and liquorix) both downloadable and installable via smxi. Is the antiX kernel also available via the same mechanism? Users opting for the rolling release are tacitly indicating a willingness to try other options.

* Although not guaranteed the lessons learned with the antiX-Testing kernel might filter through to the antiX-Stable kernel. The more widely it is tested the more representative the feedback will be.

Whilst I am on Wheezy, I think it would make sense to use our own kernel out of preference, that way you could fine tune it ready for the next testing/stable release.
If you are into kernel hacking, you are probably able to compile one with everything you want for yourself anyway.

SamK wrote:I favour shipping with the antiX kernel.
* Because you know exactly how it is configured, it is a known reference point. Troubleshooting from a known position is much easier than trying to work from a completely unknown position

I agree with SamK. Knowing the kernel config (via /proc/config.gz) is a very compelling feature. I don't understand why anyone would ship a kernel without this feature. Doing so seems to go against the spirit of Free and open source software.

I have no real preference one way or the other, I do not like the liquorix kernels, as they don't give ME anything the others do not, and imo, they tend to feel slow, but other users might get something from them?

Some of the antix kernels have been great (for me) and I would probably use those, as they tend to be faster booting, which is something I like, being a netbook user.