MX Kernel vs Antix Kernel [Solved]

[sagsaw]

What is the difference between the MX kernel and the Antix Kernel?

[Stevo]

Lots of stuff--if you're not specific about what you're looking for, I'll just say one is based on the upstream Debian kernel and backported by MX, and one is packaged by antiX.

[anticapitalista]

The antiX kernel is heavily based on siduction kernel.

[figueroa]

How is the Debian kernel changed (configuration and patches) by MX devs?

What source the antiX kernel based on? How is that source kernel changed by antiX devs?

Is this documented somewhere to help users who need to try different kernels make better choices?

[anticapitalista]

How is the Debian kernel changed (configuration and patches) by MX devs?

What source the antiX kernel based on? How is that source kernel changed by antiX devs?

Is this documented somewhere to help users who need to try different kernels make better choices?

antiX builds its kernel directly from kernel.org ie vanilla.
It adds 5 patches, one being fbcondecor (not used in Debian/MX kernels).
Debian adds lots of patches.

Full list -
debian/version.patch
debian/uname-version-timestamp.patch
debian/iwlwifi-do-not-request-unreleased-firmware.patch
4200_fbcondecor.patch
mt7601u_fix.patch

The config file can be found by downloading the linux-image deb, opening it and the conf file is in /boot.

[Stevo]

If you're running a particular kernel, you can also see its config in /boot. The only change I make to the Debian config is to boost the kernel context switch frequency from 250 Hz to 1000. Antix has the same setting.

Debian has a huge number of patches, too many to list here. If you want, you can download the debian tarball from the repo, extract it, and look in debian/patches, as well as the lengthy changelog folder.

http://mxrepo.com/mx/repo/pool/main/l/linux/

Again, it would probably help if you let us know what you're looking for.

[figueroa]

antiX builds its kernel directly from kernel.org ie vanilla.
It adds 5 patches, one being fbcondecor (not used in Debian/MX kernels).
Debian adds lots of patches. (etc)

Thank you -- that's exactly the kind of background information I was looking for.

[figueroa]

If you're running a particular kernel, you can also see its config in /boot. The only change I make to the Debian config is to boost the kernel context switch frequency from 250 Hz to 1000. Antix has the same setting.
...
Again, it would probably help if you let us know what you're looking for.

Between you and anticapitalista, my intellectual curiosity has been satisfied. I build my own kernel's in Gentoo from gentoo-sources, highly tailored to the various hardware I'm using. Just looking for tips of the trade.

I think MX and antiX are doing a fine job. I don't get a lot of random baloney in the kernel logs like I do from Mint.

But, I don' t know what the OP had in mind when he started the thread.

[BitJam]

I build my own kernel's in Gentoo from gentoo-sources, highly tailored to the various hardware I'm using. Just looking for tips of the trade.

I build kernels from gentoo-sources using the config from the closest antiX kernel. They often work great but sometimes they don't boot.

[JayM]

But, I don' t know what the OP had in mind when he started the thread.

I'm guessing he or she saw all of the antiX and other kernels in the repos and wondered what the difference was between antiX kernels, the MX/Ubunto kernels and the Liquorix kernels. If you don't know, it can be a bewildering number of choices.

So basically it's this, if I understand correctly:

• The Ubuntu kernels are based on pre-patched sources from Ubuntu Stable with any further patches needed for MX applied, and their goal is to provide stability, compatibility with a wide variety of computer systems including older ones, and lower power consumption (i.e. laptop batteries)

• The antiX kernels are based on source obtained directly from kernel.org (Linus Torvalds and his Merry Band of Devs) and patched entirely by the antiX devs, with the same objectives as above

• The Liquorix kernels are (probably) also based on kernel.org source with the objective of being as fast and low-latency as possible, with the intention of replacing distros' kernels in Linux applications where performance is more critical than stability, low power consumption or support for older hardware, such as in audio/video processing, and perhaps gaming on new hardware.

Patches also include those for known vulnerabilities such as Spectre and Meltdown.