What kernel is Sup Forums running on?

What kernel is Sup Forums running on?

Other urls found in this thread:

manjaro.org/about/
linuxfromscratch.org)
lwn.net/Articles/708891/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Botnet NT

Manjaro is for retards who can't install Arch

4.4

NT 6.1

Arch is for retards who think they're smart.

Bravo!

4.13

I'll probably reinstall everything once mint comes out with a version on the 4.15 kernel and I've got an AMD card to run wayland

*autistic screeching*

>4.10.0-37-generic

>not using a real time kennel

4.13.8-xanmod14
Not even sure if it is any better than the default in debian or better than liquorix, but hasn't caused me any problems, seems to be more tuned towards performance and includes more drivers.

>he still thinks Majaro is just repackaged Arch

Do you even feel any difference?

Om your desktop?

...

linux 4.13.8

manjaro.org/about/
>However, Arch is also aimed at more experienced or technically-minded users. As such, it is generally considered to be beyond the reach of those who lack the technical expertise (or persistence) required to use it.

you have to install lfs(linuxfromscratch.org) if you really want to learn how linux works.

Not really, but I haven't looked for it at all. Nowadays I use my system for light workloads only and haven't run any benchmarks or anything.
Still, I don't think there is any harm in it either, so I keep using it.

:3

Linux 3.18.52

>want to compile my own kernel
>cant be arsed to read through thousands of flags

I'm too comfy in bed to take a screenshot from my desk

4.14.0-rc3.drm-next-4.15-dc2+ #1 SMP Sat Oct 14 10:48:53 CEST 2017 x86_64 GNU/Linux

4.13.7-2-ck

4.13.4-200.fc26.x86_64

you could just build a vanilla kernel, it's not like linux comes entirely unconfigured
or you can take a config from another distro if you're happy with the way it's setup

linux is for retards

# uname -r
4.13.5-200.fc26.x86_64

Yes, a desktop is perfect for a real time kernel

>not realizing real-time runs slower

lulz

Linux 3.10 will never die. Thanks for nothing Qualcomm.

t. shit eating phoneposter

NT10

>drm-next

For what purpose?

Win9x

...

That's not a kernel.

...

It's still the best Win9x OS.

Note the -dc part.

If you want to use an RX Vega on linux currently, you need amd's "display code", which hasn't been mainlined yet.
If we're lucky and Linus doesn't block it, I won't have to run a custom kernel anymore by the time 4.15 rolls out for real.

Has canonical rolled it into 17.10?

Oh right, you mean because of this shit?

lwn.net/Articles/708891/

Stuff like this is why I'm a die hard i915 user. People talk a lot of shit about Intel these days but their Linux graphics people really know how to get stuff mainlined.

AMD's programmers really fucking suck at their jobs. They can't follow kernel standards, and they can't develop gpu drivers.

Open sourcing their shit is the best thing they can do, considering the lack of talent.

I 100% predict massive job layoffs in AMD's gpu driver division once the move to open-source is done.

...

4.13.7-1-zen

I fell for the Zen meme

Still better than Nvidia. I will take shit code and some docs over no code and no docs every time.

Everyone should hope that AMD keeps their paid devs around, no matter how bad they might be, because the "community" just does not have the resources or inclination to write full featured drivers for other people's new hardware. Like it or not dealing with new silicon bullshit requires full time pay that only the chipmaker can and will provide.

It's 1000% better than nvidia

nvidia isn't even TRYING

This. AMD's programmers get access to resources that the general public doesn't, which means that we get code which is written for platform optimizations that we would not have gotten otherwise.

If it's FOSS, other developers can adapt the code and make it fit the standards, but that's only half the work. We should be really grateful that AMD's engineers are working on FOSS code.

17 (even)

>Compile with as little features as possible, basically enough to read the file system on the boot drive
>Something doesn't work, look up what option you need, recompile
>Repeat until everything you need just werks

...

Linux konrad-pc 4.13.7-1-ARCH #1 SMP PREEMPT Sat Oct 14 20:13:26 CEST 2017 x86_64 GNU/Linux

...

...

Solus on 4.13

>GNU/Hurr
>Mach

I thought L4 was the new hotness for Hurd.

NT sadly.

4.13.5 as well because I haven't rebooted in about two weeks

Latest and great by Arch.

Just reformatted because i wanted to do full disk encryption, would want to eventually build a custom config and run linux-zen or ck at some point.

yeah if you're a retard that plans to use linux without a package manager.

unironically Gentoo is as deep as you need to go to learn how it works, arch and slackware are closely behind.

4.13.6-gentoo. I wanted to update anyway, thanks for reminding me.

nigger
you literally just copy your distros config
and run make && make install.

Ofc that doesn't accomplish much since you're just using your distro config

NT 10.

Didn't mean to (You)

Linux FBI 4.13.8-1-hardened #1 SMP PREEMPT Wed Oct 18 16:29:54 EDT 2017 x86_64 GNU/Linux

6.2 GENERIC.MP#151 amd64

kernel.org git head snapshot compiled every other hour.

Linux gnuuu 4.13.7-1-ARCH #1 SMP PREEMPT Sat Oct 14 20:13:26 CEST 2017 x86_64 GNU/Linux

Same here
Zen is a good meme, actually

Linux memepad 4.13.7-1-ARCH #1 SMP PREEMPT Sat Oct 14 20:13:26 CEST 2017 x86_64
GNU/Linux
I keep my arch installs up to date.

this
what's the point in caring about security at all when your laptop has firmware level backdoors

lowers the count of corporations and shit having your data. the IME backdoor means only intel and the government can have your data, and they don't sell it to advertiser shit unlike Micro$oft

Linux oe-xps13 4.9.0-4-amd64 #1 SMP Debian 4.9.51-1 (2017-09-28) x86_64 GNU/Linux

I'm pretty sure most advertisement companies microsoft sells user data to are really just fronts for government agencies anyway

>follow simple instructions on a website
>being smart
choose one

4.9

Windows 95 and 98 didn't use the NT kernel. The first Windows OS to use NT was Windows 2000.
You can thank me later

You have to admit though that not being able to follow simple instructions on the internet means you're stupid.

callme crazy but i think first one was this one

and dont tell me "but windows 2000 was the first one more for the home user bwawbawawwa" because that not true people use windows 2000 and windows me that time, same way the use windows 95/98 and NT 4.0 in that years...

Arch for retards who cant install gentoo

Gentoo is for retards who can't install OpenBSD

OpenBSD is easier to install than Arch

4.4.0

what does that make you for being unable to follow basic instructions?

Jesus christ aren't you guys on BSD 11?

freebsd is on 11
openbsd 6 was released earlier this month iirc

It's not. Hurd depends on a lot of Mach-specific behavior and requires serious effort to port to anything else.
So much for the "superior" microkernel design.

...

bloated botnet

If you're talking about the 2mb memory use, most of that is the physical and virtual memory map (it's a bitmap). don't know how to do it better. I know linux uses a linked list but I have no idea how it does that without memory allocation and without having to do a fuck load of mapping pages in and out as it traverses the list (and mapping isn't even an option for the virtual memory bitmap).

Oh shit u rite

no, NT 3.1 was the first NT
and 2000 wasn't for home users, there was a beta called Neptune which was basically a home version of 2000, but they didn't release it. XP home was the first NT for home users

Even though it wasn't, i ran 2000 on my desktop until xp was stable enough.

Holy shit was it better than 9x, so much crap just wiped out of the kernel because it wasnt for bargain basement consumer trash.

not being aimed at home users doesn't mean it couldn't be used for home purposes
just as many people ran XP pro on home machines

OpenBSD is for retards that can't build Linux From Scratch

-- unless you just mean that there's nothing really missing from 2000 that would make it suitable for home users
which is close to true, unlike NT4 which didn't even have plug and play, 2000 was pretty much parity with windows 98 as far as basic features went
but there was one major factor, it was not DOS-based. plenty of people in 1999 still ran DOS programs, which 98 handled much better than 2000

I wanted a stable desktop and internet over DOS support. it was well worth it.

fair enough, i'm not criticising your choice, i knew a few people who jumped on 2000 for similar reasons
i was still pretty young at the time, and had old hardware, so i was still playing DOS games often, so it wasn't for me
all i'm saying was that it wasn't quite the right time to drop native DOS support, or at least it would have been early, and you know microsoft, they leave things alone as long as they can get away with. XP didn't improve DOS support much, if at all, but it was pretty clear after ME that DOS-based windows was a dead end

>Linux w520 4.13.6-1-default #1 SMP PREEMPT Fri Oct 13 09:38:39 UTC 2017 (a8d2202) x86_64 GNU/Linux