How do I downgrade kernel on 12.10?

[DuckHook]

May I use your text on my website...

Hi Pjotr,

Have visited your site and must compliment you. I really admire it and intend to direct new users there who may need introductions to Ubuntu. Will PM you with my reply.

[NikTh]

Questions:

1. The current version of my installed kernel is 32 bit or 64 bit?

2. linux-image-3.2.0.24-generic is a 32 bit or 64 bit kernel? (Please bear in mind that I installed the 64 bit edition of Ubuntu 12.10)

3. If linux-image-3.2.0.24-generic is a 32 bit kernel, where can I find the 64 bit one?

4. Is it advisable to downgrade my current kernel version to an older one?

5. Could someone provide detailed instructions as to what specific commands I must issue at the terminal window?.

Hi ,
the kernel architecture depends on system architecture. So if you have 64bit Ubuntu the equivalent kernel should installed.

As for the kernel downgrade , yes you can install 3.2.X-xx kernel from Precise , but I tend to agree with Pjotr123 , that would be better if you do a fresh install of 12.04 LTS.

Kernels usually patched and examined for specific versions. Kernel 3.2 have been examined and tested for Ubuntu 12.04 LTS and not 12.10.
Recently Kernel 3.5.X-xx examined and tested and backported to 12.04.1 LTS . Patched properly for 12.04 LTS and now is available for anyone who wants to install it. The only thing must run is $ sudo apt-get install linux-image-generic-lts-quantal , from a terminal.

What (in general) means a newer kernel.
New features , new security updates , new modules , better hardware support , but can also means new bugs..

So if you want to test how the kernel 3.2 acts to your system , install it and see.

But better would be an installation of 12.04 LTS

Thanks

[The Spectre]

I appreciate your sentiments, but must disagree on the strategy...

One of the advantages of running Linux is not having to weigh down your system with anti-virus. Rather counterproductive to move to a virus-free OS if we end up running all of the AV crud anyway. And it adds insult to injury to do so for the sake of an OS that actually chooses to be security-deficient. If a Windows user can't be bothered to guard their own system against threats that are the result of shortcomings in their own OS, then the efforts of the comparatively small base of Linux users isn't going to make a shred of difference. Such Windows users will get infected from somewhere else. In fact, I believe that Windows has to lie in the bed it makes for itself. I'm not trying to be harsh here: it's more the principle that consequences must fall to the appropriate party or else there is no incentive for change. Therefore, unless a Linux user is running a public web/mail/file server (clearly not your average user), I go so far as to actively discourage the installation of antivirus because doing so continues to silently endorse one of the worst aspects of OS design.

In some aspects I agree with you but unfortunately when my friends get a Computer Virus or some other type of computer problem they call me.
And one of them is over 1200 Miles away (Thank God for TemViewer).

That is what I like about ClamTk it doesn't run in the background using up system resources it is a on-demand Virus Scanner.

[Pjotr123]

unfortunately when my friends get a Computer Virus or some other type of computer problem they call me.
And one of them is over 1200 Miles away (Thank God for TemViewer).

Well, I've simply stopped giving Windows support years ago....

I address Windows support requests with the following line, which proved to be both polite and effective: "As I've been a full-time Linux user for years, my Windows knowledge has faded and become outdated. So you better seek your Windows assistance elsewhere. However, I'd be glad to help you if you want to install Linux on your computer!"

That takes care of 95 % of the Windows help requests I get. The remaining 5 % wants to give Linux a try....

[regency]

I would recommend that you first install a virtual machine--itself a very fruitful learning exercise--and then a minimal install of Ubuntu 12.04. A minimal install is a stripped down command-line-only installation of the basic Linux OS. No GUI, no bells and whistles, no hand-holding. It can be found here. By using a virtual machine, you are free to bork the installation that is running within it with no consequences to your base install. It's a very liberating feeling.

Thanks pal for your advice.

I have a number of spare hard disk drives at my disposal. I installed Ubuntu on one of them. If I mess things up on it, I will just have to reformat and reinstall it. Well, to be honest, I have reinstalled it at least 5 times, so I am quite familiar with the instalation routines.

[DuckHook]

I have reinstalled it at least 5 times...

Just to be clear, a virtual machine actually runs within your existing installation of Ubuntu. In fact, many users will run it as a separate window on their desktop. The second operating system then runs inside this virtual machine window. It doesn't have to be Ubuntu either. You can run Ubuntu minimal inside Ubuntu regular, or Ubuntu inside Windows, or Windows inside Ubuntu. Any combination and variation you desire. I've read that some members of this forum have run a nested virtual machine--that is to say, one virtual machine inside another virtual machine inside of their base operating system, but that's just experimenting with things and showing off--not very practical.

In your case, the benefit of running a minimal Ubuntu virtual machine inside of your regular installation is that you get the benefit of the GUI outside of the virtual machine window for all of your day-to-day activities, but anything that you do inside the virtual machine forces you to use command line only. So, for example, you can follow instructions on a web browser outside the virtual machine and then type those instructions into your Linux session inside the virtual machine. If you, say, inadvertently delete all of your system files, it isn't a disaster because you've deleted only the virtual installation; not your real one. You may already know all of this, in which case, apologies for going on for so long.

[cariboo]

Thanks pal for your advice.

I have a number of spare hard disk drives at my disposal. I installed Ubuntu on one of them. If I mess things up on it, I will just have to reformat and reinstall it. Well, to be honest, I have reinstalled it at least 5 times, so I am quite familiar with the instalation routines.

If you really want to learn, I'd suggest trying to repair what you broke, instead of re-installing. One thing that is a great help, is to make a backup copy of a configuration file, before you make any changes, that way you can easily revert back to the original if something goes wrong. You can use the following command to create a backup of the file you want to change:

cp somefile.conf somefile.conf.bak

If you aren't the file owner, you need to add sudo before the command eg:

sudo cp /etc/samba/smb.conf /etc/samba/smb.conf.bak

[The Spectre]

Well, I've simply stopped giving Windows support years ago....

I address Windows support requests with the following line, which proved to be both polite and effective: "As I've been a full-time Linux user for years, my Windows knowledge has faded and become outdated. So you better seek your Windows assistance elsewhere. However, I'd be glad to help you if you want to install Linux on your computer!"

That takes care of 95 % of the Windows help requests I get. The remaining 5 % wants to give Linux a try....

I won't be able to play that card for quite a while.
I switched from Windows to Linux only about three months ago.

Plus I still have a Windows 7 HTPC that I am currently using.
I might switch it over to Ubuntu also when the final of XBMC 12 is released.

I have been trying to get some of my friends to switch to Ubuntu and I think a couple of them are about ready to make the switch but the others have less of an open mind to try something new.

I actually had a hard time convincing one of my friends to switch from Windows Vista to Windows 7 a few years back.