Kernel & intel mbp
-
Hi, I'm new here. Is soplos tested on old intel mbps? It's clear to me that the new kernel won't have a problem on mbps 5.5 and 9.2. I tried live usb soplos tyson on mbps 10.1 and 11.5 and they worked perfectly. Should I try reinstalling? I have debian trixie 13.7 there (on mbps 11.5 with custom kernel CuerdOS 6.18.5.). I've tested that vanilla kernels 7+ are system killers on both Fedora and Debian.
-
Hi Dan669, welcome!
Yes, Soplos has been validated on several Apple Mac models — we've tested it successfully on a number of MacBook/MacBook Pro generations, including live-USB sessions on the 10,1 and 11,5 you mention.
One thing wasn't clear to us: could you clarify what you mean about the 5,5 and 9,2? You say it's clear to you the new kernel "won't have a problem" there, but then mention that kernel 7+ has been a "system killer" on both Fedora and Debian for you — so we're not sure if you're saying those two older models are fine, or if you're actually worried they might hit the same issue. Could you spell out exactly what problem you're seeing (or expecting), and on which model?
Also, could you tell us more about that "custom kernel CuerdOS 6.18.5" you have running on vanilla Debian Trixie on the 11,5? Is that just the CuerdOS kernel package installed standalone, or something else?
-
It's about the architecture. The old unibody mbps generally don't have a problem with new kernels. Even on my mbp 5.5 I ran vanilla Debian kernel 7.0.9 with btrfs without any problems. mbp 10.1 and 11.5 are much more sensitive to the new truncated kernels 7+. That's why I locked the 6.12 lts kernels as a backup and use the locked 6.18 lts as production (on the mbp custom CuerdOS kernel 6.18.5, which works perfectly). Moreover, I'm in a specific situation because I have oclp and dualboot Sequoia / Trixie on the disk.
-
I had a complete CuerdOS installation on that mbp 11.5. Then I discovered what was hidden inside the system and started cleaning it up to a pure Debian Trixie. In the end I was left with pure Trixie, where I wanted to use a vanilla kernel, but after trying it out, the custom CuerdOS kernel turned out to be more responsive, so I locked it down and am using it as a production kernel.
Those old unobody pieces are really trouble-free with the latest systems and kernels I've tried so far.
I had an interesting problem with MX Linux 25.1, which wouldn't even boot on my mbp 10.1 and 11.5. I think it's because of the MX Linux boot loader settings, which confuse the oclp writes in nvram and the boot just gets confused and stops... -
dan ~ lsblk
NAME MAJ:MIN RM SIZE RO TYPE MOUNTPOINTS
sda 8:0 0 465,9G 0 disk
├─sda1 8:1 0 476,8M 0 part
├─sda2 8:2 0 119,2G 0 part
├─sda3 8:3 0 500M 0 part /boot/efi
├─sda4 8:4 0 1G 0 part /boot
├─sda5 8:5 0 18G 0 part [SWAP]
├─sda6 8:6 0 70G 0 part /
└─sda7 8:7 0 256,8G 0 part /home
zram0 253:0 0 7,8G 0 disk [SWAP]
dan ~ lsblk -f
NAME FSTYPE FSVER LABEL UUID FSAVAIL FSUSE% MOUNTPOINTS
sda
├─sda1 vfat FAT32 EFI E36D-1923
├─sda2 apfs 389b1468-aa7a-461d-aa4e-03c036965539
├─sda3 vfat FAT32 DEBIAN 0B7E-D33A 491,9M 1% /boot/efi
├─sda4 ext4 1.0 13923bbe-4a10-488e-a638-abe3f7e49e9b 436,7M 48% /boot
├─sda5 swap 1 63b8fa75-36b3-43ba-9170-a8ccf3f7f527 [SWAP]
├─sda6 ext4 1.0 ab12187f-e433-4fc3-aff8-8c26de474feb 46,8G 26% /
└─sda7 ext4 1.0 HOME 5494ca87-e106-45ed-8c93-bfddc22c71f6 193,4G 18% /home
zram0 swap 1 50b32861-f03c-479a-842d-29005e8fdda9 [SWAP]
I use an atypical partition table (after Anaconda "ate" my oclp EFI). I have my oclp EFI and Debian strictly separated, so the OC loader only safely detects the second system via the apfs partition. -
Hi Dan669,
Quick correction first: if it's Debian's kernel package, it's not really "vanilla" even without any Soplos changes — Debian patches its kernels too, it's just a different patch set than ours.
On the OCLP question: as long as Soplos's GRUB goes into its own dedicated ESP (which is exactly what your partition table already does — separate FAT32 ESP for Debian, untouched from your macOS/OCLP one), the installer shouldn't touch your Mac's bootloader. The risk with things like Anaconda or MX Linux is usually about what gets written to NVRAM as the default boot entry, not the ESP contents themselves — and since you already keep those strictly separate and rely on OC detecting the second system via the APFS partition rather than NVRAM boot order, you should be in the same safe setup you already have with Debian. Go ahead and give it a try this weekend.
-
Great! thanks for the quick reply. now I'll let rsync work for a while and I'm really looking forward to the first launch of Tyson. If you want some tests and reports in the future, I can also use mbp 5.5 (8GB ram, 500GB 7200rpm wd hdd), it's a lowend lab. and mbp 9.2, (16GB ram, 512GB p210 dram-less ssd), where there is enough disk space.
-
Thanks for the offer, Dan669! Good news is we've already validated Soplos on aluminum unibody MacBook Pros across several generations, including 64-bit EFI models like yours, so your 5,5 and 9,2 wouldn't really add new coverage there. Appreciate the willingness to help test though!
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login