My Weekend Linux Misadventure
-
In my experience ATI / AMD isn't any better. I've got an older HP Probook with ATI/Intel switchable graphics that was removed from support in the proprietary drivers a couple of years back.
-
@notverypunny said in My Weekend Linux Misadventure:
In my experience ATI / AMD isn't any better. I've got an older HP Probook with ATI/Intel switchable graphics that was removed from support in the proprietary drivers a couple of years back.
I though the ATI/AMD GPUs had decent open source drivers?
-
@travisdh1 said in My Weekend Linux Misadventure:
This thread brings to mind Linus Torvalds when asked about Nvidia "F*** Nvidia" was his response. He doesn't like Nvidia and what they pull with their proprietary drivers. Most linux users don't, because of these same sort of issues @kamidon.
Yeah I guess Nvidia's a real as$hole when it comes to their drivers huh...
-
@dafyre said in My Weekend Linux Misadventure:
@notverypunny said in My Weekend Linux Misadventure:
In my experience ATI / AMD isn't any better. I've got an older HP Probook with ATI/Intel switchable graphics that was removed from support in the proprietary drivers a couple of years back.
I though the ATI/AMD GPUs had decent open source drivers?
Might the case in general, but in my specific case the manual control / switching has been depreciated in the closed source and was never cleanly implemented in the opensource ones that I've seen. But to be perfectly honest I haven't put a whole lot of time into seeing if I can get it to work. The guides I've skimmed all seem to reference scripts and rebooting the x server... I'm not using that machine for anything that needs that level of tweaking so it's nothing more than an example of discontinued hardware support....
-
@kamidon said in My Weekend Linux Misadventure:
@travisdh1 said in My Weekend Linux Misadventure:
This thread brings to mind Linus Torvalds when asked about Nvidia "F*** Nvidia" was his response. He doesn't like Nvidia and what they pull with their proprietary drivers. Most linux users don't, because of these same sort of issues @kamidon.
Yeah I guess Nvidia's a real as$hole when it comes to their drivers huh...
They are a bit. Even on Windows their driver situation is pretty awful.
-
@kamidon said in My Weekend Linux Misadventure:
@JaredBusch said in My Weekend Linux Misadventure:
@kamidon said in My Weekend Linux Misadventure:
What if...Linux was choosing a mobile driver and not the full version?
That's not how anything works on any OS.
Oh operating systems don't install incorrect drivers from time to time?
Heh, I beg to differ.
Now maybe Linux is better about it, but I've had plenty of Windows f-ups of wonky driver installs.
However, it's incredibly unlikely and I realize that. I'll admit I've reached a bit too far there.No, an OS never installs the incorrect version of a driver.
It 100% installs the driver it is instructed to install for the hardware it detected, by the reference information in the driver files provided by whoever creates them.
-
@JaredBusch Yeaaaaaaaaaah, good point. Seems pretty straightfoward.
One example I have where correct hardware drivers are installed, but the drivers didn't work in the given environment are HP 401 printers. The driver designed for the machine for whatever reason just wouldn't work. User prints, program crashes or freezes for up to five minutes.
We install HP Universal drivers though, issue is resolved.
Was bizarre, but yeah it was still the correctly chosen driver for the device, just junk software I suppose.
You're right, I was wrong.
-
If using Ubuntu, you should use 18.04 LTS. Nearly everything in Ubuntu is tested LTS.
I was surprised how much shit isnt supported / tested on 19.04 vs 18.04
-
@IRJ said in My Weekend Linux Misadventure:
If using Ubuntu, you should use 18.04 LTS. Nearly everything in Ubuntu is tested LTS.
I was surprised how much shit isnt supported / test on 19.04 vs 18.0I feel the opposite (and was told the opposite by Canonical.) All their testing and support goes to the current, not the LTS, releases. Yes, third parties oddly tend to test with outdated stuff more, but it's not the approach that Ubuntu themselves recommend. And while it may get more testing, the current gets more updates, which especially in stuff like this I think outweighs testing.
-
@scottalanmiller said in My Weekend Linux Misadventure:
@IRJ said in My Weekend Linux Misadventure:
If using Ubuntu, you should use 18.04 LTS. Nearly everything in Ubuntu is tested LTS.
I was surprised how much shit isnt supported / test on 19.04 vs 18.0I feel the opposite (and was told the opposite by Canonical.) All their testing and support goes to the current, not the LTS, releases. Yes, third parties oddly tend to test with outdated stuff more, but it's not the approach that Ubuntu themselves recommend. And while it may get more testing, the current gets more updates, which especially in stuff like this I think outweighs testing.
I hear where you're coming from and see the logic for systems that are only using stuff from canonical's own repos, but my experience has been that all of the 3rd party stuff seems (seemed? it's been a while since I've done much with 3rd party apps) to be tested and optimized for the LTS stream.
-
No matter how much the community wants to deny it, LTS is better supported. Whether you are talking CentOS vs Fedora or Ubuntu 18.04 vs 19.04, LTS is preferred and better supported by 3rd parties.
You almost never see instances where Fedora server is supported and CentOS isn't. Same thing with Ubuntu.
-
@IRJ said in My Weekend Linux Misadventure:
No matter how much the community wants to deny it, LTS is better supported. Whether you are talking CentOS vs Fedora or Ubuntu 18.04 vs 19.04, LTS is preferred and better supported by 3rd parties.
You almost never see instances where Fedora server is supported and CentOS isn't. Same thing with Ubuntu.
Yeah, "should be" and "is" are totally different things.
One could also argue you shouldn't choose third party software that doesn't support the more up to date OS versions as well, but it is what it is.
-
@IRJ said in My Weekend Linux Misadventure:
No matter how much the community wants to deny it, LTS is better supported. Whether you are talking CentOS vs Fedora or Ubuntu 18.04 vs 19.04, LTS is preferred and better supported by 3rd parties.
You almost never see instances where Fedora server is supported and CentOS isn't. Same thing with Ubuntu.
If you think about - it makes sense. The 3rd parties want to spend time on their products - not testing and re-testing every 3-6 months for some new release.
We're now running into that issue on Windows. MS's update cycle has thrown software vendors into a fit! Two massive updates a year? Shit, software vendors could barely keep up with once every 3 years, and now it's every 6 months?
There are rumors now that MS might be moving to a Tick/Tock setup with Windows, Major update in Fall, minor update in Spring - or vice versa.
-
@Obsolesce said in My Weekend Linux Misadventure:
@IRJ said in My Weekend Linux Misadventure:
No matter how much the community wants to deny it, LTS is better supported. Whether you are talking CentOS vs Fedora or Ubuntu 18.04 vs 19.04, LTS is preferred and better supported by 3rd parties.
You almost never see instances where Fedora server is supported and CentOS isn't. Same thing with Ubuntu.
Yeah, "should be" and "is" are totally different things.
One could also argue you shouldn't choose third party software that doesn't support the more up to date OS versions as well, but it is what it is.
But in reality it ends up being alot more then you think. It's not just software you purchase, but plenty of tools you use on a daily basis. It just snowballs when you realize how many things are impacting.
-
@Dashrender said in My Weekend Linux Misadventure:
If you think about - it makes sense. The 3rd parties want to spend time on their products - not testing and re-testing every 3-6 months for some new release.
Good products are tested every few hours. The OS updating doesn't impact modern software development processes in reality. And the LTS system makes for big, jarring changes that can be avoided and technical debt that you can circumvent. If you are about reducing the effort and cost of making software and instead want better profits, you actually want more frequent releases, too.
-
@Dashrender said in My Weekend Linux Misadventure:
We're now running into that issue on Windows. MS's update cycle has thrown software vendors into a fit! Two massive updates a year? Shit, software vendors could barely keep up with once every 3 years, and now it's every 6 months?
Don't compare the crap of the Windows ecosystem to real software companies. Bad software is bad software wherever it is.
-
@IRJ said in My Weekend Linux Misadventure:
No matter how much the community wants to deny it, LTS is better supported.
That's not something I've seen in the real world. Better vendor support on current, better hardware support. More cruft and crap on LTS, but that's the opposite of good support.
-
@Obsolesce said in My Weekend Linux Misadventure:
One could also argue you shouldn't choose third party software that doesn't support the more up to date OS versions as well, but it is what it is.
Exactly. Avoiding LTS helps you avoid bad software that simply isn't supported. All the "not supported" garbage focuses on LTS and LTS users. Same as from the Windows world.
-
@IRJ here is the problem... since the underlying OS isn't supported in LTS, by any normal definition, nothing on top of it is truly supported. Not by any meaningful standard. "Supported" in legal and IT parlance, in any way meaningful to businesses or end users, is a reference to the complete system, not just an isolated component of it. We discuss this all the time... can a product be "supported" if it depends on unsupported parts? The IT answer has to always be a solid, clear "no". And since LTS "support" is a reference to leaving LTS for "current support", any product that requires LTS but does not support current is, clearly, not actually supported.
It's a pretty clear logical requirement in a situation where LTS (this doesn't apply to CentOS where the LTS gets full support) doesn't get support, that all supported software is on current. Anything requiring LTS is simply, not supported or production ready.
So saying LTS has more support doesn't give the full picture. More unsupported software that shouldn't be found in a business or can't be called supported is available for it. Absolutely. Tons of software only runs on XP, too. But all supported software is on current.
-
@IRJ said in My Weekend Linux Misadventure:
@Obsolesce said in My Weekend Linux Misadventure:
@IRJ said in My Weekend Linux Misadventure:
No matter how much the community wants to deny it, LTS is better supported. Whether you are talking CentOS vs Fedora or Ubuntu 18.04 vs 19.04, LTS is preferred and better supported by 3rd parties.
You almost never see instances where Fedora server is supported and CentOS isn't. Same thing with Ubuntu.
Yeah, "should be" and "is" are totally different things.
One could also argue you shouldn't choose third party software that doesn't support the more up to date OS versions as well, but it is what it is.
But in reality it ends up being alot more then you think. It's not just software you purchase, but plenty of tools you use on a daily basis. It just snowballs when you realize how many things are impacting.
OH yeah, I was not disagreeing with you.
