Re: linux on msi computers

Yeah, I see what you mean. And even Windows follow a trend of being able 
to run on older or cheaper hardware. But then again, who knows what the 
future has in store. I gues it's a matter of what you're going to do with 
the computer in question. When I chose my system, I was thinking along the 
lines of advanced soudn editing, virtualisation and software development, 
so I thought better safe than sory. *smile*

I took into account the fact that Linux might not be entirely compatible 
with the bleeding edge mother board I chose, but I was prepared to wait. 
As it turned out, I was lucky, despite going for an X99s based MB with 
DDR4 memory.

On Mon, 18 Apr 2016, Tony Baechler wrote:

> I haven't closely followed this discussion, so sorry if my comments don't 
> apply here.
>
> On 4/18/2016 3:53 AM, Tobias Vinteus wrote:
>> I would choose the newer model, simply to be future proof, i.e. not needing
>> to by a new machine for many years to come and also to get better
>> performance. Of course, even a slightly older system will be good to go for
>> many years to come.
>
> I disagree. First, Linux runs great on older hardware. That's one of the nice 
> things about it. We got it running on an ancient Dell Pentium with a single 
> core. The problem with bleeding edge hardware is often the proprietary 
> chipsets don't have kernel drivers. That means either you have to wait for 
> the latest kernel or live without certain features like sound. Even with 
> older hardware, proprietary drivers can be a real pain. I always check the 
> hardware now before buying to make sure Linux supports it. I got tired of 
> compiling custom modules.
>
>> 
>> 
>> I haven't heard of any problems with Linux on newer architecture, but if
>> there are issues, they are most certainly going to be resolved in the near
>> future. After all, Linux wants to be on top of development, and people will
>> of course want to be able to run it on newer hardware. It could also be a
>> matter of BIOS firmware updates, which would make a system more stable for
>> all OS:es. If one wants to be as future-proof as possible, on could wait
>> till the next version of one's chosen distro is released. Ubuntu usually
>> releases in late april/early may; the next Fedora has a release later in 
>> May
>> I think.
>
>
> Yes, Ubuntu 16.04 should be released by the end of the month. I think the 
> actual release date is next week. What is the name of the new architecture 
> you're talking about? Again, the problem is that even if the latest bleeding 
> edge kernel supports the latest arch, most distros won't until the next 
> version comes out. If you go with Debian, that could be 1.5 to 2 years unless 
> you want to build your own kernel. With Ubuntu, it's 6 months and they offer 
> daily kernel builds, but you have no security support. Since the kernel is a 
> monster to maintain, there are security fixes constantly being made, besides 
> the obvious stability issues. That's why Debian, Ubuntu and presumably Fedora 
> pick a stable kernel branch and backport fixes rather than shipping the 
> latest. If you go with Gentoo, Arch or compile your own, it's not an issue, 
> but you won't have the stability either. My suggestion is find one to borrow, 
> such as at a computer store. Take a Linux USB stick with you or whatever it 
> uses to boot. Try it and see what happens. Of course another option is to run 
> Debian testing or unstable, but as the names imply, they won't be stable.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Blinux-list mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/blinux-list
>