Re: Suggestions for a Linux distro that might work

Ubuntu isn't the problem any more than any other distribution.  You are 
counting on the distribution to magically handle things for you, and you 
are just lucky or unlucky with the options chosen by the maintainers of 
the distribution. Every Linux distribution has access to the same code, 
and the problem is how they pick and choose things.

Labelling one distribution as "bad" and another as "good" based on how 
the out-of-the-box defaults are on install is pretty lame.  If you take 
the time to understand the tools you are using, then YOU can make 
anything work.  Reducing variables is the first step to be taken in 
resolving problems.  Then you can attack one problem at a time till 
resolved - and once mastered move on to the next issue.  If I were you, 
I'd remove the SSD drive from the equation, install and see what you 
get.  If it is reliable, the issue is with the SSD drive.  I haven't 
done a lot of playing with SSD drives, but I'm aware that there are huge 
differences and issues. Reductive problem solving is the key.

 From another perspective, choosing a distribution based on how well 
it's install works on your hardware isn't sensible.  Choose the 
distribution that YOU are most comfortable and capable of maintaining.  
Choose the one that meets support, ongoing maintenance, stability and 
risk requirements.  Given the cost of hardware, making the right choices 
in selecting network cards can eliminate hours to days of frigging 
around at $75 per hour to make a $25 network card work.  Think about 
your time cost when selecting hardware, and then get a big stick to hit 
yourself on the head every time you let some hardware vendor choose 
cheap crap and force you to spend hours making something new work.  $50 
cheaper hardware that you spend $400 in time on isn't a bargain.

I hate hardware changes - they are the most expensive time there is as 
not only can you spend hours dealing with making a reluctant gizmo work, 
you lose the real paying work you could have got done in the same time.  
Chasing some %.0005 performance increase that no one will ever notice 
when it costs $2,500 in time to get it behaving makes me scream.  Don't 
be anyone else's quality control / research & department for free.

Production boxes should be kept at least one or two distribution 
releases behind leading edge, and the packages you choose should be as 
well.  Using latest releases and testing code is a recipe for disaster 
in my opinion.  There is a reason why LTS versions are released - it is 
so you can make a choice that can do a job for a long time without lots 
of tweaking and maintenance.

I have some boxes out there doing "appliance" jobs that have been in 
service for many years without touching them - some running Sarge and 
Woody still.

--
Bill Strosberg


On 12-09-15 10:41 PM, Andy Civil wrote:
> We bought a fast computer (quad core AMD with a SSD) and want Linux on it. So
> far, it's not working out too well.
>
> Ubuntu 12: installed and worked OK, but increasingly wouldn't boot. Error given
> was "Error: out of disk" and "grub rescue>". Internet search implied that the
> disk was inaccessible, however the disk is working fine with boot-from-cd or CentOS.
>
> CentOS: Installed OK, and boots correctly, however it doesn't recognise our
> eth0. Internet search reveals that the Atheros AR8151 is problematic, e.g.
> http://unknownimous.blogspot.ca/2010/08/atheros-ar8151-driver-for-centos.html
> I tried downloading the RPM suggested, but installing it bombed out for the need
> of a string of other packages; the last thing I want is "dependency hell"
> downloading on a second computer and transferring with a memory stick.
>
> Any ideas for a distro which would 'work out of the box' like Ubuntu should, but
> isn't based on Ubuntu?
>
> Suggestions?
>
> --
> Andy
>

-- 
OCLUG general discussion list
[email protected]
http://oclug.on.ca/mailman/listinfo/oclug