Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AMD Has DP MST DSC Support Ready For The Linux 5.6 Kernel

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • duby229
    replied
    [QUOTE=lowlands;n1152150]
    Originally posted by duby229 View Post

    You call non-changing stable, but what you really mean is version locked.... /QUOTE]

    No it is not version locked as parts of RHEL get replaced with newer versions during the major.minor+1 release cycles. The rest of your rant about security bugs are either wrong or simply laughable But it seems you are trolling so I won't try to enlighten you. Enjoy your rolling release distro!
    So having a perfectly valid opinion based on experience and knowledge is trolling.... Ok, whatever....

    Leave a comment:


  • lowlands
    replied
    [QUOTE=duby229;n1152141]

    You call non-changing stable, but what you really mean is version locked.... /QUOTE]

    No it is not version locked as parts of RHEL get replaced with newer versions during the major.minor+1 release cycles. The rest of your rant about security bugs are either wrong or simply laughable But it seems you are trolling so I won't try to enlighten you. Enjoy your rolling release distro!

    Leave a comment:


  • duby229
    replied
    Originally posted by lowlands View Post

    Are you trolling or do you really have no idea that e.g. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) gets continuous bug fixes, continuous security fixes, continuous updated drivers, etc for 15+ years (backported where required). And do you really not know that e.g. a SAP system is certified for a *specific* release like RHEL 7 with a specific kernel, glibc, ABI, & API etc. And do you really not know that said SAP system will be in production for many, many years which requires a stable, non-changing platform, aka RHEL?

    It's fine that you prefer your rolling release distro for your use case. However, in the enterprise a rolling release distro does not work for any of the type of applications I mentioned thus is no option.
    You call non-changing stable, but what you really mean is version locked.... Truth is even your precious RHEL has unfixable bugs and security flaws due -ENTIRELY- to the fact that it isn't stable -BECAUSE- it's version locked. And you also really mean it gets horribly expensive financially and often times waaaay too late backports that most often cannot be upstreamed. Also backports are often times horrible hacks that were patched in to an old infrastructure that wasn't made for it and don't get the testing required to make sure it works right -BECAUSE- they usually can't be upstreamed. Different version locked distro's have different patchsets due -ENTIRELY- to the fact that they usually cannot be upstreamed.

    The waste of effort is abominable, especially when the best option for everyone, including themselves, is to just update versions.

    EDIT: If you really think that Windows is version locked, you're most definitely wrong. Windows has a different concept for user facing and especially hardware facing API's than most linux apps, but it most definitely isn't version locked.

    Honestly flatpack is RHEL's last great hope, except it can't solve it's bug ridden lower levels that can't be updated...

    EDIT: Go ask AMD or Intel about what they think about backporting graphics drivers.... Go ahead.... Dare you.... You won't like what you hear.

    EDIT: Just because some douchebag moron thinks version locked means "stable" doesn't mean he's right.... Rolling releases are -exactly- the best option for enterprise distro's especially when bug fixes and security fixes are important to them. You can't just update a live production machine though, that's true even more so for version locked distro's due to the fact that most of their backported patches are hacks that haven't been tested or designed for the version being deployed on.
    Last edited by duby229; 01-13-2020, 01:10 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • lowlands
    replied
    Originally posted by duby229 View Post

    Nonsense, if version locked distro's didn't exist then then there would be rolling release distro's. You know, distro's that get updated drivers and bug fixes and security updates....
    Are you trolling or do you really have no idea that e.g. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) gets continuous bug fixes, continuous security fixes, continuous updated drivers, etc for 15+ years (backported where required). And do you really not know that e.g. a SAP system is certified for a *specific* release like RHEL 7 with a specific kernel, glibc, ABI, & API etc. And do you really not know that said SAP system will be in production for many, many years which requires a stable, non-changing platform, aka RHEL?

    It's fine that you prefer your rolling release distro for your use case. However, in the enterprise a rolling release distro does not work for any of the type of applications I mentioned thus is no option.

    Leave a comment:


  • duby229
    replied
    Originally posted by lowlands View Post

    Without those stable distros, enterprise software (ERP, CRM, LoB, payroll) would not have a platform to run on. I'd like to get paid so I'm happy that those "fools" can have their cake and eat it too
    Nonsense, if version locked distro's didn't exist then then there would be rolling release distro's. You know, distro's that get updated drivers and bug fixes and security updates....

    Leave a comment:


  • lowlands
    replied
    Originally posted by duby229 View Post
    So called "stable" distro's aren't stable at all, but are better described as "version locked". I say if they want to lock in on versions then let them fools have what they want.... They want old versions that have unfixed bugs, unfixed security flaws, unimplemented drivers, etc, then let them have their cake and eat it too...
    Without those stable distros, enterprise software (ERP, CRM, LoB, payroll) would not have a platform to run on. I'd like to get paid so I'm happy that those "fools" can have their cake and eat it too

    Leave a comment:


  • lowlands
    replied
    Originally posted by betam4x View Post
    I imagine that when AppImage, Flatpak, and Snap become more widespread we will see very little need for the likes of Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora, etc.
    There will always be a need for a distro (in variable shape or form) since you need a basic system to install a Flatpak etc. on. Without a distro, what is going to provide the basic plumbing like a kernel, SELinux, firewall, startup scripts, etc? If you stick that into a Flatpak then you basically have created another distro :-)

    Leave a comment:


  • duby229
    replied
    Originally posted by betam4x View Post

    Oh wait...one more thing. If you were using Arch Linux...okay okay I'll stop.

    In all seriousness, the concept of 'LTS' releases being stable is a fallacy. As a long time Linux user, I've actually had less issues with distros that regularly update. Be it Ubuntu non-LTS releases, or Arch Linux (which I use currently). As an example, Ubuntu 18.04 did not boot on my Threadripper system due to their choice of a kernel that had a CPU bug. A newer kernel was out (and you could download it via the terminal in rescue mode and install it), but they didn't update the release to fix the issue in the 9 or so months I used Ubuntu. Between that and other issues (bugs, crashes, tweaks that had to be made to get something working), I eventually moved on. My Arch desktop has been the most stable Linux install I've used.

    I imagine that when AppImage, Flatpak, and Snap become more widespread we will see very little need for the likes of Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora, etc.
    Truer words have never been said....

    So called "stable" distro's aren't stable at all, but are better described as "version locked". I say if they want to lock in on versions then let them fools have what they want.... They want old versions that have unfixed bugs, unfixed security flaws, unimplemented drivers, etc, then let them have their cake and eat it too...
    Last edited by duby229; 01-12-2020, 10:19 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • betam4x
    replied
    Originally posted by flashmozzg View Post

    Too bad it'll miss Ubuntu 20.04 LTS just by a bit =(
    Oh wait...one more thing. If you were using Arch Linux...okay okay I'll stop.

    In all seriousness, the concept of 'LTS' releases being stable is a fallacy. As a long time Linux user, I've actually had less issues with distros that regularly update. Be it Ubuntu non-LTS releases, or Arch Linux (which I use currently). As an example, Ubuntu 18.04 did not boot on my Threadripper system due to their choice of a kernel that had a CPU bug. A newer kernel was out (and you could download it via the terminal in rescue mode and install it), but they didn't update the release to fix the issue in the 9 or so months I used Ubuntu. Between that and other issues (bugs, crashes, tweaks that had to be made to get something working), I eventually moved on. My Arch desktop has been the most stable Linux install I've used.

    I imagine that when AppImage, Flatpak, and Snap become more widespread we will see very little need for the likes of Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora, etc.

    Leave a comment:


  • betam4x
    replied
    Originally posted by lowlands View Post

    Yeah, I look forward to Fedora 32 which will have kernel 5.6 and the latest Mesa & GNOME stuff
    If you are using Arch Linux you have the latest stuff already.

    I'll show myself out.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X