Solved Issue installing Korora
-
@Tim_G What is mmc0? Is it an actual card reader peripheral plugged into some headers on the mobo? If so, disconnect it for the install.
For the text based installer, on live boot distros there is usually an option like
Graphical Install
Installfrom the boot menu of the live media.
-
@momurda said in Issue installing Korora:
@Tim_G What is mmc0? Is it an actual card reader peripheral plugged into some headers on the mobo? If so, disconnect it for the install.
For the text based installer, on live boot distros there is usually an option like
Graphical Install
Installfrom the boot menu of the live media.
It's a laptop, so I'm pretty sure it's referring to the built-in card reader.
This live boot does not have a text install option.
-
Actually, you know what...
I'll just stick to the main trunks of Linux flavors from now on, personally and professionally: Debian/Ubuntu, Slackware/SuSE, RedHat/CentOS/Fedora, and Arch.... oh and I'll include FreeBSD (only for the sake of completion), but I don't consider that Linux at all (it's not).
I believe I finally arrived at the point where I just don't think there is any reason to consider anything else for any purpose... be it enterprise or personal.
The rest of them I think is just the IKEA effect at it's finest...
-
There is rather a bit of value to that. I'm on Ubuntu these days rather than Korora or Mint because neither would install on my laptop, which makes me sad. But it works. Still better than other options.
-
@Tim_G said in Issue installing Korora:
Actually, you know what...
I'll just stick to the main trunks of Linux flavors from now on, personally and professionally: Debian/Ubuntu, Slackware/SuSE, RedHat/CentOS/Fedora, and Arch.... oh and I'll include FreeBSD (only for the sake of completion), but I don't consider that Linux at all (it's not).
I believe I finally arrived at the point where I just don't think there is any reason to consider anything else for any purpose... be it enterprise or personal.
The rest of them I think is just the IKEA effect at it's finest...
for business centos, ubuntu LTS, SLE, debian and -maybe now- opensuse are the most robust choices IMHO.
I usually stick with centos on bare metal (KVM) or critical services, while I opt for ubuntu in VM (mostly because it is a faster debian install). Still missing the opportunity to test Suse in real envs.
On the desktop any of the above will fit, but centos/SLE is a bit of old for a control machine/workstation.
I keep Fedora out because it seems rather bleeding edge to me.
Of course in the years I've meet (on line) people who deploy arch linux and slackware in production, but this is not quite common.
-
@matteo-nunziati said in Issue installing Korora:
ubuntu LTS,
For robust you actually want to avoid the LTS release. It's a name, not a long term support agreement. This is straight from Canonica, it you want the robust Ubuntu option, you must stay on the current release, not the LTS.
https://mangolassi.it/topic/8737/how-ubuntu-lts-support-works
-
That Mint maps to Ubuntu LTS is actually one of my concerns with it. Sticking with the most up to date and robust official Ubuntu option gives me more up to date software than using Mint. Mint does it to lower their effort, but it reduces the value of Mint IMHO.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Issue installing Korora:
@matteo-nunziati said in Issue installing Korora:
ubuntu LTS,
For robust you actually want to avoid the LTS release. It's a name, not a long term support agreement. This is straight from Canonica, it you want the robust Ubuntu option, you must stay on the current release, not the LTS.
https://mangolassi.it/topic/8737/how-ubuntu-lts-support-works
well, wrong word. I mean that I receive fewer security only updates - basically it is more close to debian stable in terms of security patches. I prefere to know my bugs than update every week a ton of packages. I really hate how ubuntu flows with tens of updates every week. I even consider to stay 1 version behind current LTS, even if, in the end I always land on the current LTS for other reasons.
-
@matteo-nunziati said in Issue installing Korora:
@scottalanmiller said in Issue installing Korora:
@matteo-nunziati said in Issue installing Korora:
ubuntu LTS,
For robust you actually want to avoid the LTS release. It's a name, not a long term support agreement. This is straight from Canonica, it you want the robust Ubuntu option, you must stay on the current release, not the LTS.
https://mangolassi.it/topic/8737/how-ubuntu-lts-support-works
well, wrong word. I mean that I receive fewer security only updates - basically it is more close to debian stable in terms of security patches. I prefere to know my bugs than update every week a ton of packages. I really hate how ubuntu flows with tens of updates every week. I even consider to stay 1 version behind current LTS, even if, in the end I always land on the current LTS for other reasons.
Oh no, LTS I avoid specifically because of bugs. Bug fixes and stability is only fully supported in the latest releases. That's specifically what gets left out of LTS. If you want robust, stable Ubuntu you stay current, that's just how the Ubuntu ecosystem works. I know of no reason to be on LTS other than "I have packages from a lazy vendor and that's more important that OS stability to me."
-
@scottalanmiller said in Issue installing Korora:
I know of no reason to be on LTS other than "I have packages from a lazy vendor and that's more important that OS stability to me."
That's it! you got me!
Seriously, Debian bug fix policy is really close to the one of Ubuntu (well you would rather say the opposite) and Debian is by no means a weak distro. My usage of ubuntu is as basic platform for java/python webapps. The ubuntu install I do is always in VM and always a minimal system install. The only addiction is open-ssh. bugs are there for sure. But I use the bare minimum OS, and it has worked quite well for now:
- setup an IP,
- have bash,
- schedule cron jobs,
- setup a systemd unit file.
- not having to deal with new API/ABI/interpreters
- p.e.r.i.o.d.
but my concern is mostly security fixes and a low flux of updates. Not because I'm really obsessed by security, but because well... you have to security fix stuff now and then
compare the pkg flow to debian stable or centos, it is quite similar in LTS, while standard Ubuntu litterally kills you with a ton of updates.
Let state this different: I do NOT trust Ubuntu for critical pieces but is just practical as a base to deploy your specific app in a VM. For this usage having security fixes for 5 years is enough to me, even if some pieces have bugs and are not fixed. I do not use it for any kind of virtualization, DNS, AD or similar.
Centos has not enough packages unless you activate third party repos, debian is too fast (basically and upgrade every 2 years), Ubuntu LTS blends. I'm now curious about Opensuse Leap.
BTW, I think we two are thinking about stability in a different way. You think, correctly, at it as system stability: avoid bugs that cause chrashes and races and so in the OS behaviour, having the best level of functionality a piece of software can give.
I think about stability as a coder: avoid ABI/API changes, interpreter major version bumps and so. just get security fixes and forget the platform for 5 years.
I use Ubuntu mostly as a platform to deploy my applications. So I think I'm interested in LTS mostly because it tends to not break API/API/interpreters (thinking about moving from python 2.7 to 3.5 or even 3.5 to 3.6 - on a minor note). -
HEY! this has derailed a lot from OP!
-
@matteo-nunziati said in Issue installing Korora:
Seriously, Debian bug fix policy is really close to the one of Ubuntu (well you would rather say the opposite) and Debian is by no means a weak distro.
Debian refuses to fix bugs in their mainline product and just leaves them? By definition, that's what makes Ubuntu LTS weak, that they don't resolve critical stability issues and only push those (when they are big) to the current releases. I've never heard Debian spoken of as being like that in any way whatsoever. Totally the opposite from what I know of Debian and Ubuntu. Debian is famous for stability, not for ignoring stability issues (Ubuntu does not ignore them, but LTS does.)
-
@matteo-nunziati said in Issue installing Korora:
compare the pkg flow to debian stable or centos, it is quite similar in LTS, while standard Ubuntu litterally kills you with a ton of updates.
I appreciate that there are lots of updates in supported Ubuntu, but that's because they are fixing things
Ubuntu LTS is the opposite of CentOS. That's exactly what I'm comparing against.
-
@matteo-nunziati said in Issue installing Korora:
Centos has not enough packages unless you activate third party repos, debian is too fast (basically and upgrade every 2 years), Ubuntu LTS blends. I'm now curious about Opensuse Leap.
Ubuntu LTS does not blend. I think you are looking purely at "release speed" and ignoring "support". The two have to be seen together. CentOS and Leap are long term supported products. Ubuntu LTS has that in its name, but is totally different in how it is supported. The "release speed" of Ubuntu tracks Debian, but it is not fully supported / patched for that duration, so it isn't comparable to CentOS which is fully supported throughout its lifetime.
-
@matteo-nunziati said in Issue installing Korora:
BTW, I think we two are thinking about stability in a different way. You think, correctly, at it as system stability: avoid bugs that cause chrashes and races and so in the OS behaviour, having the best level of functionality a piece of software can give.
I think about stability as a coder: avoid ABI/API changes, interpreter major version bumps and so. just get security fixes and forget the platform for 5 years.
I use Ubuntu mostly as a platform to deploy my applications. So I think I'm interested in LTS mostly because it tends to not break API/API/interpreters (thinking about moving from python 2.7 to 3.5 or even 3.5 to 3.6 - on a minor note).Yes, I'm talking primarily about support but support blended with change rate. Slow change rate without support is pointless. One is only useful with the other. If you don't care about support, then YOU determine the change rate. If you want Fedora to have a slow change rate, just stop updating it. It's only change rate + support that matters because it is only when you want things patched that the change rate affects you.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Issue installing Korora:
@matteo-nunziati said in Issue installing Korora:
Seriously, Debian bug fix policy is really close to the one of Ubuntu (well you would rather say the opposite) and Debian is by no means a weak distro.
Debian refuses to fix bugs in their mainline product and just leaves them? By definition, that's what makes Ubuntu LTS weak, that they don't resolve critical stability issues and only push those (when they are big) to the current releases. I've never heard Debian spoken of as being like that in any way whatsoever. Totally the opposite from what I know of Debian and Ubuntu. Debian is famous for stability, not for ignoring stability issues (Ubuntu does not ignore them, but LTS does.)
follow this thread on debian mailing list (really short)
-
@scottalanmiller said in Issue installing Korora:
@matteo-nunziati said in Issue installing Korora:
Centos has not enough packages unless you activate third party repos, debian is too fast (basically and upgrade every 2 years), Ubuntu LTS blends. I'm now curious about Opensuse Leap.
Ubuntu LTS does not blend. I think you are looking purely at "release speed" and ignoring "support". The two have to be seen together. CentOS and Leap are long term supported products. Ubuntu LTS has that in its name, but is totally different in how it is supported. The "release speed" of Ubuntu tracks Debian, but it is not fully supported / patched for that duration, so it isn't comparable to CentOS which is fully supported throughout its lifetime.
Well, support != security fixes.
I mind about the latter. not support. nor fixes in non security bugs.
OK, I agree with Linus Torvalds when he say in the end bugs are bugs, but security has some legal implications too...
Centos has support AND security fixes. both security and stability. Ubuntu has just one. Leap does strange things, actually. -
@matteo-nunziati said in Issue installing Korora:
@scottalanmiller said in Issue installing Korora:
@matteo-nunziati said in Issue installing Korora:
Centos has not enough packages unless you activate third party repos, debian is too fast (basically and upgrade every 2 years), Ubuntu LTS blends. I'm now curious about Opensuse Leap.
Ubuntu LTS does not blend. I think you are looking purely at "release speed" and ignoring "support". The two have to be seen together. CentOS and Leap are long term supported products. Ubuntu LTS has that in its name, but is totally different in how it is supported. The "release speed" of Ubuntu tracks Debian, but it is not fully supported / patched for that duration, so it isn't comparable to CentOS which is fully supported throughout its lifetime.
Well, support != security fixes.
It does to most people in IT. When IT talks about support, security and stability fixes are what is normally meant by that term.
-
@matteo-nunziati said in Issue installing Korora:
Ubuntu has just one.
Ubuntu LTS support... "Upgrade to current, we dont support LTS." That's their official statement for stability / race conditions.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Issue installing Korora:
@matteo-nunziati said in Issue installing Korora:
Ubuntu has just one.
Ubuntu LTS support... "Upgrade to current, we dont support LTS." That's their official statement for stability / race conditions.
Where?
