Hello Matthew, On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 15:59:35 -0400 Matthew Miller <mattdm at mattdm.org> wrote:> On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 08:38:14PM +0200, wwp wrote: > > Say, instead of stable, something not rawhide. But I'll examine all > > options that do work, so let's forget about "stable". > > In that case ? and I freely admit I have some bias here ? I highly > recommend Fedora. It's not stable in the sense of strict ABI > compliance, although we try to minimize disruption within the 13-month > life of a release, but it is stable in the "does not crash" sense.Right, I'm currently digging that way, struggling a bit w/ the way I write the F26 ISO to a USB flashdrive (I'll succeed tomorrow, found better howtos to get rid of unetbootin issues). Fedora could be stable enough even if not a standard/reference in industry at all (which sticks to RH releases), I would have loved a CentOS because it is way more compliant to my "corporate" needs (LTS), but a Fedora could be do it, if it really does it, at least until CentOS8 is out. Regards, -- wwp -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20170727/a8ebc752/attachment-0001.sig>
Maybe CentOS 7.4 would have backported compatibility for your hardware. I had similar issues with Intel GPU not being recognized, which was solved by "i915 preliminary hw support enabled" method. Try to have a look on that. On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 10:24 PM, wwp <subscript at free.fr> wrote:> Hello Matthew, > > > On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 15:59:35 -0400 Matthew Miller <mattdm at mattdm.org> > wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 08:38:14PM +0200, wwp wrote: > > > Say, instead of stable, something not rawhide. But I'll examine all > > > options that do work, so let's forget about "stable". > > > > In that case ? and I freely admit I have some bias here ? I highly > > recommend Fedora. It's not stable in the sense of strict ABI > > compliance, although we try to minimize disruption within the 13-month > > life of a release, but it is stable in the "does not crash" sense. > > Right, I'm currently digging that way, struggling a bit w/ the way I > write the F26 ISO to a USB flashdrive (I'll succeed tomorrow, found > better howtos to get rid of unetbootin issues). > > Fedora could be stable enough even if not a standard/reference in > industry at all (which sticks to RH releases), I would have loved a > CentOS because it is way more compliant to my "corporate" needs (LTS), > but a Fedora could be do it, if it really does it, at least until > CentOS8 is out. > > > Regards, > > -- > wwp > > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > >
> Am 27.07.2017 um 22:48 schrieb vychytraly . <vychytraly at gmail.com>: > > Maybe CentOS 7.4 would have backported compatibility for your hardware. I > had similar issues with Intel GPU not being recognized, which was solved by > "i915 preliminary hw support enabled" method. Try to have a look on that.https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/7-Beta/html/7.4_Release_Notes/new_features_hardware_enablement.html <https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/7-Beta/html/7.4_Release_Notes/new_features_hardware_enablement.html> Well, the only thing that catches my eye here is the support for newer Intel PCHs. Skylake (Purley) servers exist, so I would assume that RHEL would need to support these chipsets. Wireless, GPUs etc - that?s something different. Of course, there?s always SLES (or SLED, in the OPs case), which has a somewhat more recent kernel, AFAIK - if we?re playing ?Anything but Ubuntu?. ;-) The above beta came out in May. So I?d hazard a guess and say it?ll be late autumn before we see a release and I?d hope for a pre-christmas CentOS 7.4 release?. Rainer