Installing linux

[Simon]

Of course it can handle hardware.. Congratulations, you found some sort of bug somewhere. Do you want a medal?

There is no such thing as an OS that just works, because they're all written by humans.

Windows would boot any machine in a low performance basic mode. Then you would install a graphics driver. But if Linux can't handle NVidia cards or it's Nvidia that don't do the drivers what is the point?

[Monkeh]

Of course it can handle hardware.. Congratulations, you found some sort of bug somewhere. Do you want a medal?

There is no such thing as an OS that just works, because they're all written by humans.

Windows would boot any machine in a low performance basic mode.

And there's the Windows argument.

I've encountered machines Windows just won't boot on. And I can break Windows booting on most machines once installed in a matter of seconds.

But if Linux can't handle NVidia cards or it's Nvidia that don't do the drivers what is the point?

Well, uh, it can handle nVidia cards. But there's a few little quirks there (because nVidia are douchebags, mostly). Windows has similar oddities.

One way or another you will have to spend time, learn things, and maybe work your way around a bug or two, no matter what OS you choose. If you're unwilling to do that then you shouldn't have tried switching to anything.

[Whales]

For AMD, support varies.  Ubuntu LTS versions ought to have good support, but switching to a non-LTS version or a different distro is harder, as you may have to recompile the drivers yourself.

No, as an ordinary user you do not ever need compile the AMD drivers yourself.  They're built into the kernel.  The only exception I can think of are super-minimal distros like TomSrtBt (designed to fit on a 1.44MB floppy).

Generally speaking: AMD is magnitudes better on Linux than Nvidia, team red has not given me any first-boot issues in the last ~9 years whilst Nvidia is a lot more hit-and-miss.

For context: AMD dumped their proprietary drivers and starting working on the open-source ones several years back.  As a result the open source ones have been really good quality for several years now and now mostly sit in-kernel (so you get them by default, no installation/setup required). 

Source: ATI graphics user on Linux for many years, used to have to fight the previous proprietary drivers.

[Whales]

But if Linux can't handle NVidia cards or it's Nvidia that don't do the drivers what is the point?

Yep, with the equipment you have it's going to be hard.  Only go further if you want to.

[blacksheeplogic]

Last time I tried the Vega M Graphics was not supported and I had to disable it in the BIOS in order to get Linux to boot after the install on my NUC.  I think there was an experimental driver but I opted to purchase another Windows license and go with Windows 10. Now I buy off-lease desktops for my Linux systems and don't have to deal with unsupported hardware.

Unfortunately Linux often lags Windows for initial hardware support and I feel it's sometimes exasperated by unhelpful vendors. When looking into the lack of Vega support for my system there was a post by an Intel engineer who provided the BIOS setting to turn off the Vega graphics, there lead in comment was how there were users that linked to Tinker with other operating systems....  So obviously Intel did not see a potential market for Linux on the NUC and hence the unavailability of a driver.

[Whales]

USB wifi dongles: Over the years I have used dozens of different makes.  A reasonable amount do not work because the chipset maker has not made non-windows drivers available..  It's worth searching "linux <wifi_chipset>" on the web before buying. 

Of the ones that work: some are flaky.  Treat them just like the bad ones.  The good ones are cheap enough (I have some <5AUD ones I use) and rock-solid reliable, if you ignore them missing some features (eg monitor mode) that you probably don't need. 

Remarkably the cheap ones also perform very well with low signal levels compared to 10yo mini-PCI wireless cards in old laptops.  (writeup, including some concerns about build quality.).

Suggestions for getting Linux working with your Quadro P400

I will go against the LTS advice given by others and say "use something much newer".  Test to see if a more up to date distro (with a more up to date version of nouveau, the crappy-but-default-in-kernel Nvidia driver) avoids the screen corruption issue.

Otherwise: boot with nomodeset=true on your kernel command line (you can edit boot options from your bootloader).  This will lock you in 640x480 or 800x600 VESA software-rendering (ala 'safe mode' windows) so you can try and:

1. Install the distro somewhere permanent (eg a spare USB stick or old HDD), so that our changes persist over boot
2. Install the proper Nvidia proprietary drivers

These two routes should be approachable, and if either works then you are unlikely to hit more issues in future.  The initial "bootstrapping" process before you have the full (and up to date) Nvidia proprietary drivers is likely where your problems are occurring.  The default in-kernel nouveau drivers are just not very good.

N.B. you will probably get much more effective advice if you ask your questions on a Linux-related forum:
https://old.reddit.com/r/linuxquestions/
https://ubuntuforums.org/
https://www.linuxquestions.org/

[Mr. Scram]

And there's the Windows argument.

I've encountered machines Windows just won't boot on. And I can break Windows booting on most machines once installed in a matter of seconds.

Well, uh, it can handle nVidia cards. But there's a few little quirks there (because nVidia are douchebags, mostly). Windows has similar oddities.

One way or another you will have to spend time, learn things, and maybe work your way around a bug or two, no matter what OS you choose. If you're unwilling to do that then you shouldn't have tried switching to anything.

I'm not sure why you insist on making this a Windows vs Linux discussion but don't. Note that "the Windows argument" here was a response to you bringing it up. No one is going to be convinced either way by threads full of utterly superfluous holy wars. It's just a tool.

[soldar]

Windows would boot any machine in a low performance basic mode. Then you would install a graphics driver. But if Linux can't handle NVidia cards or it's Nvidia that don't do the drivers what is the point?

I would recommend you try Linux Mint which is a flavor of Ubuntu. I have been running it for a couple years now without too much problem (which is not to say with no problem). You can download the live DVD and boot from there.

Regarding NVidia, I have an NVidia Geforce GT730 video card and it worked with some generic Linux driver. Then I started having problems with a Teamviewer update and I was told it was because of the card and to try a specific driver for that card but that did not resolve the problem with TeamViewer. Then I removed the NVidia card and used the intel graphics on the mobo but the problem remained so it turns out the problem had nothing to do with the NVidia card. Still, it seems Nvidia has a bad reputation with Linux.

If you have problems with the video driver I believe there is a may to resolve that at startup but I don't remember how to do it exactly.

I suggest you give Linux Mint a try. If you run into problems don't waste time insisting; put it aside, ask for help and try again later. It will save stress and sanity.

The Linux Mint forum has been quite helpful to me.

[Monkeh]

And there's the Windows argument.

I've encountered machines Windows just won't boot on. And I can break Windows booting on most machines once installed in a matter of seconds.

Well, uh, it can handle nVidia cards. But there's a few little quirks there (because nVidia are douchebags, mostly). Windows has similar oddities.

One way or another you will have to spend time, learn things, and maybe work your way around a bug or two, no matter what OS you choose. If you're unwilling to do that then you shouldn't have tried switching to anything.

I'm not sure why you insist on making this a Windows vs Linux discussion but don't. Note that "the Windows argument" here was a response to you bringing it up. No one is going to be convinced either way by threads full of utterly superfluous holy wars. It's just a tool.

And my point that nothing is free of issues flies right over another person.

This is not about Windows vs Linux vs anything else: It's about people being unwilling to put any effort into something new and decrying it for flaws as if the alternative is perfect. Either be willing to actually try something, or just carry on as you are instead of complaining.

[Simon]

several linux distros have failed to work. Widows works with my hardware. What do you want me to say? the industry works on standards. There is a minimum standard that all hardware should work to, not the best performing but a common ground that lets any OS run any hardware in a basic mode. Once you get in you install the actual driver. I have NEVER had windows fail to use a graphics card to a minimumm standard that allows me to get going

[Monkeh]

the industry works on standards.

Bwahahahahahahahaha. The industry works on copy and pasted buggy crap which doesn't even make a good will effort of complying with any written standards.

There is a minimum standard that all hardware should work to, not the best performing but a common ground that lets any OS run any hardware in a basic mode. Once you get in you install the actual driver.

And when the hardware is broken, or the firmware is broken? You expect the software to handle all possible edge cases in all possible hardware?

I have NEVER had windows fail to use a graphics card to a minimumm standard that allows me to get going

And you have NEVER had a faulty driver on Windows cause you problems?

It is entirely possible to get Linux to fall back to various different methods of giving you a working display of some form or another until you can resolve whatever issue you've encountered. Others have been attempting to help - myself, I don't use the common distros, so I'd prefer to let those more experienced with them assist rather than learn a tool I don't use to help someone who doesn't want to learn any tool.

[Mr. Scram]

several linux distros have failed to work. Widows works with my hardware.

Monkeh forgot to quote the bit actually relevant to this thread.

[Monkeh]

several linux distros have failed to work. Widows works with my hardware.

Monkeh forgot to quote the bit actually relevant to this thread.

I didn't think it was necessary as there's nothing really to say about that. Windows works in this case - that's very nice. Linux works in my cases - that's very nice. Both have failed on hardware I've owned - that's not very nice. Welcome to reality.

Y'know, my daily driver workstation (.. which is Linux, yes..) works best if I use an nVidia card with their proprietary driver. Exactly the opposite of what I'd expected and general wisdom. But, that's the case - 'difficult' is actually easy here.

[sleemanj]

You haven't said which distros you tried, as with others I would recommend the latest Ubuntu, it has historically tended to be the best at "just working".

It sounds like you have not googled your problem, motherboard chipset and graphics card with distro.

It sounds like you have not taken basic troubleshooting steps like disconnecting external peripherals.

Yes using Linux requires some above average technical aptitude and tenacity, maybe it is not for you.

[soldar]

Simon, I understand your view and I agree. As much as I hate Windows at least you get a basic screen that allows you to get started. I have had problems with Linux where it just would not start the screen at all and that is extremely frustrating. I remember having to hit a combination of keys and input some strange commands (xrandr?) to finally get it going but that was long ago and I forget the details.

Again, my suggestion is to not rush into it. Prepare a Linux Mint live DVD and try booting from there. If it does not work put it aside and ask in the forum. That way you are not wasting time and, more importantly, not getting frustrated.  I think it should not be difficult to get it going. The thing is that you ran into a problem at the very beginning. If a similar problem happened after you were up and running it would not be so frustrating and you would look for a solution. 

[alsetalokin4017]

I've been reading this thread with increasing puzzlement. I've been using Ubuntu Linux since single-digit version numbers, on all kinds of hardware new and old, laptop and desktop and notebook, single boot just Linux and dual boot with various Windows versions. Sure there are problems... just the other day I forgot how to add the Intel sound drivers to a 16.04 installation and had to go through my notes to find the line to add to a .config file somewhere in order to get audio.

But thank goodness for Whales! That's the right approach to the problem. The internet is your friend and literally _every_ problem I've had with Ubuntu and other Linux distros has had discussions and solutions posted in various forums. As long as you have a second working computer that you can use to access the internet, you can (with 99.8 percent confidence) get your non-working Ubuntu (mint, etc) Linux installation working. I've abandoned installations that did not function satisfactorily as desired once installed, but I've never not been able to get the basic system working at all.

At present I'm using a box with AMD video with no issues.

[sleemanj]

If you are booting into a blank screen, then try adding the nomodeset boot option.

As I use linux to create my usb stick and just edit the grub.cfg/loopback.cfg directly, I don't know how you do that when using windows to create your usb stick, but I'm sure google would tell you if you ask it correctly.

[nctnico]

Why bother starting something if you have no intention of actually putting any thought or effort into it?

What's wrong with evaluation until the point you realise the net gain is negative?

He hasn't evaluated anything - he's encountered an issue and given up. If I did that with every piece of software, OS or otherwise, I wouldn't have a single tool to use.

I'm now waiting for the "But Windows just works" argument - which the last 20 years of my life tells me is a complete, total, and utter crock.

I agree. This feels like yet another 'Simon can't get Linux to work on his computer' thread.

Is there a Linux distro out there that can boot on most machines without hardware issues?

All Linux distros fit that requirement. Though the first step is not to start with cheap crap hardware for which only Windows drivers exist.

[nctnico]

This was a gigantic problem years back when the kernel changed weekly (Red Hat Enterprise Linux circa '04).  I think it is still a problem.  And, given that it has been a problem for at least 15 years, you can bet it isn't going to be solved any time soon.

This is ancient news and has been solved for a long time already. When I bought a new PC several years ago I choose for an NVidia card because the driver support looked better compared to the alternative. I don't care about open/closed source drivers. I want something which works. Nowadays NVidia even offer a Ubuntu based Linux distro for use on their Tegra (ARM64) based compute modules.

[Mr. Scram]

Summarizing the replies seem to be "Windows has issues too", "you need to be better" and "your hardware needs to be better". Does that fix your problem Simon?

[Ed.Kloonk]

Is there a Linux distro out there that can boot on most machines without hardware issues?

All Linux distros fit that requirement. Though the first step is not to start with cheap crap hardware for which only Windows drivers exist.

It's a bit like buying drums of premium petrol for your car, it's not the petrol's fault your car is a bomb. Store-bought computers and laptops are pretty notorious for being loaded with rotten cheap hardware. And the driver software quality, even though it "works" is often lousy and lazy from a efficiency and security point of view.

Remember, the pieces of hardware in computers that do play nice with Linux do so because the manufacturers were kind enough to supply help and information to Linux developers, who are kind enough to help people get away from using Windows.

[techman-001]

several linux distros have failed to work. Widows works with my hardware. What do you want me to say?

What is there to say ? If a machine only runs Microsoft Windows, then run only Microsoft Windows on it.

I have about 20 computers here, they are a mixture of servers, pc's, NAS and embedded. Every single one has run, or is running Linux or *Bsd. They range from old P3's circa 2000 to ARM hexcore i7's a few years old.

Personally, if I had a machine that only ran Microsoft Windows, I'd throw it in the rubbish bin for it would be worthless to me.

[Nominal Animal]

What. The. Holy. Fuck.

Let's see if I have the picture right.

Simon is interested in switching from Windows to Linux, but finds out he has hardware that is not supported (or only supported by proprietary drivers) in Linux.

I suggested to try a specific live DVD/USB, to verify.  I knew from previous experience with others that getting Linux to run on such hardware is possible, but is not a good experience for anyone who wants a better tool.  So, I suggested to run Linux in a virtual machine, typical tasks, often enough to find out whether moving to Linux is suitable for him, by the time he is ready to buy his next workstation.  If, at that point, he does intend to switch to Linux, it means choosing the hardware for Linux compatibility; instead of just looking at the advertisements and Windows benchmarks.  The optimal hardware for different OSes is different.

This path is known to work.  I've also used a secondary approach, giving someone an older machine that runs Linux well, to try out and see if they can find a well-working workflow on it.  It has minimal risks, and maximum benefits, since Simon has not expressed any kind of strict deadlines for anything.  Keeping him productive all through the testing and discovery phase just makes sense to me.

Instead, this thread devolved into "don't use virtual machines, they're horrible", "Linux can run anything, you're just doing it wrong", and other inanities.  Those claims can be correct or incorrect in general terms, but for fucks sake, we're talking about Simon in particular here: an individual, not in generalities as to what is possible or how.  (And possibly other individuals in a similar situation as Simon, since it is actually quite common.)

Those claims are just as silly as telling a beginner asking for help with their first switch-mode DC-DC converter circuit to forget it and buy an existing module instead; or to get some ferric chloride and etch the board like a man instead of using those Chinese spy-staffed PCB prototyping services that will steal your designs.

Yes, I personally do know how to get his hardware to work with Linux, but I am not going to suggest them to Simon, because it is too much effort versus the gains.  In AvE's words, you suck too much for too long, before it gets better.  It is hard enough to un-learn all the Windows-isms that especially power users get ingrained in their autonomic nervous system -- in my experience, the harder the more advanced the user is; impossible, after a certain point --, and to add hardware issues on top of that is just going to make a very unhappy, very unproductive user.  And while I disagree with Simon on many things, I want him happy and productive.

What the fuck is so complicated or hard here?

[brucehoult]

several linux distros have failed to work. Widows works with my hardware. What do you want me to say?

What is there to say ? If a machine only runs Microsoft Windows, then run only Microsoft Windows on it.

I have about 20 computers here, they are a mixture of servers, pc's, NAS and embedded. Every single one has run, or is running Linux or *Bsd. They range from old P3's circa 2000 to ARM hexcore i7's a few years old.

Personally, if I had a machine that only ran Microsoft Windows, I'd throw it in the rubbish bin for it would be worthless to me.

Yeah, I don't get it. I'm generally a pig-ignorant Apple user (desktop / laptop / phone) but I've never had any trouble getting Linux to work on PC-type hardware. Or at least not for a very long time. I bought a Pentium Pro HP server thingy back in 1997 specifically to try Linux, and I've had Linux on a variety of machines including Athlon 700, Athlon 3200+, Core i7 860, Core i7 4790K, Core i7 6700K. I've used all sorts of video cards including Nvidia, ATI, and built in Intel.

Earlier this year I bought a 32 core ThreadRipper 2990WX with a NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti 4GB video card which I plugged a 4K monitor into. Ubuntu 18.04LTS installed absolutely no hassles at all and everything worked. Video playback was almost perfect using whatever generic VGA driver is built in -- just a few dropped frames in full-screen 4k youtube. The GUI in general certainly worked fine. Then I installed the actual NVIDIA driver and it worked absolutely perfectly.

At work they issued me with a Thinkpad X1 Carbon with 16 GB RAM and an i7 8650U, with Windows on it. I immediately nuked that and put Ubuntu on. Everything works perfectly -- video (including watching Formula 1 etc in VLC), WIFI, sound, sleep .. you name it. In light use (e.g. editing code and web browsing) it gets about 12 or 14 hours of battery life.

I guess if you deliberately tried hard enough you could probably manage to pick hardware that Linux doesn't work on, but based on my experience you'd have to work at it.

I do *not* tweak settings or customize anything -- I just stick with it how it comes out of the box.

[Siwastaja]

Try the Linux Mint distribution, I'd specifically suggest the xfce windowing edition for the least amount of bloated UI hell bullshit.

I have had the easiest experience with xfce Mint, seems to be closest to "just works", on average, at least for me. Yes, I have seen colossal pain with Debian and Ubuntu. Ubuntu's default window UI is a PITA for anyone accustomed to working with desktop computers.

A practical example: on an exact same machine, Ubuntu corrupts USB sticks almost beyond repair (the actual repair process is very specific, and no, the usual advice as found on the 'net does not work, I won't go into specifics here), 100% of the time, if you accidentally remove the device without unmounting. Mint, on the same machine, won't do that. Both were the newest versions available at the time.

Another practical example: Debian install demands that I supply a WLAN device firmware on an external disk; no help provided. I have the option of having a non-working WLAN, which I can fix later on my own. Mint on the same machine just downloads and installs everything, and just works. There's an ideological reason why it's like that, but for a user who needs to have a working system, it doesn't matter.

Some hardware works better on Windows than on linux. Some hardware works better on linux than on Windows.

A certain CANON printer I had to install is a classical example of "works better in Windows". A 10-minute driver search and installation joke in Windows. An 8-hour job of finding, googling and modifying the drivers to install in linux.

Many USB-serial devices are the classical example of "works better in linux".

But most, maybe 99% of the devices work out of the box in linux, in seconds, without installing anything, just plug-and-play.

I was tired working with Windows, and I didn't expect linux to be a silver bullet. It wasn't. If I was expecting that, I would have been dissatisfied and angry. In fact, I expected more problems than I ever had, so end result, I'm very satisfied.