Which Actually Matters For Compatibility?

Horizon_Brave · 2016-05-23 22:16:40

Hey everyone,

Wasn't sure if this should be in this forum or in the multimedia, so if you feel the need to move, be my guest.

Just out of curiosity....which in your opinion, or fact, matters more when selecting a piece of hardware, the chipset of the card, or the board? Let me elaborate..

You have a pre-built PC, and you're looking to buy a graphics card. To make the most of it, and to ensure that it actually works in a linux build, does one need to focus only on the actual cpu/gpu chip architecture? Does the board manufacturer matter in this case?
So if I'm looking at an MSI or EVGA, or AUSUS who develop the hardware of the board, does the brand of that manufactuer and even the design and technology on the board play into the compatibility with a certain Linux distro? Or is is soley based on the logic of the controling chipset? (made by nvidia, intel, amd etc..)

Head_on_a_Stick · 2016-05-24 06:35:03

The motherboard is relatively unimportant, the only caveat being that I have known some manufacturers (ASUS!) who supplied boards which lacked the ability to disable Secure Boot along with a generally crappy and un-cooperative firmware interface and a very buggy implementation of the UEFI standard.

I have seen this in several threads over at the Arch forums, in at least one thread the motherboard had to be returned to the (ASUS!) factory to have the firmware chip replaced with a better version.

EDIT: the most important thing is to not waste your money buying anything too new -- GNU/Linux works best with slightly old hardware.

EDIT2: if politics are a consideration (you're using Debian, right?), have a look at https://h-node.org/ for a list of free (as in speech) hardware that can be used with the "contrib" & "non-free" components in your sources.list removed to get a fully free operating system.

Last edited by Head_on_a_Stick (2016-05-24 06:43:11)

brontosaurusrex · 2016-05-24 06:51:07

I'd avoid asus as well. As for hardware one can take a very specific look at things, for example what can Blender do with cpu/gpu? On this new pc cpu is rated 450% (according to sheepit) and gpu at 480% (Quad core Intel Xeon E5-2643 is cpu, Nvidia GTX 980 is gpu).

p.s. Also nvidia has slight advantage for me, since I know it will work with mpv (hardware decoding of h.264).

Last edited by brontosaurusrex (2016-05-24 06:52:52)

Horizon_Brave · 2016-05-24 18:21:55

Thanks for the responses mates. I'm asking more for personal knowledge than needing to actually apply it. I was just curious as to rather the function of the board (motherboard, sound, or graphics card) can cause linux distros to throw up any errors or was it more software based on the cpu architecture.

One question though... it doesn't seem like a big secret the board manufacturers of all kinds, pretty much design their boards to work with certain chips... Intel's, AMD's, NVIDIA's etc... So couldn't the chip makers sort of 'strong arm' the board producers to make their firmware more linux/distro friendly?

Head_on_a_Stick · 2016-05-24 18:23:38

Horizon_Brave wrote:

So couldn't the chip makers sort of 'strong arm' the board producers to make their firmware more linux/distro friendly?

Where's the margin in that?
8o

tynman · 2016-05-24 19:58:55

The two hardware things that that I have struggled with in Linux are:

- graphics card
- wireless card (I finally gave up and only use wired network)

I wouldn't have thought motherboard brand was a big consideration as far as Linux compatibility goes.

My $0.02

Horizon_Brave · 2016-05-24 20:50:27

Margin? I always prefer real butter

Ha, and yea I keep forgetting about that money stuff...

Horizon_Brave · 2016-05-24 21:05:05

tynman wrote:

The two hardware things that that I have struggled with in Linux are:
- graphics card
- wireless card (I finally gave up and only use wired network)
I wouldn't have thought motherboard brand was a big consideration as far as Linux compatibility goes.
My $0.02

What wireless card is on it?

tynman · 2016-05-24 21:43:15

It is broadcom, many of which are supported by the main Debian non-free package, but mine wasn't supported. I got it working somehow, but I resolved to get myself hard-wired to my ISP router-gizmo as soon as I could, and said good-bye to wireless.

pvsage · 2016-05-25 03:48:58

^ Keep in mind that some wired network cards also require nonfree firmware; the Realtek PCI Express Gigabit Ethernet Controller on my (ASUS!) mobo for example.

Head_on_a_Stick · 2016-05-25 06:47:18

tynman wrote:

broadcom

https://wiki.debian.org/bcm43xx
https://wiki.debian.org/wl
https://wiki.debian.org/brcm80211

And to tell which one you need:
https://wiki.debian.org/HowToIdentifyADevice/PCI

For netinstalls, see:
http://crunchbang.org/forums/viewtopic.php?id=39366

HTH

EDIT: Don't buy Broadcom wireless devices, they suck under GNU/Linux

I have had good experiences with Atheros cards and they require no binary firmaware blobs to run, unlike Intel cards (and many others).

Last edited by Head_on_a_Stick (2016-05-25 06:48:54)

#1 2016-05-23 22:16:40

Which Actually Matters For Compatibility?

#2 2016-05-24 06:35:03

Re: Which Actually Matters For Compatibility?

#3 2016-05-24 06:51:07

Re: Which Actually Matters For Compatibility?

#4 2016-05-24 18:21:55

Re: Which Actually Matters For Compatibility?

#5 2016-05-24 18:23:38

Re: Which Actually Matters For Compatibility?

#6 2016-05-24 19:58:55

Re: Which Actually Matters For Compatibility?

#7 2016-05-24 20:50:27

Re: Which Actually Matters For Compatibility?

#8 2016-05-24 21:05:05

Re: Which Actually Matters For Compatibility?

#9 2016-05-24 21:43:15

Re: Which Actually Matters For Compatibility?

#10 2016-05-25 03:48:58

Re: Which Actually Matters For Compatibility?

#11 2016-05-25 06:47:18

Re: Which Actually Matters For Compatibility?

Board footer