I would not give up on Debian, once you get it running it will work great.
More info: http://wiki.debian.org/WiFi
I would not give up on Debian, once you get it running it will work great.
More info: http://wiki.debian.org/WiFi
Ugh that sucks. Perhaps there's a non-free CD or DVD that has it (not live images), if you wanna check there. Some people at the Debian forums know the contents of those .iso's pretty well, so maybe they could let you know.
Just plug into a wired ethernet connection temporarily and fix your wifi, it should be easy. If you want to tell us which wifi card you have, maybe one of us can help you.
It's a shame to limit yourself to "distros that support non-free hardware out-of-the-box" because that basically means 1) distros that operate out of foreign countries with weak software patent laws; or 2) distros that are so small/unpopular that they "fly under the radar." Most of the reputable top distros (Ubuntu, Debian, Fedora, Red Hat, etc.) take free vs. non-free software seriously, as they should.
Mint 17.3 Cinnamon
Linux Mint is liable to have your drivers,
but personally I have found arch and openSuse to be the most stable.
I think the main reason I have found arch so stable is that I just keep with xinit rather than install something like gdm.
sometimes people put up walls, not to protect themselves but to see who cares enough to break them down.
Scientific 6.0
Developed by CERN and FermiLab, based on Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Solid, stable GNOME desktop. Includes some extra blobs for wireless too
It's excellent. Compatible with Fedora (RHEL based on Fedora 12/13).
Highly recommended if you need stability for some years.
I use Arch Linux (with Fluxbox), and it is a rolling distro which means that it is bleeding edge (in a sense). I have not had any major issues with Arch at all. I started out on Linux Slackware which is a good, stable distribution, imho. Also, both Arch and Slackware are/can be minimal distributions which I think affords the user a stable/configurable distro. If you are a Ubuntu user, then Debian would be a good, stable distro that you would be familiar with since Ubuntu is basically based off of Debian. Good luck!
By the way, I have played around with Ubuntu and have had more breakage issues with Ubuntu in package upgrades than with Arch. Don't misunderstand Arch's philosophy here where "stable" doesn't necessarily mean an unchanged system, but Arch means something much different by "stable":
Q) Is Arch Linux a stable distro? Will I get frequent breakage?
A) The long and short answer is: It is largely as stable as you make it.
You assemble your own Arch system, atop the simple base environment, and you control system upgrades. (Obviously, a larger, more complicated system incorporating multitudes of packages, multiple toolkits and desktop environments would be more likely to experience configuration issues due to upstream changes than a slimmer, more simple system would.) Arch is targeted at capable, proactive users. General UNIX competence and good system maintenance and upgrade practices also play a large role in system stability. Also recall that Arch packages are predominantly unpatched, so most application issues are inherently upstream.
Therefore, it is the user who is ultimately responsible for the stability of his own rolling release system. The user decides when to upgrade, and merges necessary changes when required. If the user reaches out to the community for help, it is often provided in a timely manner. The difference between Arch and other distributions in this regard is that Arch is truly a 'do-it-yourself' distro; complaints of breakage are misguided and unproductive, since upstream changes are not the responsibility of Arch devs.
Source: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php...nt_breakage.3F
Last edited by J. Sloan; May 18th, 2011 at 12:04 AM.
Ubuntu can also be very stable if you use Fluxbox instead of Unity.
Bookmarks