throttlemeister

It appears to have been the CPU. I have replaced the 5960X with a cheap Xeon (2680-V4) and the machine works just fine and dandy. Started right up, no fuss. I guess I will need to go on the hunt for something like a 6950X at a nice price, which would be a nice (and last) upgrade too. :)

For the past month or so, I have been trying to figure out what is wrong with my computer. One day working from home, I shut it down after work and when I try to start it up the next morning it hard crashes with a kernel panic on Linux. There was no updates or new kernel since the last boot. Finding this weird, I tried booting Windows (different disk, different boot partition): bluescreen. It never bluescreens. No matter what I do, I cannot boot from either drive. What I have tried: - Removing all 8 sticks of memory and reseating them - Removing all 8 sticks of memory and booting using only a single module in the recommended slot - Removing the CPU and reseating it with fresh paste - Trying to boot from USB - same result as attempting to boot from disk - Resetting the BIOS to defaults and reapplying settings without OC manually - Same as above, but by removing the backup battery - Removing the GPU from the system and attempt to boot headless - Changing the PSU Nothing changes. I can get into BIOS/EFI, but that's it. It will not boot, but hard crash regardless of OS or disk - internal or USB. This is, as the title indicates a X99 build with a 5960X cpu and 64G of ram. It has run super ever since I built it without so much as a hickup, It is cooled with a full custom loop watercooling system and temps rarely get over 60C. Voltages and temps look just fine from BIOS, but it will not boot. I am lost. Trying to get a cheap Xeon for this socket now to exclude the CPU, but not having hopes. I just don't know anymore. It doesn't make sense.

Based on? NOFI, I don't know much about MX but when it comes to ZorinOS that's just BS. I am running ZorinOS 16 with secure boot for W11 and it installs and runs just fine. And then you go on about being limited to "any of the ubuntu flavors", when ZorinOS actually is one of those. And one that is playing pretty nice at that.

Has anyone tried using the hybrid W10 iso with W11 install.esd to do an in place upgrade?

No offense, but the hate, arrogance, entitlement, elitism in the Linux/FOSS community is real. And it typically gets worse the more experience one has. Not much has changed in that regard since the early days. When I started with Linux in 1993, the prevailing answer to any question from a learner like myself at the time was "RTFM". Tough learning back then, but I still know some of the stuff I was left to figure out on my own. Mingling in Linux discussions with newbies today, particularly when Arch Linux users are involved is like stepping into a time machine, but not in a good way. Like those that know today didn't have to start at some point in the past too. Your experience is of value to others. Don't keep it to yourself. And yes, it is annoying sometimes to answer the same question over and over. But if you can't take it, don't be a dick to them, just ignore and let someone else deal with it that time. Granted, the attitude is not exclusive to Linux and in fact current society is becoming more and more one of egotistical, entitled, racist, loud mouth a-holes that think they are experts in everything when in fact they don't know anything. A Karen-society. I can only hope it is a passing fad and people will come to their senses at some point and be more inclusive in their opinions and those of others. I'm not holding my breath though.

As does Windows. The problem arises when Windows does not have a critical driver on disk (storage drivers are notorious there) and it needs to fetch it from Windows Update (which it can't, because the network isn't there yet). Contrary to the default kernel for most Linux distro's, Windows does not install every single driver you can possibly need onto the local harddisk. That said, you can easily avoid such problems by first installing the drivers for the new hardware, then shutting down and replacing it. It will boot, detect and load the correct drivers and let you continue where you left off. The drivers for the old hardware are simply no longer loaded and are just taking up a little bit of space afterwards. No need to reinstall everything.

I am sorry, but as per your qualifications, both Debian and CentOS are server. Please explain to me if I do a standard minimal/net install for both distributions what in those installs qualifies that install to be a server? Or a desktop for that matter? There is nothing on them that lets me use it as either in that state. That whole premise that because a distribution is focused on stability instead of bleeding edge or maximum performance it is either server or desktop oriented is total nonsense. It is just a preference. Some people want to have the latest and greatest with the highest possible performance, other people want to just get work done and not have any downtime because downtime costs more money than a few percent extra performance can make them. Some people build a system with an unlocked i7 or i9 and overclock the snot out of it, others get a prebuild Xeon workstation with ECC memory and same day on-site service. Same thing. There simply is no such thing as a server or desktop OS in Linux-land with workarounds vs native solution for desktop use. That is just plain utter BS. It is not Windows Server, which identifies itself as server causing some client software not to install and which includes server software you cannot get rid of to turn it into a desktop. Sure, you can use Windows Server as a desktop but it is never going to be a desktop os. That is not how Linux works though. Per your logic, you have Debian as a server os, Ubuntu as a hackjob to make a desktop OS from it and now Ubuntu Server as a hackjob of a hackjob to turn it into a server os. And similarly, Fedora is a desktop OS, which gets frozen once or twice a year into commercial RHEL release magically turning it into a server, which then gets spun-off as a community supported CentOS release. It's ridiculous

Really, is there such a thing as desktop or server oriented? It just depends on the packages you choose to install. Just because something leans towards stability over bleeding edge doesn't make it desktop or server. Debian stable branch is also very much oriented towards stability, but that doesn't make it a server OS. Nor does the bloated, bleeding edge style of Ubuntu make it a desktop OS. Basically you have Fedora, which is a rolling release cimmunity playground that gets turned into the RHEL commercial LTS Linux version every x period of time which gets turned into CentOS as the community derivative of the same RHEL release. Personally I have always been more Debian oriented than RedHat and I would take Debian over Ubuntu or similar any day of the week and twice on Sunday, so I very much get why someone would prefer CentOS over Fedora or Manjaro. And it ain't nothing to do with Server or Desktop. That said, if you need to use commercial, professional software you are typically forced into the RHEL camp as the OP states. But it would be a disservice to the Linux community to label perfectly great distributions as 'Server' when they work equally great on the desktop amd vv. It's just a matter of prefernce and use cases.

I prefer Debian for my servers, as I prefer apt for package management and Debian is just the most stable and reliable. I vehemently dislike the fact systemd gets stuffed in everywhere these days, but what do you do. Ubuntu is just too bloated to be taken seriously and the rest is just marginal at best. I use just about everything though: Gentoo, Arch, CentOS, Slackware, derivatives of bigger distros. They all have pro's and cons. But Debian will always be my goto distro. Easy to setup and maintain, no fuzz, no frills just run and keep running. For desktop, anything with standard KDE Plasma. Yes, you can install KDE or any desktop on any Linux yourself. I do not want that. I want to install and go. Not that I generally run Linux on my desktop. I don't run OS's to play with the OS, I run an OS to use software on top of that OS and the software I need/want runs on Windows so Linux desktop is always just going to be playground stuff, nothing serious.

How did you do the upgrade? As you should, using do-release-upgrade or other (manual) means? Have you tried: apt install --fix-broken? Have you tried installing the dependancy pacakge manually?

While I agree users should do their own investigation and thinking first, instead of defaulting to trying to have someone else to do their thinking for them, if you can't provide a respectful means to answer questions on a forum, go away and don't linger and be an elitist. If you are on a forum long enough, all questions become repetitive and annoying. Deal with it or quit. We all started as n00bs one day and we all had the same or similar questions and were grateful if someone would take the time to help. If you can't bring yourself to return the favor and pay it forward, at the very least don't be a dick about it. Just my opinion. Can be difficult though, and admittingly I have told people to think and do their own school homework instead of asking others to provide them with ready to go answers. KISS for Arch is definitely of the technical category and not of the user experience one. It refers to unmodified upstream sources etc that keeps maintenance simple and ensures packages are working as designed. According to them. To me, it's a non issue as you need to test anyway but you do require less developers. [evil mode] almost like those annoying n00bs asking questions, just slapping packages together as is and call it a distro, without doing actual work yourself and depending on the upstream work of others. [/evil mode] That's tongue in cheek, before anyone goes over the deep end.

There's nothing wrong with the diy distributions. There is everything wrong with the attitude of some people in the community of certain distributions. Just because they like to diy, doesn't mean they have to be a jerk about it when someone asks a question.

Yeah, I've never understood that attitude. Personally, I don't work with the OS. It needs to boot the computer and then get out of my way so I can run the software I need to run for the tasks I want to do. It should not be a day job to get your system up and running.

When I learned Linux (kernel 0.9..), dial-up was the only means to connect and paid for by the minute at least here in Europe and the whole World Wide Web wasn't exactly overflowing with Linux information. Yet, the only information you could get out of more experienced users back then was "RTFM!". I will tell you this, it was a steep learning curve but you learned a lot and you never forget. That said, come to think about it I still have nightmare about setting up a certain Teles ISDN internal card on Linux. That said, if starting with Linux I would very much use more beginner or gamer oriented (if you're into that) distros and progress from there if you they are lacking or holding you back somehow. Not Arch or Gentoo. Why torture yourself if you can learn quicker and more enjoyable by using something that is more user-friendly?

That's very much true. Never stop learning. That said, I am an old UNIX guy and I run Windows. In the end it is just a GUI and a means to run the software you want to use. They're all good, they're all stable these days. Objectively, there is no good or bad just personal preference. And Windows lets me run all the software I want to use, while Linux doesn't. But! Having Linux inside my Windows through WSL let's me fall back to the commandline and do certain things faster and easier because I am so used to them there that it really gives me best of both worlds. And by using X410 I can even use the GUI software froim Linux if I want to.