Ubuntu were the only one’s supplying working images for RISC-V hardware at the time, things have changed a little bit now obviously.
Debian was also very early with repos for RISC-V
Yeah, RISC-V is an as yet unproven (but definitely very promising) computer architecture and thanks to the lack of patents and legacy content, you can fit dozens, even hundreds of small RISC-V 64 bit coress on the same die-space as a 4-core 8 thread arm chip with the same node.
Granted, some tradeoffs come with that. It would not surprise me if the next big x86 architecture comes with RISC-V cores though (e.g. post Zen architecture) and a hardware x86 emulator.
But of course Debian will struggle with RISC-V, Debian is still much faster to implement support for new architectures than, say, Windows is. But not as fast as, say, Arch or other rolling distros.
1 Like
Isn’t RISC itself almost ancient though? Wasn’t that Sun’s major point of difference for a long time?
1 Like
this thread is making me feel ancient.
RISC, and MIPS, PPC, POWER, and a half dozen other architectures are not new. RISC-V i think is going on 10 years and is only an update to the open standard anyway.
even the hardware for it is not a new idea.
some examples of various laptops
but it is nice to see it gaining some attention finally.
and yes, Debian will have ‘official’ support for RISC-V in Debian 13. but the list of what is unofficially supported is very long. Debian is known as The Universal Operating System for a reason.
1 Like
You guys are talking about RISC-V but AFAIK most stuff commercially available is terribly slow and unoptimized.
Welcome to my job where I help coding reliable and predictable computer systems optimized for 30 years of uptime (R&D on a multinational industry company).
Shit just gotta work. Going back to optimize? What for when we can fix bugs and develop shiny new products based on 10 year old standards that got obsoleted five years ago! 
And that is after I pleaded with management that the 20 year old standard has more or less no support for new hardware or software platforms.
I love the sarcasm. And looks like you are in a roll through the forum spreading tid-bits of humour.
Unless you are serious?
Like, seriously, I think Mac used to do servers, ages ago, but no idea if they still do them.
I would go Debian for stability, perhaps proxmox on top.
Arch would need too much checking of updates pages too often to keep updated and secure.
Centos used to be a contender. Before it became RedHat testing
For myself, I can even stand 'Buntu’s insane defaults, but would not with them on others
1 Like
thanks for this. i’m also rocking zfs on fedora server, and i’m loving it.
to add to what you said…
recently, i moved to kernel 6.7 before openzfs supported it.
instead of just booting 6.6 and calling it a day (iirc, fedora keeps 3 kernels installed by default), i wanted to learn a bit more about fedora and how to install what was then the latest 6.6.
you can see official kernel builds here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/?search=kernel-6&release=f39
for whatever reason, the fedora repo is limited, and 6.6 packages weren’t even in it anymore.
i found that this was the most blessed way to install what i wanted:
that downloads all the rpms from the kernel metapackage (which includes kernel-core and others) and installs them
as for inspecting kernels, you can see what you have with commands like rpm -qa kernel or rpm -qa 'kernel*'
to remove unwanted (e.g. too new) kernels, you could remove kernel-*6.7* or just kernel-core*6.7* if removing the kernel metapackage would remove zfs deps you want to keep
i.e. sudo dnf remove 'kernel-core*6.7*'
that said, 6.7 is supported by openzfs now, but maybe these notes would be helpful to someone in the future.
oh yeah, and if there’s an unsupported kernel out (maybe 6.8), you can do your other updates until openzfs supports it like this: sudo dnf upgrade --exclude='kernel*'
Not sure if official, but there used to be a lot of Mac-to-19-inch adapters.
The current Mac can be racked without going DIY, I think.
1 Like
Is that a normal mac computer, or server?
There was a mac Pro, like a big cheese-grater? it’s prolly powerful enough to handle server loads… not sure about storage tho
yeah, that. 660€ rack kit or some joke like that
Nevermind, lust looked it up, it is a different machine for insane cash.
1 Like
I’ve been dragging this right off topic, but even the 1U dual SFF Mac computer kits look cool. like the 1U quad pi rack mount.
Back on topic, ran into new DKMS mis-match on automatic DNFupdate with centos (stream? 8?). Does not seen as stable as I had hoped.
Are you planning to do the in place upgrade? Or is this a VM?
Fedora as a server turns me off because of the frequency of updates. Every time I turn on my Fedora desktop machine I have new updates to install. Probably my fault for adding the CRAN copr but oh well…