X11 hang on one distro, fine on other distro

[secdroid]

I'm having a problem running one version of Debian Buster with kernel 4.19 -- (the i386 Raspberry Pi Desktop distro at https://www.raspberrypi.org/downloads/r ... i-desktop/) — on a computer the runs the AMD64 XFCE MX-19 distro of Debian Buster flawlessly.

The issue is a hard X11 desktop hang. The problem occurs when I run either in live mode, booted via USB ***or*** with the distro installed to /dev/sda (USB) via the Debian graphical installer. Oddly the desktop works fine and I can browse the web using the Chromium web browser, but it hangs as soon as I try to use the terminal app by clicking the icon. CTRL-ALT-BACKSPACE doesn't work. I can't pop a tty via function key.

I thought it might be due to missing drivers or their non-free dependencies, so I followed the instructions on https://linuxconfig.org/how-to-install- ... -10-buster. It turned out that firmware-linux, firmware-linux-nonfree, libdrm-amdgpu1, and xserver-xorg-video-amdgpu were already installed. Following the instructions, I added the Vulkan and OpenCl support. I still got the hang.

The computer is a daily driver and dual boots MX-19 and Windows 10 flawlessly.

I have used the same Raspberry Pi Desktop OS USB flash drive in both live mode and to install the Pi OS on an Acer Inspire netbook with an Intel Atom processor. The Pi OS works flawlessly in both modes. Therefore, the RPi USB drive appears to be OK.

There were no suggestions on the Raspberry Pi Forums when I asked. Any suggestions?

Hardinfo excerpt from MX-19:

Code: Select all

Processor          AMD A6-9220C RADEON R5, 5 COMPUTE CORES 2C+3G
Memory             3980MB (1429MB used)     
Operating System   Debian GNU/Linux 10 (buster)
…
Resolution         1920x1080 pixels
OpenGL Renderer    AMD STONEY (DRM 3.27.0, 4.19.0-6-amd64, LLVM 7.0.1)
X11 Vendor         The X.Org Foundation
…
Kernel	Linux      4.19.0-6-amd64 (x86_64)
Version            #1 SMP Debian 4.19.67-2+deb10u2 (2019-11-11)
C Library          GNU C Library / (Debian GLIBC 2.28-10) 2.28
Distribution       Debian GNU/Linux 10 (buster)
…
Display
Resolution         1920x1080 pixels
Vendor             The X.Org Foundation
Version            1.20.4
...
Vendor             X.Org
Renderer           AMD STONEY (DRM 3.27.0, 4.19.0-6-amd64, LLVM 7.0.1)
Version            4.5 (Compatibility Profile) Mesa 18.3.6
Direct Rendering   Yes

[stevepusser]

Well, I'm mystified by the problem with the Pi desktop, but you should upgrade the kernel to Debian's 4.19.0-10 in MX to keep security current. You should be able to do that in the kernel section of MX Package Installer--Popular Apps.

[secdroid]

...you should upgrade the kernel to Debian's 4.19.0-10 in MX to keep security current. You should be able to do that in the kernel section of MX Package Installer--Popular Apps.

Upgraded to Linux 4.19.0-10-amd64 (x86_64). Thanks for the tip. I've been content to just wait for suggested updates.

I've been a fan of Debian for the stability, packages, community, and superb documentation. The same is true for the MX-19 distro, for the same reasons. Highly recommended.

[secdroid]

I forgot to mention in my original post -- the Raspberry Pi distro ran fine in VirtualBox on the AMD A6 machine. Setting were defaults. This is why I wondered if there might be a driver issue running live or installed.

FWIW, I've also run Ubuntu Server and Fedora Rawhide on the same machine without apparent issues.

[LE_746F6D617A7A69]

I'm having a problem running one version of Debian Buster with kernel 4.19 -- (the i386 Raspberry Pi Desktop distro at https://www.raspberrypi.org/downloads/r ... i-desktop/) — on a computer the runs the AMD64 XFCE MX-19 distro of Debian Buster flawlessly.

MX Linux is not Debian - this is a spin of Debian, just like Ubuntu - practically those are quite different systems ...
Therefore, the results obtained with non-Debian system images are not applicable on this forums - You should consider 2 aspects of this situation:
1. This is a Debian *User* forum - formally, the Debian developers are *not* the users of this forum,
2. Debian does not officially support RaspberryPi (althogh it supprts the ARM platform, but not RPi) - the authors of the OS images who are claiming that they are using Debian as a base OS are not lying - but definitely they are falsely proclaiming Debian compatibility ... (especially in terms of reliability...)

[stevepusser]

I'm having a problem running one version of Debian Buster with kernel 4.19 -- (the i386 Raspberry Pi Desktop distro at https://www.raspberrypi.org/downloads/r ... i-desktop/) — on a computer the runs the AMD64 XFCE MX-19 distro of Debian Buster flawlessly.

MX Linux is not Debian - this is a spin of Debian, just like Ubuntu - practically those are quite different systems ...
Therefore, the results obtained with non-Debian system images are not applicable on this forums - You should consider 2 aspects of this situation:
1. This is a Debian *User* forum - formally, the Debian developers are *not* the users of this forum,
2. Debian does not officially support RaspberryPi (althogh it supprts the ARM platform, but not RPi) - the authors of the OS images who are claiming that they are using Debian as a base OS are not lying - but definitely they are falsely proclaiming Debian compatibility ... (especially in terms of reliability...)

Chillax, dude. MX is a lot more closely related to the Debian mothership than Ubuntu. The kernels that I'm recommending are the Debian Buster kernels from the Debian repos, where MX directly gets most packages, in contrast to Ubuntu. Besides, the original problem wasn't with MX at all, but some spin made by Raspian for x86 machines with their Pixel desktop, not for the Pi.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
We changed the action in MX Package Installer to install the Debian default kernel and header metapackages, so you'll get any 4.19 kernel updates automatically now, just like Debian. We can do that cuz we are quite close to Debian, unlike Ubuntu.

[LE_746F6D617A7A69]

Chillax, dude. MX is a lot more closely related to the Debian mothership than Ubuntu. The kernels that I'm recommending are the Debian Buster kernels from the Debian repos, where MX directly gets most packages, in contrast to Ubuntu. Besides, the original problem wasn't with MX at all, but some spin made by Raspian for x86 machines with their Pixel desktop, not for the Pi.

That's funny: everyone here is bashing users of Ubuntu, Kali, etc. for posting support requests on Debian Users Forum - what is quite reasonable for Me - but here we have a user of Raspbian and MX-Linux - and everything is okay?

If MX-Linux is "so closely related" to Debian, then what are the MX-Linux forums for? Or even better: Why have You created the MX-Linux at all? If it's just a slightly modified Debian, then I think it would be better for everyone to improve Debian rather than creating another copy of it.

Anyway, keep cool and have a nice day...

[cuckooflew]

Well, yes Steve is right, MX-Linux is not at all like Ubuntu, but also LE_746F6D617A7A69 right, MX and Ubuntu are both just "other distros" or a "spin off", so conclusion:

Therefore, the results obtained with non-Debian system images are not applicable on this forums - You should consider 2 aspects of this situation:
1. This is a Debian *User* forum - formally, the Debian developers are *not* the users of this forum,
2. Debian does not officially support RaspberryPi (althogh it supprts the ARM platform, but not RPi) - the authors of the OS images who are claiming that they are using Debian as a base OS are not lying - but definitely they are falsely proclaiming Debian compatibility ... (especially in terms of reliability...)

There is nothing wrong with asking here, but since it really is not a Debian issue, specifically, the Offtopic

If it doesn't relate to Debian, but you still want to share it, please do it here

forum would have been more appropriate.
Just saying, no need to get "ruffled" .
Back to the topic, it is not clear to me, is this problem only on the Raspberry Pi , or is it also occurring on MX-19 as well, ?
Ahh, Steve did say,

Besides, the original problem wasn't with MX at all, but some spin made by Raspian for x86 machines with their Pixel desktop, not for the Pi.

... gee whiz, it is really hard to follow this topic, and then, maybe it's just me.

[LE_746F6D617A7A69]

I do respect the stevepusser, because I think He is a very clever and skilled man - but I think that He's playing an unfair game -> I mean that no one of the Debian developers is registering on Ubuntu forums just to advertise Debian as a *better* OS. None of of the Debian developers is bashing Ubuntu for beeing an unstable crap, littered with unstable software provided trough PPA's.

But, Steve as an MX-Linux developer/package maintainer is bashing Debian, advertising MX as a *better* OS, claiming that Debian is somehow *worse* than MX due to outdated firmware, drivers and applications.

He is partially right - but there's already a distro which does fill that niche - the Arch Linux - an unstable software backports galore

I'm just trying to be objective - MX-Linux is just far closer to Arch in the principle, but using Debian as a base OS - mixing stable, testing, sid and Ubuntu software - so IMO it's *far* from Debian, where the main goal is to deliver a *stable*, not the *newest* OS software.

Regards

[stevepusser]

I'm just trying to be objective - MX-Linux is just far closer to Arch in the principle, but using Debian as a base OS - mixing stable, testing, sid and Ubuntu software?

If you have no idea of our backporting and testing procedure, it may be better to not say anything about MX at all.

How is stating facts about firmware for Buster being outdated for new hardware at the moment bashing Debian? Facts is facts. Backports will probably have newer firmware soon, but many newer GPUs will still need a newer Mesa. Tell you what--how about you waste user's time from now on when they can't get a GUI up on Buster by suggesting a newer kernel when that could be only part of the answer, OK?

Anyway, I wish the OP has just tested Debian instead of MX as a comparison on that machine, because it probably would also have "just worked", and avoided all the fuss.

[Deb-fan]

Source, Debian social contract.

We will support people who create or use both free and non-free works on Debian. We will never make the system require the use of a non-free component.

Looks like Stevep has the official nod and general approval of the Debian gnu/linux project. This btw is not meant as a slight nor an insult towards @LE_, is meant as a +1 for Stevep, guy puts a lot of effort into Mx, (here too) reasonably enough he's proud of it. Mx, Ubuntu and Arch all fill a need/niche, outside of saying they're all gnu/linux distributions comparing them is in many ways silly.

Just 4 record, I dont use any of the aforementioned nixness, have no plans to(other than poss playing around with them), Debian does anything i could ever want-need.