• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Poll: Which linux distro do you use?

I'll try to explain since somebody hasn't brought it up yet.

Linux is the core, of every distro, when I say Linux, I mean the kernel. The linux kernel is all pretty much the same across the different linux distros. The main thing that distinguishes one distro from another is their package manager, configuration tools, community, web resources such as forums, wiki's, etc. You can get the linux kernel from www.kernel.org . For example debian, and gentoo are the 2 best package managers because of the tools that they provide. Installing packages in debian is so much easier than in windows. For example in debian I only need to do "apt-get install <package-name>", in gentoo (I think you only need to do) "emerge <package-name>" and it will build the packages from source which provides utmost optimizations.

So asking which distro somebody is going to use for 64-bit processors is not a very different question that the one you posted before it. Linux has had 64 bit support well before windows did. WAIT A SEC. I DON'T THINK WINDOWS HAS SUPPORT FOR IT YET 😛 . You just need to enable the right modules/drivers in the kernel. If somebody is accostumed to a specific set of tools provided by one distro it's very unlikely that they will switch to another, unless they feel like learning more tools.

The nice thing about Linux as an OS is that the skills that you obtained through the use of CLI (command line interface) can be used accross different linux distros.

I hope this helps,
pitupepito
 
Originally posted by: pitupepito2000
I'll try to explain since somebody hasn't brought it up yet.

Linux is the core, of every distro, when I say Linux, I mean the kernel. The linux kernel is all pretty much the same across the different linux distros. The main thing that distinguishes one distro from another is their package manager, configuration tools, community, web resources such as forums, wiki's, etc. You can get the linux kernel from www.kernel.org . For example debian, and gentoo are the 2 best package managers because of the tools that they provide. Installing packages in debian is so much easier than in windows. For example in debian I only need to do "apt-get install <package-name>", in gentoo (I think you only need to do) "emerge <package-name>" and it will build the packages from source which provides utmost optimizations.

So asking which distro somebody is going to use for 64-bit processors is not a very different question that the one you posted before it. Linux has had 64 bit support well before windows did. WAIT A SEC. I DON'T THINK WINDOWS HAS SUPPORT FOR IT YET 😛 . You just need to enable the right modules/drivers in the kernel. If somebody is accostumed to a specific set of tools provided by one distro it's very unlikely that they will switch to another, unless they feel like learning more tools.

The nice thing about Linux as an OS is that the skills that you obtained through the use of CLI (command line interface) can be used accross different linux distros.

I hope this helps,
pitupepito
Click to expand...

Windows has had 64bit support for a while now.
 
Debian for: 4 x86 boxes, 1 powepc laptop.

Why? Quality, community, no strings attached, nearly perfect infrastructure (as in package management. apt is what user sees, debconf is what makes it (so to speak) extensible and abstract)
 
Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Originally posted by: pitupepito2000
I'll try to explain since somebody hasn't brought it up yet.

Linux is the core, of every distro, when I say Linux, I mean the kernel. The linux kernel is all pretty much the same across the different linux distros. The main thing that distinguishes one distro from another is their package manager, configuration tools, community, web resources such as forums, wiki's, etc. You can get the linux kernel from www.kernel.org . For example debian, and gentoo are the 2 best package managers because of the tools that they provide. Installing packages in debian is so much easier than in windows. For example in debian I only need to do "apt-get install <package-name>", in gentoo (I think you only need to do) "emerge <package-name>" and it will build the packages from source which provides utmost optimizations.

So asking which distro somebody is going to use for 64-bit processors is not a very different question that the one you posted before it. Linux has had 64 bit support well before windows did. WAIT A SEC. I DON'T THINK WINDOWS HAS SUPPORT FOR IT YET 😛 . You just need to enable the right modules/drivers in the kernel. If somebody is accostumed to a specific set of tools provided by one distro it's very unlikely that they will switch to another, unless they feel like learning more tools.

The nice thing about Linux as an OS is that the skills that you obtained through the use of CLI (command line interface) can be used accross different linux distros.

I hope this helps,
pitupepito
Click to expand...

Windows has had 64bit support for a while now.
Click to expand...

After doing very little search, I find out you're right. Although I'm sure that the support for it is probably very buggy, when windows says that something has support or runs stable, it isn't until several revisions later that it actually works, for example windows xp sp2, or things like windows me, etc

Never mind me I'm just speaking nonsense, my opinion is definetely biased towards OSS.
 
Windows NT had the ability to run Alpha 64bit proccessors, as did Win2k. Abiet in 32bit mode. Microsoft released a version of the Beta for Win2k that would boot up and sort of run natively in 64bit mode on those proccessors. Native implimentations of 64bit-ness now has come about thru the Itanium platform.

Linux in comparision has been running natively in 64bit for a long long time, which is nice. Portable software has generally higher quality coding then something that is not. That's one of the reasons why Id like to support Linux and Mac implimentations of their games, they catch lots of bugs and problems that would not be readaly apparent thru just making a Win32-only game.

Anyways, I use Debian and Fedora. Debian for my desktop, and Fedora for my laptop and a old computer that I use for a Mythtv front end.
 
Originally posted by: pitupepito2000

So asking which distro somebody is going to use for 64-bit processors is not a very different question that the one you posted before it. Linux has had 64 bit support well before windows did.
pitupepito
Click to expand...

Actually there is an important difference. A lot of packages don't successfully compile to 64-bit yet, including open office. So if you run 64-bit Gentoo, you end up telling emerge to get the binary version of those anyway.

 
Actually there is an important difference. A lot of packages don't successfully compile to 64-bit yet, including open office. So if you run 64-bit Gentoo, you end up telling emerge to get the binary version of those anyway.
Click to expand...

Which is why it's so important for distributions like Debian to hold back releases because of problems with lesser-used architectures. It shows that they're truely serious about supporting all 11 architectures and most of the time any bugs reported against Debian packages that are related to something not working on a 64-bit arch get pushed upstream and fixed. There's currently over 13,000 packages available in sarge for Alpha, that's counting -doc, -dev, etc as seperate packages but I don't know of a good, easy way of counting just source packages.

And some stats of the Debian autobuilders, if anyone's interested.
http://buildd.debian.org/stats/
 
Originally posted by: Nothinman
Actually there is an important difference. A lot of packages don't successfully compile to 64-bit yet, including open office. So if you run 64-bit Gentoo, you end up telling emerge to get the binary version of those anyway.
Click to expand...

Which is why it's so important for distributions like Debian to hold back releases because of problems with lesser-used architectures. It shows that they're truely serious about supporting all 11 architectures and most of the time any bugs reported against Debian packages that are related to something not working on a 64-bit arch get pushed upstream and fixed. There's currently over 13,000 packages available in sarge for Alpha, that's counting -doc, -dev, etc as seperate packages but I don't know of a good, easy way of counting just source packages.

And some stats of the Debian autobuilders, if anyone's interested.
http://buildd.debian.org/stats/
Click to expand...

Debian rocks the house.

Debian is the bestest distro EVar! 😛

Of course nothing is perfect, but I ment Linux generally has been 64bit. At least for things that 64bit is important for. Mixing 32bit apps in a 64bit enviroment is a pain, but it's something that has generally been worked around and 64bit has always been their for things that 64bit have been important...

Example: Running a big databases. Any thing that requires having large amount of memory for. XFS is 64bit pure

(also O😵rg is going to pale in comparision to the shear amounts of Windows apps that are going to be run in 32bit WOW mode when WinXP-64 gets out. Which I think would probably be the vast majority off apps.. )
 
Fedora Core 2 - I tried SuSE last go but didn't like it. It had a good interface but gave me some issues with package install. I think I'm going to give Debian a go real soon here.
 
Why I use Fedora Core 2 on my laptop:

wget http://download.fedora.us/fedo...c6-0.fdr.11.2.i386.rpm
rpm -i apt-0.5.15cnc6-0.fdr.11.2.i386.rpm
apt-get mirror-select
wgethttp:// http://dag.wieers.com/packages/RPM-GPG-KEY.dag.txt
rpm --import RPM-GPG-KEY.dag.txt
echo "rpmhttp:// http://apt.sw.be fedora/2/en/i386 dag" > /etc/apt/sources.list.d/dag.list
apt-get update
apt-get dist-upgrade

unfortunately using the dag sources upgrades your apt instead of using the official fedora stuff, so now you have to clean up the /etc/apt/sources.list.d/ stuff. Use third party repositories at your own risk.

apt-get install libdvdcss
apt-get install mplayer

Then I am happy with Fedora Core2 on my laptop. Of course Debian is better at the whole apt-get game.
 
Originally posted by: pitupepito2000
Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Originally posted by: pitupepito2000
I'll try to explain since somebody hasn't brought it up yet.

Linux is the core, of every distro, when I say Linux, I mean the kernel. The linux kernel is all pretty much the same across the different linux distros. The main thing that distinguishes one distro from another is their package manager, configuration tools, community, web resources such as forums, wiki's, etc. You can get the linux kernel from www.kernel.org . For example debian, and gentoo are the 2 best package managers because of the tools that they provide. Installing packages in debian is so much easier than in windows. For example in debian I only need to do "apt-get install <package-name>", in gentoo (I think you only need to do) "emerge <package-name>" and it will build the packages from source which provides utmost optimizations.

So asking which distro somebody is going to use for 64-bit processors is not a very different question that the one you posted before it. Linux has had 64 bit support well before windows did. WAIT A SEC. I DON'T THINK WINDOWS HAS SUPPORT FOR IT YET 😛 . You just need to enable the right modules/drivers in the kernel. If somebody is accostumed to a specific set of tools provided by one distro it's very unlikely that they will switch to another, unless they feel like learning more tools.

The nice thing about Linux as an OS is that the skills that you obtained through the use of CLI (command line interface) can be used accross different linux distros.

I hope this helps,
pitupepito
Click to expand...

Windows has had 64bit support for a while now.
Click to expand...

After doing very little search, I find out you're right. Although I'm sure that the support for it is probably very buggy, when windows says that something has support or runs stable, it isn't until several revisions later that it actually works, for example windows xp sp2, or things like windows me, etc

Never mind me I'm just speaking nonsense, my opinion is definetely biased towards OSS.
Click to expand...

Not many people have bought itaniums anyways. 😉
 
Originally posted by: glugglug
Originally posted by: pitupepito2000

So asking which distro somebody is going to use for 64-bit processors is not a very different question that the one you posted before it. Linux has had 64 bit support well before windows did.
pitupepito
Click to expand...

Actually there is an important difference. A lot of packages don't successfully compile to 64-bit yet, including open office. So if you run 64-bit Gentoo, you end up telling emerge to get the binary version of those anyway.
Click to expand...

hehe, that's something I hadn't thought about. At least with open source the users can help test things and get programs released faster than closed source programs.
 
Mandrake for my desktop and my wife's (she prefers Mandrake over WinXP 😉), but am currently using Knoppix since my hard drive and IDE controller just died on me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top