

-----------------------------------

Mazer

Wed May 11, 2005 6:22 am


Name that distro!

-----------------------------------

Hey guys. In the coming days I'll be assembling a computer from some really old parts and need some advice on which Linux distro would be my best bet.

When I say old, I mean my dad's old computer which I *think* is something like 350MHz (maybe less than that). It's got around 96mb of ram, and I think I can find a ~4gb hard drive for it.

All I need it to do is run SDL and 2D graphics with reasonable speed, and sound.
Bonus points for being able to boot straight to the X server without too much of a wait.

Because of the last point, I'm thinking Gentoo. But as with the specs I've pointed out, I'd rather not wait a week installing the OS.
Would another distro suit my needs here better?


-----------------------------------

rizzix

Wed May 11, 2005 6:56 am



-----------------------------------

debian based distros have great legacy hardware support.. try ubuntu

or you can go with [url=www.archlinux.org]archlinux it is "optimised" for i686 processors.


-----------------------------------

Mazer

Wed May 11, 2005 7:12 am



-----------------------------------

I'm almost certain that this processor wouldn't qualify as i686, but what do I know?

I was thinking Ubuntu at first, just because it's so easy to get things working. But the thing is, I'm building a dedicated DDR machine here. So supposing I, or even my dad, would like to go to the family room and play some DDR, waiting several minutes just to boot up wouldn't be so much fun. Does Debian boot faster than Ubuntu in your experience? 

Also, I don't want to be bogged down by alot of extra things I won't be using enough for it to be worthwhile. For instance, I occasionally may want to put some new songs on the computer, but it'd probably be easier to stick them on a USB device than to keep the thing connected to the network all the time.


-----------------------------------

rizzix

Wed May 11, 2005 7:55 am



-----------------------------------

the following platforms are considered i686:
Intel
    * Pentium Pro
    * Pentium II
    * Pentium III
    * Celeron
    * Pentium 4
    * Pentium M
AMD
    * Athlon
    * Athlon XP
    * Duron
    * Sempron
 
as listed in wikipedia: [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I686]i686

The thing is,, i havn;t tried ubuntu. I did try debian, and let me warn you, the installation is not pretty. The OS is dead ugly. It is just plain horrible. Ok now that i've mentioned that, its speed was acceptable, nothing significant or outstanding. 

hmm i was thinking of updating my SuSE (dont bother it requires an high-end pc) but i am (was) curious to try out ubuntu.. then again i think i might just install arch.. if your processor falls under any of those listed above.. i suggest you do the same :P


-----------------------------------

Mazer

Wed May 11, 2005 8:09 am



-----------------------------------

the following platforms are considered i686:
...
http://cpu-museum.de/?m=AMD&f=K6-2#cpu0173  :) 
Heh, what did you think I meant by "old?"  :D

Perhaps I'll just keep looking for a bit. Nothing I can do now anyways, as I still need to find a damned ATX case in my basement so I can stick the mobo somewhere.


-----------------------------------

rizzix

Wed May 11, 2005 8:12 am



-----------------------------------

The other OS i can recommend (that is lightweight) is [url=www.opendarwin.org]opendarwin. But it is not linux, instead unix. It is more FreeBSD compatible than Linux compatible, although very very close. I've used it, its easy to use and fast. They have this thing called darwinports through which you can install various software.. although its not as easy to use as most linux disto's packaging systems.. it is not all that hard either. Hmm.. i'm not too sure about hardware compatibility though.. but if freebsd5 was compatible with a wide variety of hardware,, maybe darwin should be the same.


-----------------------------------

wtd

Wed May 11, 2005 10:28 am



-----------------------------------

Damn Small Linux?


-----------------------------------

Martin

Wed May 11, 2005 11:57 am



-----------------------------------

Windows 3.11?


-----------------------------------

wtd

Wed May 11, 2005 1:26 pm



-----------------------------------

Windows 3.11?

The hardware mentioned would run Windows 95, if you're going to go that route.


-----------------------------------

rizzix

Wed May 11, 2005 2:06 pm



-----------------------------------

woots, just installed arch linux.. i'm very satisfied... getting a graphics accelerated nvidia driver installed and working was pretty easy.. only problem right now is sound (alsa).. i'll figure that out eventually. 

oh yea, its quite darn fast! woah!

the pacman packing system is very cool.. it feels like gentoo, but much faster!


-----------------------------------

wtd

Wed May 11, 2005 2:51 pm



-----------------------------------

woots, just installed arch linux.. i'm very satisfied... getting a graphics accelerated nvidia driver installed and working was pretty easy.. only problem right now is sound (alsa).. i'll figure that out eventually. 

oh yea, its quite darn fast! woah!

the pacman packing system is very cool.. it feels like gentoo, but much faster!

What kind of desktop environment are you using?


-----------------------------------

rdrake

Wed May 11, 2005 2:52 pm



-----------------------------------

Ubuntu worked fine on an old computer I had lying around (400 MHz, P2, 64 MB RAM, etc.), even with Gnome running.  Kinda slow, but it still worked pretty well.


-----------------------------------

Mazer

Wed May 11, 2005 4:02 pm



-----------------------------------

Damn Small Linux?
I was about to look into that as well. The biggest positive for using Ubuntu is ease of setting up and the packages, and I'm now reluctant to give that up. But we'll see...

Ubuntu worked fine on an old computer I had lying around (400 MHz, P2, 64 MB RAM, etc.), even with Gnome running. Kinda slow, but it still worked pretty well.
Yeah... the "kinda slow" part sucks really. DDR isn't one of those games where noticeable hiccups can be ignored. Hopefully if I run something like blackbox instead of Gnome it can help the problem a bit.


-----------------------------------

wtd

Wed May 11, 2005 4:13 pm



-----------------------------------

Ubuntu worked fine on an old computer I had lying around (400 MHz, P2, 64 MB RAM, etc.), even with Gnome running. Kinda slow, but it still worked pretty well.
Yeah... the "kinda slow" part sucks really. DDR isn't one of those games where noticeable hiccups can be ignored. Hopefully if I run something like blackbox instead of Gnome it can help the problem a bit.

Apparently there's some work going on to produce an XFCE-oriented Ubuntu desktop (much like Kubuntu).  That might give you better performance.


-----------------------------------

betaflye

Wed May 11, 2005 4:33 pm



-----------------------------------


The thing is,, i havn;t tried ubuntu. I did try debian, and let me warn you, the installation is not pretty. The OS is dead ugly. It is just plain horrible. Ok now that i've mentioned that, its speed was acceptable, nothing significant or outstanding. 
 Ubuntu uses a modified version of the debian sarge installer, both Ubuntu and the testing branch of debian install quite easilly.


-----------------------------------

rizzix

Wed May 11, 2005 8:10 pm



-----------------------------------

What kind of desktop environment are you using? GNOME 2.10


-----------------------------------

wtd

Wed May 11, 2005 8:54 pm



-----------------------------------

What kind of desktop environment are you using? GNOME 2.10

Nifty.

Now, try some GTK# programming, just for the heck of it.  :)


-----------------------------------

rizzix

Thu May 12, 2005 9:01 pm



-----------------------------------

got the audio to work.. it was just a matter of adding my user account to the "audio" group :P

cool this OS seems pretty secure by default.


-----------------------------------

rizzix

Sat May 14, 2005 2:36 pm



-----------------------------------

woah! want a new feel to the boring old linux try [url=http://www.symphonyos.com/index.shtml]Symphony OS (i would only recommend liveCD at the moment) with their really cool Mezzo Desktop Environment!  This is one "distinct" distro.


-----------------------------------

Mazer

Sat May 14, 2005 10:51 pm



-----------------------------------

Wooh! Just got a Celeron (400MHz  :P ) today. I'm totally putting Arch Linux on that sucka! Now we move onto Phase 2.

And that Mezzo looks pretty cool. Do you know if It's possible to use with other distros or was it made to work only with Symphony?


-----------------------------------

rizzix

Sat May 14, 2005 10:53 pm



-----------------------------------

i really dunno.. i was just looking through distrowatch when i came across that. 
arch linux is really cool though

if ur doing a clean install.. its pretty darn simple.. (the drive partitioning/formatting process).

just that once u actually get it all started and stuff. it automatically logs you in as root. it is then that you type in 'passwd' and change the root password, and after that create a new account for your use (adduser).
just make sure that do the following afterwards:
gpasswd -a your_user_name video
gpasswd -a your_user_name audio
gpasswd -a your_user_name optical
gpasswd -a your_user_name lp

after that post.. i'll show you how to get X11 working.


-----------------------------------

Mazer

Sat May 14, 2005 11:02 pm



-----------------------------------

after then post.. i'll show you how to get X11 working.
YOU MEAN IT DOENS'T DO THAT AUTOMATICALLY?! RARGH!
But anyways, it'll have to wait until I can get a hard drive for it. I think I've got a 4gig in the basement. Er, does the base Arch Linux install take up a great deal of space?


-----------------------------------

rizzix

Sat May 14, 2005 11:11 pm



-----------------------------------

great deal of space? hmm no heh.. but i didn't check.. so yea..


-----------------------------------

Hikaru79

Sun May 15, 2005 2:44 pm



-----------------------------------

I would use Gentoo ... although you're right, compiling it can take a very long time, I'm assuming you have other, stronger, computers in your house -- you can use them in a distcc environment where they can all share the compiling load and cut it down very significantly. I would use the Pentium II image of this: http://jackass.homelinux.org/  . Basically, it's a pre-optimized toolkit for Gentoo for a few different architectures. Really takes the difficulty out of getting a fine-tuned Gentoo running. However, you *will* have to compile your own kernel, and if you've been using Ubuntu until now there's a good chance you've never done that =/


-----------------------------------

rizzix

Sun May 15, 2005 7:43 pm



-----------------------------------

gentoo just has far too much hype around it.. if you want to go for a sourced based distro (and for the sake of a cranking out a "little" more performance from your box) then go with gentoo.. but there's really no need to otherwise.

ArchLinux comes with pre-optimised binaries.. and it is by far the most respectable distro i've ever used. It leaves you in control of your system. It's not designed for easy of setup or configuration, but is designed for an experienced linux geek.


Just try it out.. you'll know what i mean.


-----------------------------------

Notoroge

Sun May 15, 2005 7:51 pm



-----------------------------------

Might I add my two cents... Slackware? It's a small distro, if you choose the right packs to install; boots into a console. Uses last stable 2.4.x kernel so it should be compatible with old hardware (although it is 2.6 ready), there's also the added bonus that you can install slapt-get and update your system automatically (even resolves dependancies. Awsomeness). Then you can just install GDM separately, and setup Blackbox as your default WindowsManager (if you want a fast desktop, in my opinion both KDE and GNOME can be really bloated).


-----------------------------------

Hikaru79

Sun May 15, 2005 7:52 pm



-----------------------------------

gentoo just has far too much hype around it.. if you want to go for a sourced based distro (and for the sake of a cranking out a "little" more performance from your box) then go with gentoo.. but there's really no need to otherwise.
That "little" more performance can be quite significant if you set your toolkit parameters correctly. A good, safe, set of CFLAGS can go a long long way. Also, even more importantly, no other distro lets you pick and choose the functionality you compile into a program (USE flags). You don't use KDE? Great! Just compile this program without KDE/QT support! The improvement there is much more significant than compile time optimizations!

Also, Gentoo is a great, great educational experience. For reasons too many to name, it just really illuminates how Linux works. As someone (forget where) said, "When you use Debian, you're learning Debian. When you use Gentoo, you're learning Linux." Something along those lines. Really, their whole "power of choice" mantra isn't just for show -- gentoo can specialize into a great media center, desktop workstation, webserver, all on a dime.

Maybe I'm just a fanboy or a ricer, or whatever, but I love it. And all the "anti-gentoo" sentiments out there (and they're plentiful) generally come from those who didn't give it much of a chance.


-----------------------------------

Mazer

Sun May 15, 2005 7:55 pm



-----------------------------------

I was using Slackware before I got Ubuntu to install properly. I liked Slackware for the most part, but didn't like not having things like apt. Granted, I never got a chance to try slapt. I plan to try Arch Linux (just for the sake of trying a new distro) depending on how easy it is to setup, and then maybe Slackware. I'm sure I have the CD around here somewhere.


-----------------------------------

rizzix

Sun May 15, 2005 7:55 pm



-----------------------------------

no gentoo is not great for educational pruposes cuz they modify the distro's installation and configuration to a "gentoo" way, as most distros would modify their distor to their "own" way.

Arch Linux on the other hand does very little to no modifications of any sort. And i'm sure you'll enjoy the pacman way of installing things. Its a perfect blend of emerge and the debian packaging system (apt-get)

Note: all that these modifactions do, is get you trained to use that perticular distro, not linux in general, or linux in any depth for that matter.

BTW: i did try gentoo, i wasn't satisfied.  so consider my bias.


-----------------------------------

rizzix

Sun May 15, 2005 8:01 pm



-----------------------------------

 I plan to try Arch Linux (just for the sake of trying a new distro) depending on how easy it is to setup...

hmm hopefully you know a little about linux (i.e your not a noob). cuz "ease of setup" can be quite subjective depending on your level of experties.


-----------------------------------

rizzix

Sun May 15, 2005 8:04 pm



-----------------------------------

 I would use the Pentium II image of this: http://jackass.homelinux.org/  . Basically, it's a pre-optimized toolkit for Gentoo for a few different architectures. That basically defies the purpose of the Gentoo distro. why not simply use Arch Linux instead?


-----------------------------------

Hikaru79

Sun May 15, 2005 8:06 pm



-----------------------------------

no gentoo is not great for educational pruposes cuz they modify the distro's installation and configuration to a "gentoo" way, as most distros would modify their distor to their "own" way.
Modification of the distro's installation? What are you talking about? It doesn't even have an installer! All they do is give you an (optional) tarball of the root filesystem and tell you to compile your own kernel (they have genkernel but nobody's making you do that). No part of the installation process is unique to gentoo in any way ...

As for configuration, there *is* no configuration tool with gentoo except for 'etc-update' which is really just a tool that tells you what conf files you haven't touched yet. What did you mean by your post? Because I can't think of a single example of Gentoo crippling the install/configuration process.


-----------------------------------

rizzix

Sun May 15, 2005 8:08 pm



-----------------------------------

gentoo's system installation is carried out through the emerge-system?  and its config files are not in their standard places.. that all i meant.


-----------------------------------

Hikaru79

Sun May 15, 2005 8:10 pm



-----------------------------------

 I would use the Pentium II image of this: http://jackass.homelinux.org/  . Basically, it's a pre-optimized toolkit for Gentoo for a few different architectures. That basically defies the purpose of the Gentoo distro. why not simply use Arch Linux instead?
No reason at all. Many many distros are worth using. I was just tossing Gentoo in as an option. Personally, I don't know much about Arch Linux. Some things that I percieve as fairly uncommon which Gentoo has which Arch may not have include:

*Source-based distribution
*Custom kernel sources, optimized for Gentoo
*A VERY tight and helpful community and support forum
*USE Flags


-----------------------------------

Mazer

Sun May 15, 2005 8:10 pm



-----------------------------------

 I plan to try Arch Linux (just for the sake of trying a new distro) depending on how easy it is to setup...

hmm hopefully you know a little about linux (i.e your not a noob). cuz "ease of setup" can be quite subjective depending on your level of experties.
I try to label myself as a noob from time to time just so I don't seem like I'm a jackass who thinks he knows everything.  :D 

Other distros I've installed (and used for at least 5 minutes)
- Mandrake (it was the first one I tried, I just didn't know any better)
- Fedora Core 2
- Slackware
- Ubuntu (woulda been Debian if it's installation magically worked before)
- Yoper (this is why I mentioned "at least 5 minutes")

I never really had problems with them (except for the "no installable kernel" bug from the Debian installer), they were all pretty easy to follow. Is Arch Linux harder? We'll find out after I punk my brother's hard drive!


-----------------------------------

Notoroge

Sun May 15, 2005 8:11 pm



-----------------------------------

all that these modifactions do, is get you trained to use that perticular distro, not linux in general, or linux in any depth for that matter. It is training for linux. Not just a particular distro. In the sense that although some of the direct tweaking you have to do might be related directly to the distro at hand, but you also get the basic principles. I'm sure compiling the kernel (or learning what it is for that matter,) is going to be fairly the same accross all distros. You get first hand experience with the console and how to manuever around it. You understand stupid little basics that someone that started off with Mandrake would have a hard time figuring out.

I started off with Slackware. And I wish I would have started off with Gentoo. Why? Because unlike other crazy hardcore geek-to-the-max distros like LinuxFromScratch, the install manual for gentoo is massive detailed. Have you ever read it?  There's no way you can fail at installing it (so you won't get bad impressions of linux), and you learn a hell of a lot.


-----------------------------------

Hikaru79

Sun May 15, 2005 8:11 pm



-----------------------------------

gentoo's system installation is carried out through the emerge-system?
No it's not. Not at ALL. Maybe a few years ago (I've only been using Gentoo for a little less than one). But at the moment, the Gentoo installation involves them giving you a tarball and kernel sources and some (read: very very GOOD) documentation. That is IT. You cannot emerge your gentoo system.


-----------------------------------

Notoroge

Sun May 15, 2005 8:15 pm



-----------------------------------

(read: very very GOOD)Seconded. They probably put as much work into that thing than they do the distro itself (exaggeration, but you seem to get that impression).


-----------------------------------

rizzix

Sun May 15, 2005 8:16 pm



-----------------------------------

ok... Arch Linux does have great community support.. you wrong there! :wink: 
(some say its the soon-to-be ubuntu repleacement, although i'd disagree, cuz this distro does not cater newcommers)

As for a the source based distributions, well the arch linux community has a different philosophy: distribution of pre-optimised builds, and strictly following linux standards.

USE flags are only useful in a source based distro, they are quite pointless otherwise.


-----------------------------------

rizzix

Sun May 15, 2005 8:21 pm



-----------------------------------

Oh and btw, i "did" try out gentoo, but i've also tired "arch linux". I'm really talking out of experience, nothing else. The only reason i see to the use of gentoo is the source based installation.. they make it easy for you! But just for a "little" more performance,, its not worth the effort, although it could well be worth it if it were your hobby! Oh and please do compare the performance of you gentoo distro with a pre-optimised distro,, tell me how large is the difference in performance!

Besides Gentoo is not all that great of an OS either, FreeBSD would be the better alternative. But then again FreeBSD is not Linux! 

If you want a turely advanced OS try Solaris 10.


-----------------------------------

Notoroge

Sun May 15, 2005 8:25 pm



-----------------------------------

Solaris? *shudders*
Although I do second the BSD thing. :) NetBSD! Woo! I have it setup on my mom's box. Got tired of removing spyware, and was in the mood to experiment. 8)


-----------------------------------

Hikaru79

Sun May 15, 2005 8:28 pm



-----------------------------------


As for a the source based distributions, well the arch linux community has a different philosophy: distribution of pre-optimised builds, and strictly following linux standards.

USE flags are only useful in a source based distro, they are quite pointless otherwise.
Well that's the thing -- pre-optimised to what? Every architecture and every computer needs a slightly different way of optimization. Yes, you can break them down to broad categories (i386, i486, etc) but there's TONS of room for customization within those sweeping categories. No binary distro can accomodate them all, they just have to compromise.

As for use flags, that's not exactly right. They are only PRACTICAL in a source-based distro, although they would be USEFUL in ANY distro, because they control what is IN the binary and what is not. A binary-based distro cannot hope to offer every combination of use flags for every combination of arches, so they don't -- they either enable them by default or offer two or three variations (debug or non-debug, for example), and if you end up with a Binary that you don't need 90% of, there's not much you can do except compile it for yourself.


-----------------------------------

rizzix

Sun May 15, 2005 8:29 pm



-----------------------------------

Solaris is not for the average user, it has the worst installtion ever, it has poor hardware support as compared to linux. But it sure does make all these other OS's look like toys in comparison.!


-----------------------------------

Hikaru79

Sun May 15, 2005 8:30 pm



-----------------------------------

Solaris is not for the average user, it has the worst installtion ever, it has poor hardware support as compared to linux. But it sure does make all these other OS's look like toys in comparison.!
Hmm, really? I've never even tried it... is there a Solaris LiveCD? I love trying out new Unix'es :D


-----------------------------------

rizzix

Sun May 15, 2005 8:35 pm



-----------------------------------

As for use flags, that's not exactly right. They are only PRACTICAL in a source-based distro, although they would be USEFUL in ANY distro, because they control what is IN the binary and what is not. A binary-based distro cannot hope to offer every combination of use flags for every combination of arches, so they don't -- they either enable them by default or offer two or three variations (debug or non-debug, for example), and if you end up with a Binary that you don't need 90% of, there's not much you can do except compile it for yourself.

huh? most gui software comes with a "core" and a gui fronend. when you install these programs you install all the binaries that will follow the dependency in you system.

for example if you install vlc and you have gnome but not kde installed, it will install vlc and the gnome-fontend that comes with it, but not kde since it is absent in your system. these package managers are pretty smart in that way. sometimes they separate the frontends into different packages.

BTW: arch linux is pre-optimised to the i686 platforms.


-----------------------------------

Notoroge

Sun May 15, 2005 8:36 pm



-----------------------------------

Hmm, really? I've never even tried it... is there a Solaris LiveCD? I love trying out new Unix'es :DNope. Just make a 2GB partition on your hardrive and install it there. Play around with it, if you don't like it, go into linux, delete it, and resize your partition back to normal. :)


-----------------------------------

rizzix

Sun May 15, 2005 8:39 pm



-----------------------------------

Solaris is not for the average user, it has the worst installtion ever, it has poor hardware support as compared to linux. But it sure does make all these other OS's look like toys in comparison.!
Hmm, really? I've never even tried it... is there a Solaris LiveCD? I love trying out new Unix'es :D

:P i don't think so.. but its free to install.. check out: http://www.sun.com/software/solaris/ (it may not work with ur hardware though,, its known for that)


-----------------------------------

Notoroge

Sun May 15, 2005 8:41 pm



-----------------------------------

Install it in VMWare. It worked for me when I did. Didn't work on my actual hardware though.


-----------------------------------

Hikaru79

Sun May 15, 2005 8:41 pm



-----------------------------------

As for use flags, that's not exactly right. They are only PRACTICAL in a source-based distro, although they would be USEFUL in ANY distro, because they control what is IN the binary and what is not. A binary-based distro cannot hope to offer every combination of use flags for every combination of arches, so they don't -- they either enable them by default or offer two or three variations (debug or non-debug, for example), and if you end up with a Binary that you don't need 90% of, there's not much you can do except compile it for yourself.

huh? most gui software comes with a "core" and a gui fronend. when you install these programs you install all the binaries that will follow the dependency in you system.

for example if you install vlc and you have gnome but not kde installed, it will install vlc and the gnome-fontend that comes with it, but not kde since it is absent in your system. these package managers are pretty smart in that way. sometimes they separate the frontends into different packages.
The QT frontend is still compiled into the binary -- if you were to install KDE, vlc would integrate just fine without any need for re-installing it.

In a binary distro (without compiling on your own), try installing mplayer without gmplayer, or x-chat without the gtk frontend (CLI interface only).  Try installing SAMBA without Kerberos support and all the million different types of authentication possible, while in Gentoo you could tell it "I'm only going to use mysql auth" and it will leave out all the rest.

At least no binary-based packaging system I've tried had this wide variety of pre-compiled binaries; and I've tried quite a few.


-----------------------------------

rizzix

Sun May 15, 2005 8:42 pm



-----------------------------------

Notoroge: woah VMware.. that kinda slows down performance dosen't it!


-----------------------------------

Notoroge

Sun May 15, 2005 8:44 pm



-----------------------------------

woah VMware.. that kinds slows down performance dosen't it!Yes, but I wanted to play around with it because I like knowing a little about everything so that one day, if someone ever goes, "Hey, you know how to do this in Solaris?", I don't look like a complete goof. :P


-----------------------------------

rizzix

Sun May 15, 2005 8:46 pm



-----------------------------------


The QT frontend is still compiled into the binary -- if you were to install KDE, vlc would integrate just fine without any need for re-installing it.

In a binary distro (without compiling on your own), try installing mplayer without gmplayer, or x-chat without the gtk frontend (CLI interface only).  Try installing SAMBA without Kerberos support and all the million different types of authentication possible, while in Gentoo you could tell it "I'm only going to use mysql auth" and it will leave out all the rest.

At least no binary-based packaging system I've tried had this wide variety of pre-compiled binaries; and I've tried quite a few. maybe but it is still not worth the switch...  :wink: 

to me all linux look the same (its only when you switch to freebsd you'll see a little diff) its just the way their config files are structured that brings about a difference in the system, and of course great community support and the tools and sofware (specific to that distro) that comes along with it.

Based on that i prefer the Arch Linux way so far.. i also enjoy the ubuntu way of doing things,, just that the ubuntu configs are soo messed up!! (well not messed up but different) its troublesome.


-----------------------------------

Notoroge

Sun May 15, 2005 8:49 pm



-----------------------------------

maybe but it is still not worth the switch...  :wink:I could say the same about Windows. I've never had any problems with it. :) No slow downs, no virus, no spy-ware, no ad-ware, no crashes. Yes, unlikely as it may seem, I've never had a sinlge BSOD.

Update: Microsoft would love to have me in one of their ad campaigns. I believe that any OS is as good as you want it to be (any half-decent OS anyways) if you know how to use it properly.


-----------------------------------

rizzix

Sun May 15, 2005 8:49 pm



-----------------------------------

maybe but it is still not worth the switch...  :wink:I could say the same about Windows. I've never had any problems with it. :) No slow downs, no virus, no spy-ware, no ad-ware, no crashes. Yes, unlikely as it may seem, I've never had a sinlge BSOD.

funny. but i have experienced all that.


-----------------------------------

rizzix

Sun May 15, 2005 8:51 pm



-----------------------------------

Update: Microsoft would love to have me in one of their ad campaigns. I believe that any OS is as good as you want it to be (any half-decent OS anyways) if you know how to use it properly. Ha so you admit, windows is not all that idiot proof! (hint: switch to mac)


-----------------------------------

Notoroge

Sun May 15, 2005 8:54 pm



-----------------------------------

No OS is idiot proof. I could think of a million and one ways to make both linux and Mac crash horribly (and possibly damage the hardware). All I'm saying is, that in the end it doesn't really matter what OS you're using, because ultimately, it all depends on how the user uses it that will determine the kind of experience you're going to have.

Update: Although Solaris still does make me shudder. :?


-----------------------------------

Hikaru79

Sun May 15, 2005 8:55 pm



-----------------------------------

BTW: arch linux is pre-optimised to the i686 platforms.
Sorry to bring this up again, but I didn't see the "BTW" until after I replied.

i686 refers to any Intel-line CPU from the last five years. My Pentium II upstairs is an i686. So is my 2.0 GHZ that I'm on now. Gentoo, on the other hand, gives you a choice. If you don't know your particular brand, then you can set your CHOST to simply i686 and let gcc make what it will of that. But if you know your hardware, Gentoo lets you not only specify a particular processor family (Pentium 1, 2, 3, 4, Celeron (different families of Celeron), etc), but even the particular instruction sets that your proccessor uses (mmx, sse, sse2 for mine).

Out of curiousity : Does Arch come with a precompiled kernel?


-----------------------------------

Hikaru79

Sun May 15, 2005 8:59 pm



-----------------------------------

No OS is idiot proof. I could think of a million and one ways to make both linux and Mac crash horribly (and possibly damage the hardware). All I'm saying is, that in the end it doesn't really matter what OS you're using, because ultimately, it all depends on how the user uses it that will determine the kind of experience you're going to have.
A true voice of wisdom :) I can become a real zealot at times, and I always feel stupid afterwards. In the end, it's more about the user than the software, and 90% of issues with Windows are, as the old saying goes, between the keyboard and the chair ;) There's lots of great programmers who can get a lot out of their Windows systems, and a lot who prefer something else. Thanks, Notoroge, for bringing the debate into perspective : anything can be good if it's what your comfortable, productive, and interested in.


-----------------------------------

rizzix

Sun May 15, 2005 9:04 pm



-----------------------------------

Update: Although Solaris still does make me shudder. :? self rectifying os.. hell ya!!!

but OS X, is more idiot proofed than the other (except maybe for solaris, which is wayyy up there... almost outtta sight)


-----------------------------------

Notoroge

Sun May 15, 2005 9:04 pm



-----------------------------------

Thanks, Notoroge, for bringing the debate into perspective : anything can be good if it's what your comfortable, productive, and interested in. :bday:


-----------------------------------

rizzix

Sun May 15, 2005 9:05 pm



-----------------------------------

Out of curiousity : Does Arch come with a precompiled kernel? it does,, but you are given the choice to install by source during installation.. and of course you can always replace the kernel with you own precompiled one,, anytime


-----------------------------------

Hikaru79

Sun May 15, 2005 9:09 pm



-----------------------------------

Out of curiousity : Does Arch come with a precompiled kernel? it does,, but you are given the choice to install by source during installation.. and of course you can always replace the kernel with you own precompiled one,, anytime
Ah, I see :) Well, I'll bug Coutsos to let me know how his Arch installation works out. I've still got lots of places to install new distros :)


-----------------------------------

rizzix

Sun May 15, 2005 9:11 pm



-----------------------------------

do you happen to know any software or driver of some sort to read reiserfs partitions from windows?


-----------------------------------

Notoroge

Sun May 15, 2005 9:14 pm



-----------------------------------

do you happen to know any software or driver of some sort to read reiserfs partitions from windows?Partition Magic 8. I use it all the time for moving files between OSs. :)


-----------------------------------

Hikaru79

Sun May 15, 2005 9:14 pm



-----------------------------------

do you happen to know any software or driver of some sort to read reiserfs partitions from windows?
Yes, but as far as I know it's read-only :( Here's the tool : http://p-nand-q.com/download/rfstool.html 
And here's a version of the exact same tool but with a graphical front-end: 
http://www.wolfsheep.com/map/


-----------------------------------

rizzix

Sun May 15, 2005 9:17 pm



-----------------------------------

ooh i'll take a look at it. btw i didn;t know partition magic could do that.. sweet. i got to check that out too, but maybe sometime later.. i need something free and available right now heh.


-----------------------------------

Notoroge

Sun May 15, 2005 9:17 pm



-----------------------------------

Whereas partition magic can do both. :) Sadly, accessing NTFS from Linux doesn't really work out as well. I'm pretty sure there's an "EXPERIMENTAL" switch when compiling the latest kernel that allows read/write access to NTFS. Although I hear it's pretty unstable and might screw everything up.


-----------------------------------

rizzix

Sun May 15, 2005 9:20 pm



-----------------------------------

eh?  i could show you how... tell me what your partition table looks like..


-----------------------------------

Notoroge

Sun May 15, 2005 9:25 pm



-----------------------------------

Nonono, sorry. I should have phrased that more accurately. Accessing NTFS files from linux is basic. But writing to an NTFS partition is something just recently being worked on. And from last I heard, still marked "EXPERIMENTAL". :?


-----------------------------------

rizzix

Sun May 15, 2005 9:28 pm



-----------------------------------

yes.. it is.. you would have to recompile your kernel with it turned on.. in order for it to work.. i wouldn't take the risk... (kernel panics are not cool)


-----------------------------------

Notoroge

Sun May 15, 2005 9:29 pm



-----------------------------------

That's what I ment. ;)
Update: How did you make your sig do that? I wouldn't mind being able to get rid of that "wrote" at the end of the name. :eh:


-----------------------------------

rizzix

Sun May 15, 2005 9:37 pm



-----------------------------------

use [syntax="whatever"] tag instead.. although i believe it willl not accept spaces.. but i'm not sure.


-----------------------------------

Notoroge

Sun May 15, 2005 9:40 pm



-----------------------------------

Meh, underscore works fine. :) Thanks. Now, sleepy time. Later.  :zzz:


-----------------------------------

Mazer

Sun May 15, 2005 10:05 pm



-----------------------------------

Just a quick slightly-OT question while we (you?) are discussing filesystems. I heard reiserfs is good, but are there any downsides to it? Should I use just that filesystem for my linux install, or will others work better for different purposes?


-----------------------------------

Hikaru79

Sun May 15, 2005 10:21 pm



-----------------------------------

Just a quick slightly-OT question while we (you?) are discussing filesystems. I heard reiserfs is good, but are there any downsides to it? Should I use just that filesystem for my linux install, or will others work better for different purposes?
Reiser is neat. Here's a breakdown:

Advantages:
* ReiserFS doesn't commit a change to hdd until it is completed. In other words, you won't get corrupted data being written because of a hard boot or something--ReiserFS either writes the CORRECT data or not at all.
* ReiserFS doesn't need those file system checks that you have to do every 30 mounts or so with ext3
* ReiserFS is pro at small file handling. It can access files under 4kb size around 10-15 times as fast as ext3. This is great for Linux as a lot of unix boot processes, etc, involve parsing of small but numerous conf files.

Disadvantages
* Still relatively new and experimental.


-----------------------------------

Notoroge

Mon May 16, 2005 7:10 am



-----------------------------------

I still use ext2. :) Lots of stable in my opinion.

