www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - OT - Which Linux?

reply Paul D. Anderson <paul.d.removethis.anderson comcast.andthis.net> writes:
I'm going to add Linux to my PC to get a dual-boot configuration. (I'm tired of
sloooow start ups and want to tap into the great tools available.) The tutorial
I'm looking at suggests Ubuntu. Is there a significant difference in Linux
implementations? Is Ubuntu one of the better ones? Does it make a difference
for running D2?

Thanks in advance for your hellp.

Paul
Aug 19 2009
next sibling parent reply Michiel Helvensteijn <m.helvensteijn.remove gmail.com> writes:
Paul D. Anderson wrote:

 I'm going to add Linux to my PC to get a dual-boot configuration. (I'm
 tired of sloooow start ups and want to tap into the great tools
 available.) The tutorial I'm looking at suggests Ubuntu. Is there a
 significant difference in Linux implementations? Is Ubuntu one of the
 better ones? Does it make a difference for running D2?

It depends on what you want and how much experience you have. Ubuntu is certainly a good one to start with. Or one of its flavors. E.g. if you like KDE, go for Kubuntu. I myself have never looked back since I started using Gentoo. A bit more advanced. But a great way to learn the internals of Linux. It has a lot of online documentation and a helpful community. It also makes my system blazing fast, since every package is compiled from source. There's really no difference between distro's when it comes to running, well, most any linux application. -- Michiel Helvensteijn
Aug 19 2009
parent JPF <johannespfau gmail.com> writes:
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 "Michiel Helvensteijn" <m.helvensteijn.remove gmail.com> wrote in message 
 news:h6hoeh$2enp$1 digitalmars.com...
 Paul D. Anderson wrote:

 I'm going to add Linux to my PC to get a dual-boot configuration. (I'm
 tired of sloooow start ups and want to tap into the great tools
 available.) The tutorial I'm looking at suggests Ubuntu. Is there a
 significant difference in Linux implementations? Is Ubuntu one of the
 better ones? Does it make a difference for running D2?

certainly a good one to start with. Or one of its flavors. E.g. if you like KDE, go for Kubuntu. I myself have never looked back since I started using Gentoo. A bit more advanced. But a great way to learn the internals of Linux. It has a lot of online documentation and a helpful community. It also makes my system blazing fast, since every package is compiled from source. There's really no difference between distro's when it comes to running, well, most any linux application.

One other difference I've noticed that may or may not matter is package system. Ubuntu, like all other Debian-derived ones, use .deb packages (but usually done indirectly through apt-get, which I've been very happy with). Redhat (and I think Mandrake as well) uses .rpm. And I think some of them have no package system and you have to do everything from source (which can be kind of a pain.

Compiling a package on Gentoo might be done with just one command, where compiling completely from source could be much more complicated. Compiling from source without package management help also makes software removal much harder (you usually have to keep the source around then).
 Michiel said it makes the system fast, but although I've 
 never used Gentoo, I've find that most linux apps take absolutely forever to 
 actually compile in the first place, so there may be that tradeoff).

Yes, especially big packages(KDE, Gnome, even scribus on slower systems) can take some hours to compile.
 There also seem to be differences in how low-level system details are 
 configured, like automatic service starting/stopping and such.

That's different in almost every Linux distribution. There are often GUIs which abstract such things, though.
Aug 19 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent JPF <johannespfau gmail.com> writes:
Paul D. Anderson wrote:
 I'm going to add Linux to my PC to get a dual-boot configuration. (I'm tired
of sloooow start ups and want to tap into the great tools available.) The
tutorial I'm looking at suggests Ubuntu. Is there a significant difference in
Linux implementations? Is Ubuntu one of the better ones? Does it make a
difference for running D2?
 
 Thanks in advance for your hellp.
 
 Paul
 

One big difference in Linux distributions is the age of packages(software). There are rolling release distributions like Gentoo, Archlinux or Fedora Rawhide and release based distributions (Ubuntu, Fedora, Opensuse, Debian stable). Rolling release distributions publish new program versions as soon as possible (often just a few days after release). Release based distributions get big package upgrades only with new releases (likely every half year, for some distributions even longer.) There also often is an difference in available packages. Ubuntu has, due to its popularity, lots of additional software in ppas which smaller distributions might not have available. Ubuntu also has the best documentation due to its big community, but most documentation is valid for other distributions as well. Ubuntu is said to be one of the easiest distributions, especially regarding installation. I personally used Ubuntu a lot, but having compiz (a 3d window manager, which can draw 'burning' effects when you close windows, and similar stuff) as default scared me away. I now use Archlinux, which is much like gentoo in the 'you learn lots of things' sense, but in difference to gentoo arch uses prebuild binary packages. Especially nice about arch is the way you build packages: It's basically the same as building packages from source, and i think it's the easiest way to create own packages on linux. Arch has aur, an repository of user supplied packages, which means you usually find packages for the program you need. Due to it's rolling release system, it has great support for svn/mercurial/git/cvs/bzr packages. Compiling the latest svn version of some software is very easy, if there are PKGBUILDS(a file which tells arch how to build a package from source) available in AUR. Arch linux is more complicated as ubuntu thought. You have to do more stuff by yourself, there are less configuration GUIs, you often have to edit config files with an text editor. Some things might break after updates(that happens very rarely) and you might experience more bugs as you get new packages earlier as people using other distributions. Probably the worst thing is the first installation. Arch only installs a minimal subset of programs (No graphical user interface for example). Knowing what you have to install to get a feature involves searching wikis, forums and so on. It's easier if someone gives you a package list for a certain configuration. Regarding D I can say we have dmd (1, latest) tango(latest) and phobos (latest) as official packages. LDC (latest, with tango), GDC(0.24 / svn), phobos2(latest), tango(svn) and dmd(2, latest) are available from AUR. We have the latest eclipse, latest descent can be installed via eclipses package manager.
Aug 19 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Jason House <jason.james.house gmail.com> writes:
Paul D. Anderson Wrote:

 I'm going to add Linux to my PC to get a dual-boot configuration. (I'm tired
of sloooow start ups and want to tap into the great tools available.) The
tutorial I'm looking at suggests Ubuntu. Is there a significant difference in
Linux implementations? Is Ubuntu one of the better ones? Does it make a
difference for running D2?
 
 Thanks in advance for your hellp.
 
 Paul

Ubuntu is the most popular Linux distro at the moment. It's easy to install, keep up to date, and find help. I highly recommend it for newcomers to Linux. I have not tried the other distro's recommended in this thread but do like Ubuntu better than others I have tried.
Aug 19 2009
next sibling parent reply Jeremie Pelletier <jeremiep gmail.com> writes:
Jason House Wrote:

 Paul D. Anderson Wrote:
 
 I'm going to add Linux to my PC to get a dual-boot configuration. (I'm tired
of sloooow start ups and want to tap into the great tools available.) The
tutorial I'm looking at suggests Ubuntu. Is there a significant difference in
Linux implementations? Is Ubuntu one of the better ones? Does it make a
difference for running D2?
 
 Thanks in advance for your hellp.
 
 Paul

Ubuntu is the most popular Linux distro at the moment. It's easy to install, keep up to date, and find help. I highly recommend it for newcomers to Linux. I have not tried the other distro's recommended in this thread but do like Ubuntu better than others I have tried.

Not only to newcomers, I've been using linux for at least 6 years (mostly redhat and slackware, also built a few linux from scratchs) and am now using Ubuntu on my laptop alongside win7. Not because its an easy linux distribution to work with, because its a convenient one to work with. I know I can do anything from the shell, but having a popup that says "it seems like you are missing this to execute that, would you like me to install and configure it for you while you drink your coffee?" is just plain neat. Heck even windows isnt as neat as Ubuntu.
Aug 19 2009
parent Jason House <jason.james.house gmail.com> writes:
Jeremie Pelletier Wrote:

 Jason House Wrote:
 
 Paul D. Anderson Wrote:
 
 I'm going to add Linux to my PC to get a dual-boot configuration. (I'm tired
of sloooow start ups and want to tap into the great tools available.) The
tutorial I'm looking at suggests Ubuntu. Is there a significant difference in
Linux implementations? Is Ubuntu one of the better ones? Does it make a
difference for running D2?
 
 Thanks in advance for your hellp.
 
 Paul

Ubuntu is the most popular Linux distro at the moment. It's easy to install, keep up to date, and find help. I highly recommend it for newcomers to Linux. I have not tried the other distro's recommended in this thread but do like Ubuntu better than others I have tried.

Not only to newcomers, I've been using linux for at least 6 years (mostly redhat and slackware, also built a few linux from scratchs) and am now using Ubuntu on my laptop alongside win7. Not because its an easy linux distribution to work with, because its a convenient one to work with. I know I can do anything from the shell, but having a popup that says "it seems like you are missing this to execute that, would you like me to install and configure it for you while you drink your coffee?" is just plain neat. Heck even windows isnt as neat as Ubuntu.

I agree. I use Ubuntu on all my computers at home. I even have my wife close to switching. I started toting with Linux about 10 years ago. It was miserable back then. I've been using Linux quite heavily for the last ~5 years... Linux has come a long way!
Aug 19 2009
prev sibling parent Daniel de Kok <me danieldk.org> writes:
On Aug 20, 2009, at 12:07 AM, Jason House wrote:
 Ubuntu is the most popular Linux distro at the moment. It's easy to  
 install, keep up to date, and find help. I highly recommend it for  
 newcomers to Linux. I have not tried the other distro's recommended  
 in this thread but do like Ubuntu better than others I have tried.

There are a couple of factors that you may want to take into account: - Number of packages: Ubuntu and OpenSUSE are very comfortable in this respect, since they do not only offer many packages in the default repositories, but allow users to offer personal package repositories. - Bleeding edge-ness: Some distributions ride on the edge, the upside is up to date software, the downside is that they break more often. E.g. Arch, Gentoo, and Fedora are typical bleeding edge distributions, while Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)/CentOS are very conservative. - Support time: some distributions are supported for years with security and reliability updates (for instance seven years for RHEL/ CentOS), while others are only for a short amount of time. - User-friendliness: Slackware, Arch, and Gentoo let you configure everything by hand Red Hat-ish distributions, Ubuntu, and OpenSUSE provide nice graphical configuration tools. - Hardware support: some distributions include closed-source binary drivers or make it easy to install them, some don't. Generally, those who do are easier to install. Ubuntu seems to satisfy in most respects: it provides many packages, it is user-friendly, has good hardware support, and the LTS version is also supported for a very long time. If you like to get rid of all the shiny stuff after some time, you can try Debian, which is the base of Ubuntu, but requires more knowledge to configure. Take care, Daniel (typing on OS X, which has found the sweetest spot :p)
Aug 20 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Jesse Phillips <jessekphillips+d gmail.com> writes:
Paul D. Anderson Wrote:

 I'm going to add Linux to my PC to get a dual-boot configuration. (I'm tired
of sloooow start ups and want to tap into the great tools available.) The
tutorial I'm looking at suggests Ubuntu. Is there a significant difference in
Linux implementations? Is Ubuntu one of the better ones? Does it make a
difference for running D2?
 
 Thanks in advance for your hellp.
 
 Paul
 

As pointed out, package management and available packages tend to be the only differences from each distro. Ubuntu, Suse, and Fedora tend to have the most auto-configuration/GUI. I personally use Debian but it really doesn't matter if you intend to learn Linux you can expect to be reinstalling and you may as well try another distro when you do. The most important tip, create a separate partition for /home. As for space requirements. Others may have other input but these are the rules I find reasonable for minimum space. Main partition, /, will not likely exceed 10GiB Swap can be 1GiB /home depends on if Linux becomes your primary OS. 100MiB is probably the minimum, but then you'd just get annoyed :) want to share files with Windows you can make /home 2GiB and mount a Windows partition which you can symbolic link in /home ($ ln -s /mnt/win /home/user/files)
Aug 19 2009
next sibling parent reply "Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com> writes:
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 06:26:19PM -0400, Jesse Phillips wrote:
 The most important tip, create a separate partition for /home.

I've gotta disagree with this. One reason why you might is if you want to do multiple distros, but normally this offers no real benefit and is really annoying down the line. Even sharing with Windows, the separate partition doesn't help much. It is best to mount your Windows partition somewhere on Linux than try to share /home with it directly.
 Main partition, /, will not likely exceed 10GiB

That's what you think now. Then, 3 or 4 years later, you notice you were wrong, and stuff starts failing due to having no disk space. (I had a production server at work barf when its / filled up and there was no room for tmp files.) Or, on the other hand, your home partition might fill up while your system partition has a lot of space left, and that bites you the other way. (This is what I had on my home computer - 10 GB free on /, but filled /home right up.) These are huge annoyances that you are fairly likely to see at some point down the line. Somewhat easy to fix by deleting stuff, but still not fun to deal with it. Combined with the very small real benefit of partitioning in the first place, again with the exception of doing multiple distros on one box, it is just not generally good advice. Go with as few partitions as possible so you don't have to arbitrarily slice up your free space. -- Adam D. Ruppe http://arsdnet.net
Aug 19 2009
parent reply Justin <mrjnewt gmail.com> writes:
Adam D. Ruppe Wrote:

 On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 06:26:19PM -0400, Jesse Phillips wrote:
 The most important tip, create a separate partition for /home.

I've gotta disagree with this. One reason why you might is if you want to do multiple distros, but normally this offers no real benefit and is really annoying down the line. Even sharing with Windows, the separate partition doesn't help much. It is best to mount your Windows partition somewhere on Linux than try to share /home with it directly.
 Main partition, /, will not likely exceed 10GiB

That's what you think now. Then, 3 or 4 years later, you notice you were wrong, and stuff starts failing due to having no disk space. (I had a production server at work barf when its / filled up and there was no room for tmp files.) Or, on the other hand, your home partition might fill up while your system partition has a lot of space left, and that bites you the other way. (This is what I had on my home computer - 10 GB free on /, but filled /home right up.) These are huge annoyances that you are fairly likely to see at some point down the line. Somewhat easy to fix by deleting stuff, but still not fun to deal with it. Combined with the very small real benefit of partitioning in the first place, again with the exception of doing multiple distros on one box, it is just not generally good advice. Go with as few partitions as possible so you don't have to arbitrarily slice up your free space. -- Adam D. Ruppe http://arsdnet.net

I think that the separate partition for /home is a good idea, generally speaking. It can be a lifesaver if you enjoy hacking around the system and manage to royally screw things up. Besides, if you fill it up, you can easily move it to new, larger partition (hopefully on a shiny new hdd).
Aug 19 2009
parent Justin <mrjnewt gmail.com> writes:
Adam D. Ruppe Wrote:

 On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 07:34:19PM -0400, Justin wrote:
 I think that the separate partition for /home is a good idea, generally 
 speaking. It can be a lifesaver if you enjoy hacking around the system and 
 manage to royally screw things up. 

Why would a separate partition help with this? With one partition, you can still or kill broken system files. Just overwrite the system without formatting the whole thing.

Generally, moving your /home to a new partition is as simple as doing a cp -R (perhaps with a few other flags to make sure that things like links get handled properly).
Aug 19 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent JPF <johannespfau gmail.com> writes:
Jesse Phillips wrote:
 Paul D. Anderson Wrote:
 
 I'm going to add Linux to my PC to get a dual-boot configuration. (I'm tired
of sloooow start ups and want to tap into the great tools available.) The
tutorial I'm looking at suggests Ubuntu. Is there a significant difference in
Linux implementations? Is Ubuntu one of the better ones? Does it make a
difference for running D2?

 Thanks in advance for your hellp.

 Paul

As pointed out, package management and available packages tend to be the only differences from each distro. Ubuntu, Suse, and Fedora tend to have the most auto-configuration/GUI. I personally use Debian but it really doesn't matter if you intend to learn Linux you can expect to be reinstalling and you may as well try another distro when you do. The most important tip, create a separate partition for /home. As for space requirements. Others may have other input but these are the rules I find reasonable for minimum space. Main partition, /, will not likely exceed 10GiB Swap can be 1GiB

advised to make swap at least as big as your available ram.
 /home depends on if Linux becomes your primary OS. 100MiB is probably the
minimum, but then you'd just get annoyed :) want to share files with Windows
you can make /home 2GiB and mount a Windows partition which you can symbolic
link in /home ($ ln -s /mnt/win /home/user/files)

I'd also use an seperate /boot with a simple file system, for example ext2, because Grub might have problems with your root filesystem if you use ext4/xfs. 100mb should be enough (depends on how many kernels you want to keep, 15mb per kernel is common) However too many partitions can get complicated as well..
Aug 19 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent "Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com> writes:
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 07:34:19PM -0400, Justin wrote:
 I think that the separate partition for /home is a good idea, generally 
 speaking. It can be a lifesaver if you enjoy hacking around the system and 
 manage to royally screw things up. 

Why would a separate partition help with this? With one partition, you can still or kill broken system files. Just overwrite the system without formatting the whole thing.
 Besides, if you fill it up, you can easily move it to new, larger partition 

Not really easily. If you want to resize partitions, you sometimes can, but you run the risk of breaking the files (depends on what filesystem you use mainly), and even then, you still have the hassle down the line again.
 (hopefully on a shiny new hdd).

Sure, that can be a pretty good deal. Separating the system and your files on separate hard drives can give you a nice boost. (And what I'd do is keep a copy of some of your important files on both drives, so you have an easy backup.) Of course, the big downside there is the cost. But, yeah, if you have the spare cash, two hard drives is a nice deal. -- Adam D. Ruppe http://arsdnet.net
Aug 19 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent Jesse Phillips <jessekphillips gmail.com> writes:
On Wed, 19 Aug 2009 19:09:02 -0400, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:

 On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 06:26:19PM -0400, Jesse Phillips wrote:
 The most important tip, create a separate partition for /home.

I've gotta disagree with this. One reason why you might is if you want to do multiple distros, but normally this offers no real benefit and is really annoying down the line. Even sharing with Windows, the separate partition doesn't help much. It is best to mount your Windows partition somewhere on Linux than try to share /home with it directly.

This is recommended because if you are getting to know Linux, you will be reinstalling and a separate partition for /home is... nice. I do not suggest sharing /home with Windows, and in fact believe you can't due to permission issues.
 
 Main partition, /, will not likely exceed 10GiB

That's what you think now. Then, 3 or 4 years later, you notice you were wrong, and stuff starts failing due to having no disk space. (I had a production server at work barf when its / filled up and there was no room for tmp files.)

I had an issue because of all the old cache files left around by aptitude, I've been running Linux for 4 years and 10GiB is doable for most things. Since he is just switching it is likely he will have to decide for himself in a year or two how best to setup his computer.
 Or, on the other hand, your home partition might fill up while your
 system partition has a lot of space left, and that bites you the other
 way. (This is what I had on my home computer - 10 GB free on /, but
 filled /home right up.)

He will run into this issue anyway because he has to share with Windows, he is not to the point where he can decide who gets what space and will likely not want Windows running out of space while Linux still has 50GiB free. (Linux lives happily in small places, Windows does not)
 These are huge annoyances that you are fairly likely to see at some
 point down the line. Somewhat easy to fix by deleting stuff, but still
 not fun to deal with it.
 
 
 Combined with the very small real benefit of partitioning in the first
 place, again with the exception of doing multiple distros on one box, it
 is just not generally good advice.
 
 
 Go with as few partitions as possible so you don't have to arbitrarily
 slice up your free space.

I'm currently working with 9 partitions on a 350GiB harddrive. It is all personal taste and I'm giving very reasonable numbers.
Aug 19 2009
prev sibling parent language_fan <foo bar.com.invalid> writes:
Wed, 19 Aug 2009 19:46:21 -0400, Adam D. Ruppe thusly wrote:

 On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 07:34:19PM -0400, Justin wrote:
 I think that the separate partition for /home is a good idea, generally
 speaking. It can be a lifesaver if you enjoy hacking around the system
 and manage to royally screw things up.

Why would a separate partition help with this? With one partition, you can still or kill broken system files. Just overwrite the system without formatting the whole thing.

 ...

 Of course, the big downside there is the cost. But, yeah, if you have
 the spare cash, two hard drives is a nice deal.

Disk space is cheap these days. A shiny new 1 TB drive costs less than $100. I've used a 25 GB root partition at least the last 5 years and according to the disk space calculators it still seems half empty. It makes sense to separate root from important files, because file system corruption isn't that uncommon. Another thing is, reinstallation is much easier since you don't need to move *anything*.
Aug 26 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent Justin <mrjnewt gmail.com> writes:
Paul D. Anderson Wrote:

 I'm going to add Linux to my PC to get a dual-boot configuration. (I'm tired
of sloooow start ups and want to tap into the great tools available.) The
tutorial I'm looking at suggests Ubuntu. Is there a significant difference in
Linux implementations? Is Ubuntu one of the better ones? Does it make a
difference for running D2?
 
 Thanks in advance for your hellp.
 
 Paul
 

Get an Ubuntu LiveCD (just download and burn) and try running it with your existing setup. You can run Ubuntu without making any changes to your system.
Aug 19 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent Robert Clipsham <robert octarineparrot.com> writes:
Paul D. Anderson wrote:
 I'm going to add Linux to my PC to get a dual-boot configuration.
 (I'm tired of sloooow start ups and want to tap into the great tools
 available.) The tutorial I'm looking at suggests Ubuntu. Is there a
 significant difference in Linux implementations? Is Ubuntu one of the
 better ones? Does it make a difference for running D2?
 
 Thanks in advance for your hellp.
 
 Paul
 

If you're new to linux I highly recommend Ubuntu. It's the most widely used linux distribution and one of the easiest to use, so it will be easy to get support should you need it. There are repositories for ldc and several major projects (qtd, tango etc) too which should save you some effort setting up. As for running D2, it makes no difference what distro you choose. Of course you're free to choose any distro you like, I personally favor Arch Linux due to its flexibility and constantly updated packages, it isn't really aimed at beginners and the "bleeding edge" packages could cause breakages, which will be annoying if you're new to Linux and don't know how to fix the issues. Robert
Aug 19 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Lars T. Kyllingstad" <public kyllingen.NOSPAMnet> writes:
Paul D. Anderson wrote:
 I'm going to add Linux to my PC to get a dual-boot configuration. (I'm tired
of sloooow start ups and want to tap into the great tools available.) The
tutorial I'm looking at suggests Ubuntu. Is there a significant difference in
Linux implementations? Is Ubuntu one of the better ones? Does it make a
difference for running D2?
 
 Thanks in advance for your hellp.
 
 Paul

I use and recommend Ubuntu. There are many reasons to use Ubuntu: ease of use, large user base (i.e. easy to google for help with any problem), and many others. But for me, one reason overshadows them all: Ubuntu has, without a doubt, the largest package repository of any Linux distribution (yes, bigger than Debian, even). Add to that the number of PPAs (Personal Package Archives) and other repositories that are available, and you'll never need to compile anything yourself again. Whatever application I need, it's just a "sudo apt-get install foo" away. I haven't built a third-party app from source in years, and good riddance! Modern computers are fast enough that the performance boost gained by compiling applications yourself in my opinion just isn't worth the hassle. Tip: If you have a 64-bit processor I would still recommend you install the 32-bit version of Ubuntu if you intend to use it mainly for coding. DMD is strictly a 32-bit compiler, and any library you want to use must also be 32-bit. Keeping a separate tree of 32-bit libraries in a 64-bit Ubuntu installation is possible (or should be, using the ia32-* packages), but I hear it's a pain. -Lars
Aug 20 2009
next sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Lars T. Kyllingstad wrote:
 Tip: If you have a 64-bit processor I would still recommend you install 
 the 32-bit version of Ubuntu if you intend to use it mainly for coding. 
 DMD is strictly a 32-bit compiler, and any library you want to use must 
 also be 32-bit. Keeping a separate tree of 32-bit libraries in a 64-bit 
 Ubuntu installation is possible (or should be, using the ia32-* 
 packages), but I hear it's a pain.

I have 64 bit Ubuntu, use it to develop 32 bit apps, and haven't had much problems.
Aug 20 2009
next sibling parent "Lars T. Kyllingstad" <public kyllingen.NOSPAMnet> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:
 Lars T. Kyllingstad wrote:
 Tip: If you have a 64-bit processor I would still recommend you 
 install the 32-bit version of Ubuntu if you intend to use it mainly 
 for coding. DMD is strictly a 32-bit compiler, and any library you 
 want to use must also be 32-bit. Keeping a separate tree of 32-bit 
 libraries in a 64-bit Ubuntu installation is possible (or should be, 
 using the ia32-* packages), but I hear it's a pain.

I have 64 bit Ubuntu, use it to develop 32 bit apps, and haven't had much problems.

Yeah, I do too, and I haven't had that much problems either. But my needs are simple. :) For me, at first, it was enough to install the ia32-libs package plus some of the GCC multilib packages. But then, after a while, I found myself needing other libraries (BLAS and LAPACK) of which 32-bit versions weren't present in the package repository of my 64-bit Ubuntu. So I had to manually install them in a separate location from the 64-bit ones. For two rather simple libraries that isn't really much of a hassle, but if you are, say, a game developer, and need a sound library, a 2D graphics library, a 3D graphics library, a networking library, etc. etc. etc. it all adds up. I hate installing things manually, and if possible I *always* use the package manager. But maybe that's just me. :) -Lars
Aug 21 2009
prev sibling parent "Lars T. Kyllingstad" <public kyllingen.NOSPAMnet> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:
 Lars T. Kyllingstad wrote:
 Tip: If you have a 64-bit processor I would still recommend you 
 install the 32-bit version of Ubuntu if you intend to use it mainly 
 for coding. DMD is strictly a 32-bit compiler, and any library you 
 want to use must also be 32-bit. Keeping a separate tree of 32-bit 
 libraries in a 64-bit Ubuntu installation is possible (or should be, 
 using the ia32-* packages), but I hear it's a pain.

I have 64 bit Ubuntu, use it to develop 32 bit apps, and haven't had much problems.

Good times ahead: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MultiarchSpec -Lars
Aug 21 2009
prev sibling parent Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Lars T. Kyllingstad wrote:
 Tip: If you have a 64-bit processor I would still recommend you install 
 the 32-bit version of Ubuntu if you intend to use it mainly for coding. 
 DMD is strictly a 32-bit compiler, and any library you want to use must 
 also be 32-bit. Keeping a separate tree of 32-bit libraries in a 64-bit 
 Ubuntu installation is possible (or should be, using the ia32-* 
 packages), but I hear it's a pain.

I have 64 bit Ubuntu, use it to develop 32 bit apps, and haven't had much problems.
Aug 20 2009
prev sibling parent reply Lutger <lutger.blijdestijn gmail.com> writes:
Paul D.  Anderson wrote:

 I'm going to add Linux to my PC to get a dual-boot configuration. (I'm
 tired of sloooow start ups and want to tap into the great tools
 available.) The tutorial I'm looking at suggests Ubuntu. Is there a
 significant difference in Linux implementations? Is Ubuntu one of the
 better ones? Does it make a difference for running D2?
 
 Thanks in advance for your hellp.
 
 Paul

The gnome and kde desktops are quite different, and some distros focus more on one of these. There is also fluxbox window manager for example if you want a lightweight desktop. Some more differences are: - how the distro deals with patented and closed source software. (mp3, dvd, flash, video drivers, etc) - relation with upstream: whether the distro does a lot of modification or not to the software, more focus on stability or up to date packages - polish (gui tools for example) and how user friendly the distro is - the community and documentation - method of packaging and selection of packages available. Also: updates and security. A great way to see for yourself what's available is to burn a couple of live cd's and take them for a spin. Here are some of my observations for what it's worth: - Mandriva: hands down the most user friendly distro I have seen (more so than Ubuntu). Mandriva One comes with binary video drivers and media codecs out of the box and has a lot of tools to assist migration from windows. Sometimes buggy though. - OpenSuse: very solid, lot's of polish and gui tools. The best installer ever. Does a lot of modification; don't step to far out of the box. - Fedora: bleeding edge, focused on free software and innovation. - Ubuntu: I have tried this one but never cared much for gnome and at the time a lot of packages were buggy. Kubuntu is not as good for a kde distro as one of the above imho. I want to balance this thread a little ;) - Linux Mint: this is based on ubuntu but more polished. For example: codecs out of the box, a nice start menu and a bunch of configuration tools. Almost as friendly as mandriva. In conclusion: if you want, you can spend a lot of time finding something that suits your need and preferences...
Aug 20 2009
next sibling parent reply "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 16:11:14 -0400, Nick Sabalausky <a a.a> wrote:

 "Lutger" <lutger.blijdestijn gmail.com> wrote in message
 news:h6j06p$24vr$1 digitalmars.com...
 - how the distro deals with patented and closed source software. (mp3,
 dvd,
 flash, video drivers, etc)

That's a good point. Ubuntu doesn't have mp3, dvd, and (I think) flash out-of-the-box, and I found them to be a royal pain in the ass to get working. I've heared of "SuperOS" that is apperently just Ubuntu pre-packaged with all that stuff and some other things people have found to be surprisingly missing from a default Ubuntu. I haven't actually tried it though.

I had the same experience with Fedora as well. What I've found is that there is a site called rpmfusion which supplies rpms for software that Fedora won't touch. All you have to do is point your OS' update urls at rpmfusion and you get all those capabilities through the standard yum update tools. They separate them into two categories -- nonfree and free (nonfree and free corresponding to licenses, not cost). There's probably an equivalent Ubuntu site, but I haven't used Ubuntu yet, so I'm not sure. -Steve
Aug 20 2009
parent KlausO <oberhofer users.sf.net> writes:
Steven Schveighoffer schrieb:
 
 I had the same experience with Fedora as well.
 
 What I've found is that there is a site called rpmfusion which supplies 
 rpms for software that Fedora won't touch.  All you have to do is point 
 your OS' update urls at rpmfusion and you get all those capabilities 
 through the standard yum update tools.  They separate them into two 
 categories -- nonfree and free (nonfree and free corresponding to 
 licenses, not cost).
 
 There's probably an equivalent Ubuntu site, but I haven't used Ubuntu 
 yet, so I'm not sure.
 
 -Steve

Yes, it's called Medibuntu http://www.medibuntu.org/ KlausO
Aug 21 2009
prev sibling parent language_fan <foo bar.com.invalid> writes:
Thu, 20 Aug 2009 16:11:14 -0400, Nick Sabalausky thusly wrote:

 "Lutger" <lutger.blijdestijn gmail.com> wrote in message
 news:h6j06p$24vr$1 digitalmars.com...
 - how the distro deals with patented and closed source software. (mp3,
 dvd,
 flash, video drivers, etc)

That's a good point. Ubuntu doesn't have mp3, dvd, and (I think) flash out-of-the-box, and I found them to be a royal pain in the ass to get working. I've heared of "SuperOS" that is apperently just Ubuntu pre-packaged with all that stuff and some other things people have found to be surprisingly missing from a default Ubuntu. I haven't actually tried it though.

You should know that watching DVDs [1] in america (and today in many other countries, too) is a copyright crime (via css) unless you pay the license fees (included in the price of a legal discrete dvd player). Using a MP3 decoder isn't a crime on in private use, but the distributor most likely didn't pay the patent fees and is distributing it illegally. [1] without a license, copying DVDs in private use is legal, but watching them isn't
Aug 26 2009