 
Support Wrong Planet Awareness!
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
polarity
Toucan
Joined: Feb 16, 2006
Posts: 279
|
 Posted: Sat May 10, 2008 1:18 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Or install VMware, and you can just download an image of a fully configured install, and boot it right up, no installation or configuration needed at all.
_________________
You aren't thinking or really existing unless you're willing to risk even your own sanity in the judgment of your existence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Encyclopedia
Raven
Joined: Apr 12, 2008
Posts: 110
Location: Utah
|
| Posted: Sun May 11, 2008 3:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Because I have finite disk space and each new operating system takes literally gigabytes of overhead. I do use VirtualBox to try out the ones that look interesting enough. So far I've looked at Ubuntu, Debian, openSUSE, Knoppix, and xubuntu.
I thought xubuntu would be nice in VirtualBox because it can use Ubuntu's repositories, but has less overhead in both memory use and disk space. However, it was too hard to configure properly. I also couldn't figure out how to setup Debian to do anything.
Four a dual-boot OS, I'm currently leaning towards Kubuntu 64-bit. (I tried out KDE with Knoppix and openSUSE and I think I like it better than GNOME.) I didn't think SUSE's Yast2 and rpms are as good as or as easy to use as ubuntu's packages and repositories. I've also heard bad things about rpms, especially compared to Debian packages.
Ideally I'd like my OS to be 64-bit (I think), easy to configure, powerful, capable, dependable, and have huge repositories with a package manager that makes it easy to both install and uninstall packages. So far Kubuntu64 is the closest to that ideal. I still think that it could be easier to configure (I think Knoppix does a little better there). And I don't think uninstalling packages is easy enough. I think it should be possible to quickly remove the dependencies that are no longer needed that the package you are uninstalling added, but I don't know of any distro that does that, do you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
lau
Quinquaginta Novem! Male Gee-knee-us + silly bits.
Joined: Jun 18, 2006
Age: 59
Posts: 6571
Location: Somerset UK
|
| Posted: Sun May 11, 2008 5:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm afraid you're losing me here, a bit.
"Each new operating system takes literally gigabytes of overhead" - not overhead, they take space. Yes. These days, a 120Gbyte HDD is pretty typical, so a couple of dozen OSes? Do you really want to try that many simultaneously?
I don't know what you mean by a "dual boot OS".
I don't know what you mean by "Ideally I'd like my OS to be 64-bit (I think)". If you haven't got 64-bit hardware, it's meaningless. The Linux kernel has been available as 64-bit since 64-bit started. Some apps may be more or less capable of exploiting 64-bit hardware. If no one has bothered to rebuild a binary package, you may need to do so yourself (or use a source-based distro).
"Removing dependencies" is an old chestnut. There really isn't a "one size fits all" solution. I tend to just not worry about that. I do some housekeeping, occasionally, when I can be bothered.
_________________
new, adj. Different colour from previous model.
Novinson's Revolutionary Discovery: When comes the revolution, things will be different -- not better, just different. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Encyclopedia
Raven
Joined: Apr 12, 2008
Posts: 110
Location: Utah
|
| Posted: Sun May 11, 2008 7:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| lau wrote: | | not overhead, they take space. |
| Wikipedia wrote: | | In computer science, overhead is generally considered any combination of excess or indirect computation time, memory, bandwidth, or other resources that are required to be utilized or expanded to enable a particular goal. It is a special case of engineering overhead. |
Yes, lau, space is one kind of overhead. So each virtualized OS I run at the same time takes more memory (active and disk), bandwidth, cpu cycles etc. which could easily add up to gigabytes with the disk space alone. When they're not actually running, it's just the disk space. | lau wrote: | | These days, a 120Gbyte HDD is pretty typical, so a couple of dozen OSes? |
That's assuming an empty disk. I've already used most of mine. (and I want to leave enough for defragmenting) | Quote: | | I don't know what you mean by a "dual boot OS". |
I'll clarify: A second operating system in addition to the one I already have and use (Windows XP in my case), which I would use by dual booting. You already mentioned multibooting, so I thought that would be apparent from the context, but I could have made that more clear. | Quote: | | I don't know what you mean by "Ideally I'd like my OS to be 64-bit (I think)". If you haven't got 64-bit hardware, it's meaningless. The Linux kernel has been available as 64-bit since 64-bit started. Some apps may be more or less capable of exploiting 64-bit hardware. If no one has bothered to rebuild a binary package, you may need to do so yourself (or use a source-based distro). |
That's what I mean. I don't know if the advantages of a 64-bis OS outweigh the disadvantages. I have an Intel Core 2 Duo, which I think is 64-bit hardware. I'm not sure if a 64-bit OS is completely backwards compatible with 32-bit software (especially drivers, which can be a pain in Linux anyway.) If backwards compatibility is an issue it might not be worth it to have a 64-bit OS when most applications can't take advantage of it anyway. If all the software works and If I can run it on my hardware, then yes, it's a no-brianer. I might as well use a 64-bit OS because it has advantages, but no disadvantages.
I put it in my ideal features list because it could help to easily rule out distro's that don't support it yet (like Slackware.)
| Quote: | | "Removing dependencies" is an old chestnut. |
Old chestnut? I must be unfamiliar with that idiom, because I have no idea what that means. | Quote: | | There really isn't a "one size fits all" solution. |
But there are solutions? I would be interested to know what they are (Especially if some could be easily applied to Kubuntu.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
Fuzzy
Ack! Thbbbt!
Joined: Mar 31, 2006
Posts: 1705
Location: Alberta Canada
|
| Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 2:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I can run 64 bit on several machines but found that hardware detection was a pain. stick with 32 bit. |
|
| Back to top |
|
lau
Quinquaginta Novem! Male Gee-knee-us + silly bits.
Joined: Jun 18, 2006
Age: 59
Posts: 6571
Location: Somerset UK
|
| Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 4:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Encyclopedia wrote: | | ...and I want to leave enough for defragmenting |
What's "defragmenting"? (smug grin)
_________________
new, adj. Different colour from previous model.
Novinson's Revolutionary Discovery: When comes the revolution, things will be different -- not better, just different. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Alex440
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Joined: Nov 16, 2007
Age: 17
Posts: 58
Location: New Zealand
|
| Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 6:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| When people talk about "64 bit OS" it's only for AMD's 64 bit processors. Core 2 Duos are not 64 bit. They're just two 32 bit chips on one die. A 64 bit OS probably won't run on a Core 2 Duo. You want 32 bit. It doesn't matter anyway, the performance will always be the same, the 64 bit OS will just give you more problems with software not working like it should. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Encyclopedia
Raven
Joined: Apr 12, 2008
Posts: 110
Location: Utah
|
| Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 3:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Alex440 wrote: | | When people talk about "64 bit OS" it's only for AMD's 64 bit processors. Core 2 Duos are not 64 bit. They're just two 32 bit chips on one die. A 64 bit OS probably won't run on a Core 2 Duo. |
Are you sure? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64#Intel_64
Anyway, if I do stick with 32-bit that opens up some other possibilities. Has anyone tried LinuxMint, MEPIS, or PcLinuxOS? |
|
| Back to top |
|
Fuzzy
Ack! Thbbbt!
Joined: Mar 31, 2006
Posts: 1705
Location: Alberta Canada
|
| Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 1:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Alex440 wrote: | | When people talk about "64 bit OS" it's only for AMD's 64 bit processors. Core 2 Duos are not 64 bit. They're just two 32 bit chips on one die. A 64 bit OS probably won't run on a Core 2 Duo. You want 32 bit. It doesn't matter anyway, the performance will always be the same, the 64 bit OS will just give you more problems with software not working like it should. |
Wrong. They run just fine. I have the intel D chip and ubuntu 64 works just peachy. Other than hardware detection. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Fuzzy
Ack! Thbbbt!
Joined: Mar 31, 2006
Posts: 1705
Location: Alberta Canada
|
| Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 1:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Encyclopedia wrote: |
Anyway, if I do stick with 32-bit that opens up some other possibilities. Has anyone tried LinuxMint, MEPIS, or PcLinuxOS? |
Mints really nice, but its just ubuntu with a wrapper. |
|
| Back to top |
|
spudnik
The Dude Abides
Joined: Feb 20, 2008
Posts: 2911
|
| Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 2:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I just installed Ubuntu Studio on my laptop, and I am shock, wifi is actually working, took a little while for me to figurer out how to set it up, but its working better then the XP Home I had on it, I seem to have about 1/2 hr more battery life, and it is able to see my media server though wireless which is great. I am able to play all my media files, and haven't had any problems getting codecs to install, now all I need is to get goggle earth to work, tried to download the file but can seem to get it to install |
|
| Back to top |
|
lau
Quinquaginta Novem! Male Gee-knee-us + silly bits.
Joined: Jun 18, 2006
Age: 59
Posts: 6571
Location: Somerset UK
|
| Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 4:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hey, spudnik! Don't do that! Install googleearth from the medibuntu repository.
You get all the extra codecs from there, as well. Mplayer, Amarok and Skype, too.
_________________
new, adj. Different colour from previous model.
Novinson's Revolutionary Discovery: When comes the revolution, things will be different -- not better, just different. |
|
| Back to top |
|
supahneko
Darned cat...
Joined: Jan 31, 2008
Age: 16
Posts: 1956
|
| Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 6:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Encyclopedia wrote: | Because I have finite disk space and each new operating system takes literally gigabytes of overhead. I do use VirtualBox to try out the ones that look interesting enough. So far I've looked at Ubuntu, Debian, openSUSE, Knoppix, and xubuntu.
I thought xubuntu would be nice in VirtualBox because it can use Ubuntu's repositories, but has less overhead in both memory use and disk space. However, it was too hard to configure properly. I also couldn't figure out how to setup Debian to do anything.
|
If you want simplicity, then you could try XandrOS...
_________________
5th virtue: Patience
IRC channel: irc://freenode/threadkillers |
|
| Back to top |
|
gamefreak
Guns are good but swords are even better
Joined: Dec 31, 2006
Age: 18
Posts: 1115
Location: Spring Hill, Florida
|
| Posted: Sat May 31, 2008 12:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
DSL because its tiny and can run on computers i`m temporarily working on via flash drive.
For a Main Computer though i pick Ubuntu.[I like the desktop] |
|
| Back to top |
|
Jonny
Velociraptor
Joined: Feb 10, 2005
Posts: 433
Location: London, UK
|
| Posted: Sat May 31, 2008 2:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Does anyone run a CLI only OS?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
