Help finding a Distro [Archive]

cjr2k3

07-21-2009, 07:46 AM

Kano

07-21-2009, 08:26 AM

Why is eclipse critical? You can easly run that from your home.

cjr2k3

07-21-2009, 08:39 AM

I kinda like keep things integrated. I'm doing it now so i can use some extensions. The problem is ubuntu doesnt update some stuff before a mew distro is released.

Kano

07-21-2009, 08:41 AM

Until you use a rolling release that is the normal case. Rolling releases are nice for some people, but it creates much more support effort than normal ones. When you closed some bugs new ones are found.

L33F3R

07-21-2009, 02:18 PM

ATI Catalist MUST work (ATI HD4850) because I do play some games.

Hold up your gaming on an ati card under linux. sound the alarm.

Jaguar07

07-22-2009, 10:28 AM

Fedora 11 has some support for ATi cards built in.

As far as updates, it has more available than Ubuntu between releases.

There are several great hardware configuration articles for Nvidia and ATi drivers on the Fedora Forums site. Particularly this one for ATi cards:

http://forums.fedoraforum.org/showthread.php?t=155503&page=1&pp=10

cjr2k3

07-22-2009, 10:49 AM

ATI working quite good for a while in Linux (at least for me Radeon 9600, X1400 and a HD4850 now).

Catalist runs on latest fedora?

SoftVision

07-23-2009, 01:48 PM

Arch Linux (http://archlinux.org) has a rolling release system and fits your bleeding edge requirements. Read more about them on their website and wiki. You'll get the latest GCC and Eclipse as and when they release. With a little work you should be able to get your graphics set up as well.

chithanh

08-01-2009, 10:29 PM

Arch Linux (http://www.archlinux.org/) with their rolling releases would have been a good choice if they had not purged the proprietary fglrx/Catalyst driver from their official repositories. Now it is just a second-class citizen.

Gentoo (http://www.gentoo.org/) also has rolling releases, but it is not trivial (although straightforward) to install. And Gentoo makes it easy to mix stable and bleeding-edge packages.

From the comments I gather, it appears that AMD developers only care about three distros, namely RHEL (http://www.redhat.com/rhel/desktop/), SLED (http://www.novell.com/products/desktop/) and Ubuntu (which you already use). So if 3D is a priority, you may want to stick to one of those distros.

AdrenalineJunky

08-01-2009, 11:25 PM

niether arch or gentoo are particularly easy to set up.

i'd recomend chakra - ready to go arch linux with KDE-Mod and graphical installer.

http://chakra-project.org/

you can install patched catalyst drivers that work with the newest kernels from one of several third party repositories (like arch-stuff) or from the AUR

hax0r

08-02-2009, 12:13 AM

Trust me, this is the holy grail of GNU/Linux ;):

http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Beginners_Guide
2009.08-1 archboot "Schmollie" ISO hybrid image and torrent (http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=77017" ISO hybrid image and torrent)

What you get is the rolling release distro and by far the most efficient, useful, speedy package manager out there. Also you should get the full blown GNOME DE with footprint of <100MB on i686 or ~130MB on x86_64.

Apopas

08-02-2009, 05:41 AM

Rolling releases are nice for some people, but it creates much more support effort than normal ones. When you closed some bugs new ones are found.

The "more effort" thing is a common mistake. Yes, gentoo needs a lot of trouble to install but after that you relax for eternity. I use daily the same installation of gentoo for the last 5 years as long as my two young sisters. I update my system each weekend (during the night while sleeping) and half an hour in the morning for possible recompile of third party depedencies. The effort to install a "normal" distro every six months or so and fixing bugs or waiting for updates and patches while after 2-3 months you are not anymore in the bleeding edge part, needs much more effort. With gentoo (I have not personal experience with other rolling distro) you work a lot at the begining but that's all and if you use the stable packages you will very rarely encounter bugs.

BhaKi

08-02-2009, 06:26 AM

Need help finding a Distro... but I have some tricky requirements.

Need something that wont take a whole lot of trouble to set up and use (my GF uses this PC too). But I need something that is bleeding edge in terms of Development software (Eclipse, GCC, etc...). And (that's the tricky part) ATI Catalist MUST work (ATI HD4850) because I do play some games.

Between KDE and Gnome I prefer KDE but I use gnome too, so no problem here. As a package manager I'm very used to Debian APT. But as gnome vs KDE I can learn to use another package manager.

Any suggestions?

PS: Been using Ubuntu lately

Slackware and openSuSE are the best KDE-based distros out there. Slackware is faster, bloat-free and more secure. But its package management is less intuitive compared to openSuSE and you need fair amount of experience with Linux (any UNIX-like OS) to be comfortable with Slackware. openSuSE has an excellent GUI control center for everything from package management to server administration.

Apopas

08-02-2009, 09:29 AM

Mandriva is excellent KDE4 and Gnome based distro as well, with intuitive package manager, easy setup and powerful system tools.

Jaguar07

08-04-2009, 06:16 AM

hax0r

08-05-2009, 04:20 AM

Archlinux is a pain in the ASCII to install and set up. It reminds me of Slackware releases from 1994.

Once you get Archlinux installed and configured manually, it lacks a couple of features I really use a lot in other distros. Ability to log into KDE as root for example. Right click on desktop to get a menu including console or terminal windows for example, etc.

I do have to admit that with Archlinux, I obtained one of the best benchmarks for Apache-build there is. For everyday use it just is too time consuming to make the spoils worth the battle.

Your mileage will vary. It's just a matter of how much.Archlinux installs vanilla KDE, so no right click options, but they can be installed. As for root issues, don't forget to install sudo and setup visudo, also HAL and DBUS need ck-launch-session in .xinitrc, e.g. "exec ck-launch-session startkde". All of this is in the wiki pages AFAIK. The install is very straightforward, part of KISS principle, the installer guides you step by step and it's hard to screw anything up, unlike Gentoo stage 3 install.

Apopas

08-05-2009, 06:55 AM

The install is very straightforward, part of KISS principle, the installer guides you step by step and it's hard to screw anything up, unlike Gentoo stage 3 install.
Well, gentoo has the best guides out there and even if sourcebased, the installation is pretty straight. Only a newbie could have a problem I guess, but yet gentoo aims to experienced users.

yesterday

08-12-2009, 02:01 PM

Don't the let the "configuration" of Arch throw you off.

1. If you know your way around Linux, it's not particularly hard to setup

2. The defaults configs are generally well documented/commented

3. Once you set it up once, it's easy to set it up again

4. KDE will be for the most part completely packaged and setup with a vanilla install

However, the biggest problem with a rolling distro is that you always have to stay on top of it. You always have to be watching what's coming up and potential changes, since it's not necessarily advisable not to upgrade

cjr2k3

08-12-2009, 02:11 PM

Using ARch on work and is working very nicely!!!

Sadly the new kernel don't support Catalyst (Or the other way around :P ) so keeping Ubuntu @ home and hoping for a new ATI Catalist release!

BlackStar

08-12-2009, 05:30 PM

2. The defaults configs are generally well documented/commented

3. Once you set it up once, it's easy to set it up again

++

The first time might take a couple of hours and some confusion until you get how everything is set up. The next time, you'll have a complete system up and running in less than 1 hour (provided you have a good internet connection and a fast hard drive :) ).

The arch wiki is excellent and explains everything you might wish to know. The community is very active and supportive and you'll find PKBUILD scripts for everything you might need (and if you don't it's *trivial* to make a script yourself).

Arch: where the beer is good and the software is up to date!

t.s.

08-13-2009, 04:17 AM

Slackware and openSuSE are the best KDE-based distros out there. Slackware is faster, bloat-free and more secure. But its package management is less intuitive compared to openSuSE and you need fair amount of experience with Linux (any UNIX-like OS) to be comfortable with Slackware. openSuSE has an excellent GUI control center for everything from package management to server administration.
Nope, openSuSE state of now is too gnome centric.

energyman

08-13-2009, 08:40 AM

arch can't even properly version their kernels.

if you want 'easy' go opensuse. Good KDE. Pretty recent software. Easy to use.

energyman

08-13-2009, 08:45 AM

Nope, openSuSE state of now is too gnome centric.

might change soon. Opensuse users told novell that they are pissed off with all the gnome crap.

deanjo

08-13-2009, 09:27 AM

Nope, openSuSE state of now is too gnome centric.
openSUSE at the moment is de neutral. SLED in gnome biased and as energyman says don't be surprised if KDE becomes the default desktop again soon in openSUSE.

https://features.opensuse.org/306967

Votes: 550
Positive: 426
Neutral: 8
Negative: 116

Mora

08-19-2009, 05:47 PM

arch can't even properly version their kernels.
Erm, fail
andrew@Serenity:~$ pacman -Qi kernel26 | grep -i version
Version : 2.6.30.5-1
It doesn't add the minor release version to the kernel name however
andrew@Serenity:~$ uname -r
2.6.30-ARCH
...but that's a name, nothing more.

AdrenalineJunky

08-19-2009, 05:55 PM

Erm, fail
andrew@Serenity:~$ pacman -Qi kernel26 | grep -i version
Version : 2.6.30.5-1
It doesn't add the minor release version to the kernel name however
andrew@Serenity:~$ uname -r
2.6.30-ARCH
...but that's a name, nothing more.

your point?

BlackStar

08-21-2009, 02:11 PM

your point?

That energyman has been reiterating the same moronic argument for months.

Arch's versioning scheme is working perfectly. The package manager reports the correct version; you can install any version side-by-side; you can change the name to "look ma, no hands" and it will still work fine.

This argument was stupid when energyman made it last year. It's still stupid now.

energyman

08-21-2009, 02:16 PM

look into boot. What do you find there on an arch system?

AdrenalineJunky

08-21-2009, 02:25 PM

@blackstar - i don't think i was in my right mind when i asked that question....

@energy man - that has nothing to do with versioning and everything to do with not having to update the grub menu.lst after every kernel install. there are quite a few distro's that do it that way actually.

energyman

08-21-2009, 02:29 PM

*yawn* you don't have to update menu.lst/grub.conf if you do it right.

kernel with version + symlink. Works fine, is save. Arch can not do it? Made by idiots or broken? What is it?

AdrenalineJunky

08-21-2009, 02:45 PM

yes, you can use a symlink... but explain to me why that is a better option?

energyman

08-21-2009, 03:38 PM

because the symlink points to a versioned vmlinuz file and suddenly you know exactly which kernel will be booted. Even better, you can have douzends of kernels in /boot without any problems - if you want to boot a different one, just change the symlink. Wow, that is easy. And such a good thing to have.

But hey, continue to sell your distri as the next best thing. It is time to replace ubuntu as the greatest since sliced bread.

BlackStar

08-21-2009, 04:11 PM

AdrenalineJunky

08-21-2009, 04:23 PM

But hey, continue to sell your distri as the next best thing. It is time to replace ubuntu as the greatest since sliced bread.

right, because linux is definately not about choice, and one version is obviously and irrefutably the best, it doesn't matter that different distro's have completely different approaches to things, there is a *right* way do to something and a *wrong* way. and no matter what you say my choice is the *right* way.

:rolleyes:

energyman

08-21-2009, 04:33 PM

Gosh, energyman you just don't get it. You can put a version number to the filename if you insist, but it's not necessary. The version number is there even if it's not in the filename.

How difficult is for you to grasp this?

vmlinuz

which version is that?

and if you system updated the kernel, and the new one is called 'vmlinuz' how do you make sure it is the new one? Now you want to go back to an earlier version - because the new one is broken. Which one to choose?
vmlinuz?
or
vmlinuz?

but continue to amuse me.

BlackStar

08-21-2009, 04:56 PM

vmlinuz

which version is that?
Ask the package manager.

and if you system updated the kernel, and the new one is called 'vmlinuz' how do you make sure it is the new one? Now you want to go back to an earlier version - because the new one is broken. Which one to choose?
vmlinuz?
or
vmlinuz?
Ask the package manager.

You can also use the package manager to rollback. RTFM.

but continue to amuse me.
Crawl back to your hole.

Apopas

08-21-2009, 06:35 PM

Ask the package manager
But what if you have multiple kernels installed? :confused:

BlackStar

08-21-2009, 08:03 PM

But what if you have multiple kernels installed? :confused:

Didn't you use the package manager to install those kernels?

To install a kernel, you'll probably write or download a PKGBUILD, create a package and install it with "pacman -U". Which means the package manager is well aware of any kernels you have installed.

If you actually subverted pacman by installing the kernel manually, well you broke it and you get to keep the pieces.

Edit: read the following for more information.

http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Custom_Kernel_Compilation_with_ABS
http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Kernel_Compilation_From_Source

Apopas

08-21-2009, 08:09 PM

Didn't you use the package manager to install those kernels?

To install a kernel, you'll probably write or download a PKGBUILD, create a package and install it with "pacman -U". Which means the package manager is well aware of any kernels you have installed.

If you actually subverted pacman by installing the kernel manually, well you broke it and you get to keep the pieces.
That's apparent, I mean the package manager lets you install multiple kernels simultaneously? If yes then what names do the images have?

BlackStar

08-22-2009, 02:14 AM

That's apparent, I mean the package manager lets you install multiple kernels simultaneously? If yes then what names do the images have?

Yes, you can install multiple kernels simultaneously. The process is trivial and the images have whichever name you decide to give them.

Seriously, read the links above. The sample PKGBUILD recommends using the LOCALVERSION variable to define unique custom names in the form kernel26%LOCALVERSION%. However, you are free to ignore this and use a completely custom name: kernel-2.6.69-energyman-special.

mirv

08-22-2009, 04:19 AM

I won't pretend to have read every single word of this thread, but if you have multiple kernel versions then it's generally a good idea to symlink (typically vmlinuz) to your kernel, and have grub boot from that.
The reason this is a good idea is not for ease of every-day use, but for when things go wrong - boot up your livecd, inspect filesystem and see what kernel it's trying to boot, and change if necessary.
Typically the kernel's own make file will take care of auto-updating the symlink (after "make install").

Apopas

08-22-2009, 05:52 AM

Yes, you can install multiple kernels simultaneously. The process is trivial and the images have whichever name you decide to give them.

Seriously, read the links above. The sample PKGBUILD recommends using the LOCALVERSION variable to define unique custom names in the form kernel26%LOCALVERSION%. However, you are free to ignore this and use a completely custom name: kernel-2.6.69-energyman-special.
You edited your previous post after I posted mine and thus I didn't see the links.
Anyway, the process I see there, is the traditional kernel.org way, but plz don't make me read all the details in these pages, I could find them myself if I really wanted :)
All that I'm asking is an Arch-user to tell me from his experience if it is possible to install multiple ready kernels from the package manager and not by compiling them on his own.

*PLZ an appeal to all the users. Do not edit your posts after someone else has already replied. It leads to misunderstandings. If you edit it and in the proccess someone replies then delete your edit and make it a separate post. Thank you :)

DeepDayze

08-22-2009, 09:57 AM

My oh my such lively debate here. I believe the OP of this thread needed help looking for a distro, yet now it turned into a debate over kernels

Seems some people have had too much caffeine :)

Apopas

08-22-2009, 10:11 AM

My oh my such lively debate here. I believe the OP of this thread needed help looking for a distro, yet now it turned into a debate over kernels

Seems some people have had too much caffeine :)
I challenge you to find a thread in these very forums that have not turned into some kind of debates :D

DeepDayze

08-23-2009, 10:34 AM

I challenge you to find a thread in these very forums that have not turned into some kind of debates :D

Yep that's true...happens on just about any forum. This one sure has so many passionate members indeed :D

energyman

08-25-2009, 11:46 PM

well there is a nice thread on gentoo otw about the experiences with arch. A lot of nice shortcomings and brain damage listed there... if you are still interessted, that is.

If someone does not want to use gentoo, I recommend opensuse or slackware. In that order. opensuse because it is easy, slackware because it is pure.

geekman

09-10-2009, 05:30 PM

I don't know about your graphic card. I am running a radeon 3100 that runs catalyst.

I have used many of the major distro's and I have found for working out of the box with ease, stability and having acccess to all of ubuntu's repos LinuxMint is it.

I am enjoying my computer again and have left the windows world behind

LinuxMint.com - either - gnome or kde and the a number of window managers install from synaptic