Which distro?

[Elesian]

Hello everyone,

I'm currently running fedora 3 on a slave drive, and XP on a master. What i'm looking to do is switch to a new distrubution of linux on the master drive, and then install XP on the slave. I would like to be able to duel boot, in times when i might need XP.

I have been looking at the various distributions and cannot honestly work out which is going to be best for my needs.

I have *some* linux knowledge - basic file structure, some idea about linux file types, can use the console primitively, have built scripts a few times. I'm looking to increase my knowledge of linux, build my own scripts, have installed ALSA, increase my knowledge of terminal, customize it to the nth level - but obviously that is a long way off! I am a reasonable C programmer.

The ability to read NTFS systems, as i understand *CAN* be done in Fedora, but i am particularily interested in Xandros - it's ability to install and use microsoft software in real time is appealing, as it's ability to natively read NTFS. However, i have heard it is very dumbed down, and might not be the best bet from an education view point.

One other bit of functionality i would like is 64-bit support. I have an AMD 64 (754) processor and would like to take advantage of this increased processing power. This machine will become my primary workstation, running programs like MAT LAB etc. I am unsure as to what distribution is going to provide enough flexibility, and support for the functionality i need.

I intend to format the slave drive using Disk Druid, install XP on the slave, then edit, and copy the boot.ini files across to the root sector of the slave drive, install linux on the master, then edit the grub.conf file. Hopefully, everything will work - any extra advice on this, or any pitfalls to worry about? Also, i've heard that some of the latest, and newest distrbutions are a little buggy - fedora C8 included. Reliability is obviously a concern as well.

Thanks for your time.

Just been reading around, Slackware seems to have the most power and functionality, where gentoo seems to the fastest as its compiled specifically. Would either of these be recommended?

[RobinVossen]

You look like a bright fellow
Take a look at Zenwalk (Slackwares Brother), Gentoo, Debian (Net-inst only) and Crux.
If you can code in C. You must be able to handle Linux.
Gentoo is nice. But well I started to dislike it for the compiling times. And I didnt really see enough speed increasing in return for it. Zenwalk is one of my favorites. There is a core version. And it comes with nearly all Compilers you might need. So you can install a core version. Then compile your own Binarys OR use the package manerger. It only has a 32bit version. But you really dont see a big diffrence in speed. I have XP on Sencond HD. And I had torubles installing gentoo since of the dual boot. I did manage to install Debian Netinst I am running that at the moment. Its really clean. But I am thinking of going to another system already.. (Just since I want something that is abit cleaner (eg my own Linux Distro Compiled from scratch with apt installed later on)).
Were I will not go for Fedora, its bloated. And ofc. well you want stable. Go for Debian. I never used Crux.. But DapperDan is a real Crux fan-boy. It looks nice. But well.. your call..

I hope that helped.

Small advice do all the tests you can find of distro pickers.

[techieMoe]

The ability to read NTFS systems, as i understand *CAN* be done in Fedora, but i am particularily interested in Xandros - it's ability to install and use microsoft software in real time is appealing, as it's ability to natively read NTFS. However, i have heard it is very dumbed down, and might not be the best bet from an education view point.

Well, NTFS read/write support is actually fairly mature now. In the past (such as the version of Fedora Core you're running now) it was a lot more hit and miss. If I'm not mistaken, several newer distributions come with the ability to read and write to NTFS out of the box. Ubuntu 7.10 is one of them. If your distribution of choice does not, you can download NTFS-3g to handle it.

Xandros is a slick product, but as a programmer you're likely to get frustrated by the lack of freedom to tweak and change it. They have a very particular way they want you to use their product and if you deviate from it and break the OS (I've done it before) you're pretty much on your own.

The ability to run Microsoft Windows software is not unique to Xandros. The program they ship is called CrossOver Office, by a company called Codeweavers. It's based on a free project called WINE. Either one will work on just about any Linux distribution out there.

One other bit of functionality i would like is 64-bit support. I have an AMD 64 (754) processor and would like to take advantage of this increased processing power.

Almost all the most popular distributions (except Slackware) have an officially-supported 64-bit version. I must warn you however that these tend to be less tested and you're going to run into the occasional bug. I had trouble just recently with the 64-bit version of Ubuntu. The same distribution in 32-bit gave me no issues at all.

You're not going to be able to notice any performance difference on a 64-bit OS right now unless you need access to more than 4GB of RAM. They're just not being coded to take full advantage of the architecture yet. Here's my opinion on the matter. Take it or leave it.

I intend to format the slave drive using Disk Druid, install XP on the slave, then edit, and copy the boot.ini files across to the root sector of the slave drive

Is that boot.ini step really necessary? In theory you should be able to install XP on what will be your slave drive (while it's plugged in as master), then swap the drive off to slave and install Linux on the master, then edit the GRUB bootloader on your Linux drive to chain load your XP install.

Also, i've heard that some of the latest, and newest distrbutions are a little buggy - fedora C8 included. Reliability is obviously a concern as well.

If reliability is a concern, I recommend using one of the business-centric distributions like CentOS (a clone of Redhat Enterprise Linux) or SuSE Linux Enterprise Desktop. I would stay away from bleeding-edge distributions like Fedora, at least in their newest versions.

Just been reading around, Slackware seems to have the most power and functionality, where gentoo seems to the fastest as its compiled specifically. Would either of these be recommended?

It's up to you. Slackware and Gentoo are definitely powerful distributions if you want to take the time to learn their specific way of doing things. Just be aware that not everything you learn to do in Slackware or Gentoo will translate to other distributions in the future. These two have very specific quirks that only apply to them.

[Elesian]

Excellent points, however i think the counter-argument for 64-bit, is that, (although you may sacrifice some compatibility) you have the option of running specifically compiled 64-bit code . I cannot give any specific examples, but i am sure, for instance, that Unreal Tournament 3 will take advantage of 64-bit registers. 64-bit's of addressable memory is not the only advantage, there are also several other architecture specific advantages ,with regard to memory manipulation, 64-bit integer support, 64-bit specific registers, when working with 64-bits, e.g x86-64.

Clearly, as you stated, there needs to be specific 64-bit code paths, and perhaps as you mentioned there is not enough general support at the moment, in the 64-bit direction.

*UPDATE* "if you have a 64 bit system running Linux, you should know that there are no plans at this moment for creating a 64-bit version of Unreal Tournament III" Point taken, LOL.

[techieMoe]

Excellent points, however i think the counter-argument for 64-bit, is that, (although you may sacrifice some compatibility) you have the option of running specifically compiled 64-bit code . I cannot give any specific examples, but i am sure, for instance, that Unreal Tournament 3 will take advantage of 64-bit registers. 64-bit's of addressable memory is not the only advantage, there are also several other architecture specific advantages ,with regard to memory manipulation, 64-bit integer support, 64-bit specific registers, when working with 64-bits, e.g x86-64.

Clearly, as you stated, there needs to be specific 64-bit code paths, and perhaps as you mentioned there is not enough general support at the moment, in the 64-bit direction.

Yes, "future proofing" is certainly a point to consider when looking at 32-bit versus 64-bit. For me personally, Linux distributions tend to be much more volatile and it's likely that by the time distributions start actively developing for 64-bit, I'll end up just reinstalling anyway.