Best 64bit Linux Distro

russianpirate · 2006-09-28 00:59:48

I know Arch64 is pretty good and well under development, but I just wanna play around (not spend much time with) a 64-bit linux.. and I was wondering what would be the best solution (I was thinking of Fedora Core 6 64 when it comes out), but I would like to hear you opinions! (besides arch64 cause that's already a good option)

T-Dawg · 2006-09-28 01:23:29

Actually because 64 bit is releatively new and not alot of distros have full support of it ie number of packages, something like source compiling like gentoo may be good. I was pretty much forced to put it on my Turion laptop because Arch64 acted strange. The biggest draw back is time in compiling, configuring and initial setup but overall a nice system...once its setup.

iBertus · 2006-09-28 02:38:10

Nice overclock you have there pirate!

Haiyadragon · 2006-09-28 12:54:55

Arch64 is the best I've tried so far. Gentoo isn't worth the effort if you ask me. Frugalware seems to be doing a good job keeping the 64-bit version up to date. But their build system and boot scripts and all that are a mess. Might as well use Ubuntu, same story. Arch is superior.

I just wish there were more guys compiling packages for Arch64.

Winblowz · 2006-09-28 16:24:57

Pretty much all 64-bit distro's are on the same level--currently at least. Every 64-bit distro has the same problems and set-backs, since not all programs are available for x86_64. If you want to use a 64-bit version of a distro at this time, then be prepared to use work-arounds for different things.

russianpirate · 2006-09-29 02:56:32

all right ill try arch64 this weekend

seems like the best choice: quick install, good support, pretty updated...

ps: approximately how delayed is arch64 from arch32 (like if firefox1.5 32bit came out today, how many days does it usually take for someone to upload a 64-bit version)?

thanks for the answers

skottish · 2006-09-29 03:07:57

Arch 64 is usually just a few days behind the 32 bit variety. There has been a little lag lately, but it's going away quickly.

iBertus · 2006-09-29 04:40:28

I suppose lag time is going to depend on if the app in question builds cleanly the first time and if the maintainer has to apply fixes to the x86_64 version. I wouldn't expect more than a few days delay unless major problems occur.

Haiyadragon · 2006-09-29 10:53:35

I wish there was a seperate package update list for Arch64 since it's very different.

iBertus · 2006-09-29 14:31:29

www.archlinux.org/~andyrtr/pkg_diff.html

Riklaunim · 2006-09-29 15:18:32

64 bit distributions can be divided into 2 categories:
- with 32 emul libs
- without 32 emul libs

With those emul libs you can use mplayer with windows codecs, flash plugin and opera (+ for example 32 bit firefox) and other plugins, wine and few other. For me this is a important feature as I need from time to time to use wine/flash/play wmv (gnash or nspluginwrapper arent stable and/or that functional)

Haiyadragon · 2006-09-30 13:00:51

Riklaunim wrote:

64 bit distributions can be divided into 2 categories:
- with 32 emul libs
- without 32 emul libs
With those emul libs you can use mplayer with windows codecs, flash plugin and opera (+ for example 32 bit firefox) and other plugins, wine and few other. For me this is a important feature as I need from time to time to use wine/flash/play wmv (gnash or nspluginwrapper arent stable and/or that functional)

I use 32-bit chroot under Arch64. Mainly for mplayer even though it can play most wmv's natively now. Anyway, I don't need 32-bit libs for that. I can keep the two completely seperated.

krix · 2006-10-02 06:59:21

Haiyadragon wrote:

Arch64 is the best I've tried so far. Gentoo isn't worth the effort if you ask me. Frugalware seems to be doing a good job keeping the 64-bit version up to date. But their build system and boot scripts and all that are a mess. Might as well use Ubuntu, same story. Arch is superior.
I just wish there were more guys compiling packages for Arch64.

Uhm. Heya.

Agreed with boot scripts. Our bootscripts actually bad. But a new rewrite of these scripts will come in the future.

Second.

What is the problem with the build system ? Mess ?? Could you post any information WHAT is mess in that ? You ever saw that ? Or you only just saw a simple FrugalBuild and nothing else ?

Dunno but we can easly maintain all of our packages with this ""MESS"" buildsystem.

I dont got the point.

Regards
-krix-

russianpirate · 2006-10-03 10:11:57

Ya i wanted to intall frugalware but couldnt cause the stupid installer kept restarting the whole process! :evil:

Mr Green · 2006-10-03 10:34:24

you loaded Arch64 yet?

I never saw that much differeence in speed so use 32 (where most things just work!)

my2c

russianpirate · 2006-10-04 00:46:50

ok maybe i will.. im waiting to try fedora 6 first cause arch takes longer to install and i dont have time to reinstall it after i install fedora over it..

Haiyadragon · 2006-10-04 10:19:50

krix wrote:

Haiyadragon wrote:
Arch64 is the best I've tried so far. Gentoo isn't worth the effort if you ask me. Frugalware seems to be doing a good job keeping the 64-bit version up to date. But their build system and boot scripts and all that are a mess. Might as well use Ubuntu, same story. Arch is superior.
I just wish there were more guys compiling packages for Arch64.
Uhm. Heya.
Agreed with boot scripts. Our bootscripts actually bad. But a new rewrite of these scripts will come in the future.
Second.
What is the problem with the build system ? Mess ?? Could you post any information WHAT is mess in that ? You ever saw that ? Or you only just saw a simple FrugalBuild and nothing else ?
Dunno but we can easly maintain all of our packages with this ""MESS"" buildsystem.
I dont got the point.
Regards
-krix-

Oh, maybe those weren't the right words. I tried the same thing I would on Arch and it complained that the package didn't exist. Well I agreed, that's why I was trying to build it. I guess the biggest problem is lack of documentation. One good howto to build packages would be great. But also for other stuff like configuration. I searched on the Wiki but the only thing I could find assumed I knew stuff I couldn't possibly know.

One thing that you seem to do really well is patching when there's problems with software. Gentoo also does that really well. For example, Grub doesn't work with Arch64 because I have more than 2 gigs of memory (it's a bug in Grub). FrugalWare's latest net install has a patched Grub that does work.

The worst thing about FrugalWare that I experienced was the install. That thing is bad. First, it needs "back" buttons, like, yesterday. I had to reboot 3 times before getting it right. Granted, this was due to my hastyness, but still. The package selection sucks, I ended up choosing just the base group because pacman is awesome and package selection in the installer was a pain. Most important, it needs a "rescue" mode under the install. When the install fails for some reason it should drop back into the live rescue mode so another attempt can be made. Also, basic operations should be possible. I consider that very important for an advanced distro like Arch and FrugalWare.

Riklaunim · 2006-10-04 10:48:22

Haiyadragon wrote:

I use 32-bit chroot under Arch64. Mainly for mplayer even though it can play most wmv's natively now. Anyway, I don't need 32-bit libs for that. I can keep the two completely seperated.

I have amd64 gentoo and the "emul" libs are nice - few packages that go to /usr/lib32/ and mplayer, opera or wine can work

Haiyadragon wrote:

The worst thing about FrugalWare that I experienced was the install. That thing is bad. First, it needs "back" buttons, like, yesterday. I had to reboot 3 times before getting it right. Granted, this was due to my hastyness, but still. The package selection sucks, I ended up choosing just the base group because pacman is awesome and package selection in the installer was a pain. Most important, it needs a "rescue" mode under the install. When the install fails for some reason it should drop back into the live rescue mode so another attempt can be made. Also, basic operations should be possible. I consider that very important for an advanced distro like Arch and FrugalWare.

Go to frugalware bugtrack and tell them that... for me frugal 0.5 x86_64 is not-installable do to installer bugs and weirdness

Noneus · 2006-10-05 06:44:11

I don't know about opensuse. But for me fedora is nice on my father's 64bit machine. You can install every package twice. One time for 32bit and one for 64bit. If you install applications rpm will always use the 64bit binary in /usr/bin.

Arch Linux

#1 2006-09-28 00:59:48

Best 64bit Linux Distro

#2 2006-09-28 01:23:29

Re: Best 64bit Linux Distro

#3 2006-09-28 02:38:10

Re: Best 64bit Linux Distro

#4 2006-09-28 12:54:55

Re: Best 64bit Linux Distro

#5 2006-09-28 16:24:57

Re: Best 64bit Linux Distro

#6 2006-09-29 02:56:32

Re: Best 64bit Linux Distro

#7 2006-09-29 03:07:57

Re: Best 64bit Linux Distro

#8 2006-09-29 04:40:28

Re: Best 64bit Linux Distro

#9 2006-09-29 10:53:35

Re: Best 64bit Linux Distro

#10 2006-09-29 14:31:29

Re: Best 64bit Linux Distro

#11 2006-09-29 15:18:32

Re: Best 64bit Linux Distro

#12 2006-09-30 13:00:51

Re: Best 64bit Linux Distro

#13 2006-10-02 06:59:21

Re: Best 64bit Linux Distro

#14 2006-10-03 10:11:57

Re: Best 64bit Linux Distro

#15 2006-10-03 10:34:24

Re: Best 64bit Linux Distro

#16 2006-10-04 00:46:50

Re: Best 64bit Linux Distro

#17 2006-10-04 10:19:50

Re: Best 64bit Linux Distro

#18 2006-10-04 10:48:22

Re: Best 64bit Linux Distro

#19 2006-10-05 06:44:11

Re: Best 64bit Linux Distro

Board footer