The main difference seems to be that Bluewhite64 is purelib and Slamd64 is multilib.
But Bluewhite already has a 12.2 release and Slamd doesn't, so I'm thinking about going with bluewhite.

Would I have problems installing software? I usually either compile things myself or use the scripts at slackbuilds.org. Would it be as simple as using SLKCFLAGS="-O2"?

Another thing, is compiling the kernel any different? Never compiled one on a 64 bit system

This forum supports Slackware Linux. Perhaps you could receive help at Bluewhite64's forum.

http://www.bluewhite64.com/official-...scussions.html

Thanks. Sorry about that, I figured that since it's a 64bit port of Slackware I could get some help here.

Been doing a lot of reading and I think I now know enough to get started with bluewhite64. The download just completed and I'm about to burn the dvd and begin installing. Wish me luck

No need to apologize, Slacker Steve. Good luck, man:-) I hope the install goes well for you!

Before making a choice you might want to read through this thread where you will read about some of the differences between the two 64 bit distributions.

http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...ckware-688728/

A 12.2 version of Slamd64 should be available soon, which means days or a few weeks. If I had to bet on it, and this is purely a wild guess, I would say the end of this month or the first week of next month. Should be worth the wait.

Thanks, I'll take a look at that

I'll definitely try the 12.2 version of Slamd64 when it comes out

I am in favour of pure 64bit. But, the thing i dislike about BW64, besides the usual stuff people come up with when criticising it, is that it STRICTLY follows Slackware.
Thats mostly a good thing. But not all the time. For example apmd. I doubt any 64bit capable machine even has apm support.
BW64 doesnt have a life of its own. On the contrary Slamd64 does.

I kinda like how it strictly follows slackware, but I see what you mean.

So far I've had trouble getting some of my favorite software to compile under bluewhite. I don't think I'm quite ready for pure 64bit yet, I think I will go back to regular Slackware. I don't notice any performance difference between 32 and 64 bit for what I do anyway.

I'll try Slamd64 when the next release comes out, though.

Thats what i did too, after trying out both.
I dont like Slamd64 solely cause its multilib, and uses lib64, which means you have to rewrite every SlackBuild to fit it.
BW64 for more reasons.
If you dont absolutely need 64bit, go for Slackware. If theres one person you can trust about keeping your system clean, lean & working, thats Pat V. , along with the rest of the Slackware team.

Actually, using "lib64" as the location for 64bit libraries is in line with the FHS standard: http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#LIB64

The Slamd64 FAQ sums it all up nicely: http://slackware.org.uk/slamd64/slam...Q/MultiLib.txt

Eric

Ive read all those, but i dont care. The FHS is merely guidelines the way i see it, not the path to religiously follow.
A 64bit distribution, should IMO use lib/.

I agree there.

Here I don't agree :-) I understand your point, however. Pure 64bit software takes away several limiting factors in what you can do with your software. That is why there is a slamd64 and a bluewhite64 - opinions differ. Note that bluewhite64 also offers an additional 32bit software layer, but they have to revert to a chroot-ed setup, because the 32bit and 64bit environments don't mix.

Lots of water will flow to the ocean before we see the end of 32bit software. Modern software cn be configured easily to work with a LIBDIRSUFFIX set to "64". All major distros use multilib 64bit. There is nothing wrong with giving the user 32bit compatibility on top of 64bit raw power.

Eric

How the hack you know this if you never tried BW64?

There is NO such chroot need to run 32-bit programs on Bluewhite64, just install the IA32 emulation packages and you are ready to run 32-bit programs like Firefox or any other. An important note is that you cannot run Slackware packages which are come with the distribution (from ftp.slackware.com/slackware), you can run packages made by any other repositories, just install and run.

So, if you install the IA32 is like to add a new "plugin" /feature to BW64. Also. you can compile your 64-bit programs with there "plugin" installed safely, the compilation process did not touch the 32-bit area, so, it don't mix .

Can you tell me how BW64 is not has apm support?

Please post to the Bluewhite64 forums, here or here, your problems and I will help to solve them .