Which 64-bit Linux is an alternative to Slamd64/Slackware?

cathectic · 11-01-2005, 05:48 AM

Quote:

And btw you can alway recompile your kernel and download 64b packages to give 64bits support for you linux

Not really, no. Piete has already explained this at length:

http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...56#post1728856

Quote:

No 64 bits games yet.

UT2004 has a 32bit and a 64bit Linux port. Wine and Cedega will also run on a 64bit Linux platform, allowing you to play 32bit Windows games on it.

Quote:

where I find the meaning of all this abreviations like BTW, RTFM, etc

If you have the bsd-games package installed, use the command "wtf" followed by the acronym.

e.g.

Code:

wtf wtf

maginotjr · 11-01-2005, 06:09 AM

okay, but I dont think could be a good ideia run UT2004 on wine (to heavy?)

And I know this topic (very good btw), and yeah I know that you need a 64bits compiler, well, GCC can do it for you. I never said it was easy to do... but Im used to spend days, weeks making something to my box.. I dont think about leaving slack

Quote:

The definition of a "computer architecture" can be summed up by it's instruction set. Different instruction set, different architecture. Thus x86_64 is not i486. So, when you select make menuconfig and set your kernel to AMD64, you're just telling the kernel-config that you have a 64-bit processor and to enable some extra stuff (like the on-board AGP bridge) and probably a few code optimisations for i486.

*UNLESS*

You have a 64-bit compiler.

If you run make menuconfig with a 64-bit compiler, you'll find that your kernel is actually being compiled in 64-bit bytecode; otherwise you've just got a well-informed 32-bit kernel. Not the same as a 64-bit kernel

* The programs. Since AMD64s run 32-bit code natively, then you can (assuming you have the right libraries and such installed) just run your 32-bit apps in a 64-bit environment (ie: your kernel is 64bit). This is called a "bi-arch" system. As in, two-architectures. What you cannot do is run 64-bit apps in a 32-bit environment.

Slackware is a mono-arch system. That is, you compile everything as 32-bit. You install only 32bit packages. Debian Pure64 aims to be a mono-arch system. Everything is compiled as 64-bit and your native install is 64-bit. *However*, because the AMD64 is a bi-arch chip, you can run 32-bit apps in a chroot (change-root) environment. You fool your native bash-prompt into thinking it's in a 32-bit environment, and then you run the 32bit app. Instead of having /lib and /lib64 (for example) you have /lib (for your native 64-bit libraries) and you have /32bit-environment-directory/lib (for your 32-bit libs) and so on.

Both SuSE and Slamd64 are bi-arch systems (probably Fedora, too, idk tbh) which have store 64-bit libraries in /lib64 (/usr/lib64 etc etc) and 32-bit libraries in /lib . Running native 32-bit apps is no harder than on a 32-bit system.

gargamel · 11-01-2005, 02:35 PM

My 2 cents:

1. Distro for 64 Bit.
a) SuSE vs Ubuntu.
I personally don't know Ubuntu. From what I read about it, it is probably an office and home user desktop distro, not so much aimed at developers or server admins.
One good choice certainly is SuSE. Some call it "the Windows from Nuremberg", but it's an excellently maintained multi-purpose distro. The approach is totally different from Slackware, and it's RPM based, but among the RPM based distro it's the most complete. It comes with all the tools and programs you mention as standard. Unlike Ubuntu, SuSE is not only good for the desktop office user, but also for developers and server admins. Take a look at it and decide yourself. Personally I run SuSE and Slackware, and never was able to get rid of one them --- both are good. I like YaST for the things I do with it, and I like Slackware, too. Both make certain tasks simple for the user/admin/developer, both are consequent in their respective philosophies, and both are of high quality, thanks to thorough maintenance (although some SuSE versions weren't up to the level Slack has always been, but SuSE 10.0 is good, I can assure you --- so is Slack 10.2).
b) Yoper.
Not sure if they have 64 Bits, but Yoper is, to my knowledge, optimized for speed on modern hardware.
c) ROCK (or Arch or Gentoo or ...)
If you like to learn and to do things manually instead of being shielded from the config files by some more or less helpful and more or less mature GUI tool, then ROCK Linux might be right for you. Build your own distro optimized for your hardware! ROCK is kind of Linux from Scratch with a highly automated but configurable build process. Take a look a the LQ forum for ROCK or go to http://www.rocklinux.org to find out more.

2. Shared /swap and /home
/swap shouldn't be a problem.
To share /home between various Linuces is *very* dangerous! Don't even try! Different distros have different places to put config files, and practically always have different versions of the same programs included. Sometimes even the file permissions differ. The only chance not to run into conflicts sooner or later is when you have two instances of the same version of the same Linux distro with the same patches applied. But how long can you guarantee that? So the answer for sharing /home is plain simple: DON'T.

gargamel

cathectic · 11-01-2005, 03:19 PM

Quote:

okay, but I dont think could be a good ideia run UT2004 on wine (to heavy?)

UT2004 has a *native* 64bit Linux port.

maginotjr · 11-03-2005, 03:27 AM

Quote:

UT2004 has a *native* 64bit Linux port.

okay okay .... I give up ... you won! lol

c.m.klaij · 11-04-2005, 02:03 AM

a single precision real requires 32 bits, a double precision real 64 bits, so 64 bit machines are usefull if you need double precision.
In numerics double precision is often used to keep cutoff errors at bay, so for number crunching 64 bit is the way to go.
I can't think of any other reason for wanting a 64 bit machine...

Bonzodog · 11-04-2005, 03:14 PM

As you can see, I'm dual booting slamd64 and Ubuntu 5.10 64 bit, and I have to say I am impressed with Ubuntu. slamd64 is still very much a distro in development and I am using it as a slack-from-scratch type distro. Another one you might want to consider is FreeBSD x86_64. But ubuntu is very well constructed and is easy to use and install, but the flash problem does rear it's head, but I've discovered that you very rarely need to compile anything from source as there is a deb version of just about anything in source forge at the moment. i myself was a slacker for 6 years, and only left it because I wanted to upgrade, keep gnome, No KDE, and get a 64 bit distro. Ubuntu seemed logical.

sse007 · 11-17-2005, 04:56 PM

i upgraded my computer to an amd x2 dual core, when i check the messages file, i see that only cpu #0 is initialized, how do i have both cpu initialize ? do i need the slamd64 ?

thx...

Jeebizz · 11-17-2005, 05:03 PM

compile SMP into your kernel to get the second processor to work