The 32 bit version isn't recommended either
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| bigg Jul 16, 2010 3:29 PM EDT |
Ubuntu 10.04 is so bad on my wife's netbook that I now use Windows 7. Haven't seen this many lockups since Windows 98. Oh, the bugs in the updates are wonderful too. And the Ubuntu secret sauce like making it hard to print a pdf correctly, even though it prints correctly on any other distro or OS in the world, how can I live without that. It "just works" except for the cases where it doesn't work. If this is the most common introduction to Linux, there will not be many converts this year. |
| Alcibiades Jul 16, 2010 4:20 PM EDT |
Yes, put her on Debian. You cannot do a decent release every six months from Debian unstable, the way Ubuntu is trying to do it. Its nuts. Put her on Debian Stable, and your problems will end. Or, what I usually do, on account of the Control Center, is put her on Mandriva One Gnome. People have no problems with that. Reconfigure Gnome to have one lower task bar, and a plain slate color screen backdrop, and stick the apps most used in the taskbar. Very restful. I have one totally naive user on Debian, a long way away. No calls. No problems. |
| azerthoth Jul 16, 2010 7:57 PM EDT |
bigg your issue is Ubuntu, great example of ubuntu==linux ubuntu==broken linux==broken, logic though. All you have to do is realize ubuntu!=linux and the illogic train is broken. I meh on the logic, and meh on the article. |
| Bob_Robertson Jul 16, 2010 8:37 PM EDT |
I whole-heartedly agree. Debian stable, then install the latest FireFox from their own website. That way you get all the stability, and the one application that really should be "up to date". It's what I've done on my own main system, to avoid having to "upgrade" to KDE4. |
| jhansonxi Jul 16, 2010 8:40 PM EDT |
The biggest problem with Ubuntu 10.04 (Lucid Lynx) that I've encountered is the broken support for Intel 8xx series video devices. This does cause random lockups. The release notes do list this problem and a wiki help document provides many possible workarounds. This is an upstream problem with freedesktop.org/X.org. |
| Steven_Rosenber Jul 16, 2010 8:43 PM EDT |
The article in question was about the Ubuntu warning on installing the 64-bit version instead of the 32-bit. Coincidentally I just installed a 64-bit Fedora system even though I only have 3 GB of RAM in this system. I might bump it up to 4 GB, so that was in the back of my mind. How many owners of 64-bit machines opt for 32-bit installs? |
| Steven_Rosenber Jul 16, 2010 8:45 PM EDT |
My new install was a a toss-up between Fedora and Debian. I opted for that closer-to-the-edge feel of Fedora. Plus, I've never run Fedora before, so I wanted to try something new. Like many, I'm taking a break from Ubuntu. |
| tuxchick Jul 16, 2010 9:12 PM EDT |
Would it be so awful and radical, instead of wasting paragraphs on marketing mumbo, to tell the pros and cons of 64-bit vs. 32-bit, and some reasons for choosing one or the other? It could be done in a few sentences. Though Ubuntu does seem chronically confused about the difference between "user friendly" and "not telling users anything 'cause they're dumb" |
| gus3 Jul 16, 2010 10:05 PM EDT |
Pure 32-bit runs faster, due to shorter average instructions, resulting in fewer cache fills for the instruction stream. But GCC couldn't make a more optimized Collatz calculator, than what I could do in hand-coded assembly. My code beat GCC by almost a third. |
| chalbersma Jul 16, 2010 11:02 PM EDT |
Ironically I have flash working in 64 bit FreeBSD. |
| azerthoth Jul 17, 2010 3:01 AM EDT |
@gus with caveats, there are things that benefit from 64 bit, A/V work encoding/transcoding/editing or anything else that is seriously number crunching intensive that you can get to throw alot of threads. For the most part though, your right. |
| jezuch Jul 17, 2010 6:51 AM EDT |
Quoting:Pure 32-bit runs faster, due to shorter average instructions, resulting in fewer cache fills for the instruction stream. And 64-bit runs faster due to much larger register file and the ability to safely use modern instructions. Remember the cardinal rule of optimization: Measure, don't guess. |
| gus3 Jul 17, 2010 8:04 AM EDT |
@jezuch: It has been measured, and 32-bit wins consistently. Those new registers (both GP and SSE) incur an extra byte for every instruction that uses them. In general usage, using 64 bits for data does not offset the loss, because cache lines hold half as many 64-bit values as 32-bit values. So, you end up with a slowed down instruction stream, and more accesses to data, on the same core. As azerthoth points out, there are some intense calculation cases where 64 bits can yield substantially fewer total instructions for the same result. But if something as GUI-basic as TTF* rendering can't get a code size win from using 64 bits (+10K in the Slackware package), then this 64-bit afterthought is about as much a win as Microsoft's user-privileges afterthought.** * Now patent-free! **Only a slight exaggeration. |
| helios Jul 18, 2010 11:09 AM EDT |
I had my affair with 64 bit Linux and I have to join the chorus....I'm not seeing a big difference here. Aside from the flash issues, i just doesn't seem to have a measurable impact on the desktop. However, a good friend of mine has built an amazing if not amusing cluster of "basket crunchers" that run 64 bit Linux....there it IS making a difference. He has 12 of them stacked in array and they run GPU and CPU-intensive BOINC projects. http://www.skipsjunk.net/gallery/china01.html If you have a minute, click over to his home page and read the "legal disclaimer" half way down the page, It is a hoot. The everyday desktop user however won't see much of a performance spike from using 64 bit. |
| herzeleid Jul 18, 2010 4:52 PM EDT |
I've tried the 64 bit desktop scene, and whle the performance in some areas might have been slightly better, the experience was soured by the problems with multimedia and flash. I love 64 bit linux on big servers, no question. But on my desktop, I just want things to work. So I run 32 bit linux, and I don't care if the machine can handle a 64 bit OS. What would be the point, other than bragging rights? |
| tracyanne Jul 18, 2010 6:53 PM EDT |
Once again I'm having no trouble at all with 64 bit Linux. Flash works perfectly, I get to watch ABC iView, and youtiube, and all the other flash goodies. Sound works perfectly, Video works perfectly (even though it's nVidia), wireless works perfectly. The computer performs fine - don't know, or care if it's faster or slower than 32 bit, I didn't buy it for performance. I get to address 8 Gig of RAM. I get to run multiple virtual machines. I even get to share my keyboard and mouse between multiple computers, using Synergy+. |
| Steven_Rosenber Jul 18, 2010 8:14 PM EDT |
I just installed 32-bit Flash in 64- bit Fedora. Works perfectly thus far. |
| ilbts58 Jul 18, 2010 8:40 PM EDT |
I've never had any problems with Ubuntu 10.04. If putting it on a netbook one has to remember to use the netbook distro and not the desktop version. As I said in a different forum where I got ostracized for 32 bit versions should work even on 64 bit machines. But if you are sour towards Ubuntu try Mint. It is a very good distro and works very well. |
| tracyanne Jul 18, 2010 9:04 PM EDT |
@ilbts58 I'm running Mint on a netbook (an Asus EePC 9 inch), works just fine, especially with a 1680 by 1050 monitor. With an external keyboard and mouse it's no different than using a full size machine. |
| jdixon Jul 18, 2010 9:14 PM EDT |
> I've never had any problems with Ubuntu 10.04. I'm using it at work on a Dell Optiplex GX280. Except for the stupid window button change (which immediately got changed back), it's worked with no significant problems. |
| GaryBaxter Jul 19, 2010 12:42 AM EDT |
I like how people have 1 bad experience with ubuntu and declare it unfit for the masses. What about my 40+ good experiences? (on all different hardware configurations) I think that would tend to carry more weight and be more typical. I basically install OS's for a living, and can say without a doubt that I trust ubuntu more than any other OS, and works near perfect on any computer I try it on. Get over the ubuntu hate already or go back to your debian dungeons that you call forums. |
| azerthoth Jul 19, 2010 1:40 AM EDT |
Gary did you read the thread? No one is calling it unfit for the masses here, just that their calling 64 bit unfit for desktop is blatantly false. It equates to insider FUD. Speaking of 'I like how people ...' comments, I like how people can have a rational discussion with no politics or 'my distro is better' flames going on, and then one true believer can infer something that isn't there and ruin the who discussion. /me now returns you to you uncommonly sensible discussion over the pro's and con's of 64 bit. |
| djohnston Jul 19, 2010 2:40 AM EDT |
Quoting:However, a good friend of mine has built an amazing if not amusing cluster of "basket crunchers" that run 64 bit Linux....there it IS making a difference. He has 12 of them stacked in array and they run GPU and CPU-intensive BOINC projects.Thanks for the link. That's a great project idea! |
| jdixon Jul 19, 2010 6:51 AM EDT |
> I like how people have 1 bad experience with ubuntu and declare it unfit for the masses. Versus those who declare it the greatest thing since sliced bread based on a single install without having tried any other version of Linux? > I trust ubuntu more than any other OS, The distribution is Ubuntu. The OS is Linux. Argue the terms all you want, it won't change the reality. > Get over the ubuntu hate already... I don't think anyone here Hates Ubuntu. Some folks dislike that so many people seem to think Ubuntu=Linux. Ubuntu is a moderately good Linux distro. It's not significantly better or worse than many others. > ...or go back to your debian dungeons that you call forums. There are Debian users here, but I'm not one of them. I use Slackware. I play with Ubuntu and several other versions of Linux as time and resources permit. |
| helios Jul 19, 2010 11:41 AM EDT |
I trust ubuntu more than any other OS, The distribution is Ubuntu. The OS is Linux. Argue the terms all you want, it won't change the reality. > Get over the ubuntu hate already... OK...Aside from my participation in completely hijacking this thread...let me help accentuate some of the misconceptions that run amuck in the uneducated computer using public. I run a small business that helps people change over from Windows to Linux. A week does not go by that I don't get a call from people that have tried Ubuntu but didn't really like it. They state to me that they are now ready to try Linux. It is looking like many folks think Ubuntu is a stand-alone Operating System, Now blame it on the Ubuntu community, blame it on pi$$ poor marketing, or simply blame it on clueless computer users who couldn't google their own names...the phenomenon does exist out there. Trying to explain to people that Ubuntu IS Linux has become a part-time job for me. Explaining to people the concept of distros has more than once made me consider flossing with a weedeater. Now, most of them don't like Ubuntu because it's simply a foreign thing to them but the fact remains, there is a conceptual reality out there and identifying Ubuntu AS Linux has become a problem. And for disclosure purposes, we use our own branded form of Mint Linux on all computers given away by my non profit, which is of course built from Ubuntu. Ubuntu and it's corporate/user base have done good things. Marketing isn't one of them. The comment about "Debian Dungeons" does nothing to further your cause. It simply illustrates the rift between Linux users and the different communities. You would do well by considering the harm that sort of thing does before declaring your allegiance to any particular distro or community. I'm just sayin... |
| herzeleid Jul 19, 2010 1:12 PM EDT |
@jdixon -Quoting:Versus those who declare it the greatest thing since sliced bread based on a single install without having tried any other version of Linux?I don't know anyone like that jdixon, do you? All of the ubuntu users I know personally have been using linux for 5-10 years, and none of them say "it's the greatest thing since sliced bread". Like myself, they finally settled on ubuntu after using a number of distros, and and will gladly move to something better if and when it comes along. |
| tuxchick Jul 19, 2010 1:27 PM EDT |
I prefer unsliced loaves. |
| Steven_Rosenber Jul 19, 2010 1:29 PM EDT |
It's human nature to want to knock somebody off their pedestal, and Ubuntu is in that category. There is no other free, open-source OS, if not project in general, that so dominates the press and mindshare of users. Half the world thinks it's the savior of all CPU-equipped mankind. The other half not so much. But when you're on top, people want to put their foot in the lane and watch you trip. That's just the way it is. I'm among those who believe in using what works, and as far as distributions/projects and applications go, that varies greatly depending on the hardware involved and the tasks at hand. We've all spent time trying to slam square pegs into round holes (and trotting out cliches about same). Keeping an open mind (and a stack writable discs) will expand your technological horizons and maybe save you a lot of pain. Ubuntu is at a critical point in its evolution. At this point thinking that it could fade into the distance and lose its dominance is firmly in the realm of "crazy talk." But nothing lasts forever (except maybe Slackware and Debian ...), and whether or not Ubuntu will remain the (contested but not really) No. 1 free, open-source operating system distribution and for how long depends greatly on the decisions and conduct of parent company Canonical. Users are fickle. Or at least I am. |
| Steven_Rosenber Jul 19, 2010 1:45 PM EDT |
Quoting:I prefer unsliced loaves. Normally I'd concur, but the last time I bought a multigrain sourdough, the guy offered to slice it, and I agreed. What a time- and crumb-saver. Sliced bread - it's what's for breakfast. |
| tmx Jul 19, 2010 6:31 PM EDT |
Then maybe you can tell me if this Bovril stuff is any good with the breads, because I want to try some, but wondering if its worth while ordering online since its not sold in US. |
| GaryBaxter Jul 19, 2010 7:28 PM EDT |
@helios: i have nothing against debian the distro. just some of its users. i spent a few days hanging out in their forums, and have to say it wasn't the best experience i've ever had. before any of you label me an ubuntu fanboy, i have tried at least 40 different distros, and use fedora and ubuntu on my desktop, and puppy 4 on my lappie. i only use what works best, and most of the time that is ubuntu. if you disagree that's ok, but i would be willing to bet money that if we lined up 20 different pc's, ubuntu would work the best "out of the box" than any other distro. whether or not you like ubuntu is another story. |
| Steven_Rosenber Jul 19, 2010 8:18 PM EDT |
Bovril: sounds meaty - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovril |
| Bob_Robertson Jul 19, 2010 9:47 PM EDT |
> What a time- and crumb-saver. Sliced bread - it's what's for breakfast. There's a reason that the generation that created "sliced bread" made the saying, "greatest thing since sliced bread". They knew of what they speak! |
| tracyanne Jul 19, 2010 10:09 PM EDT |
Quoting:Ubuntu 10.04 is so bad on my wife's netbook that I now use Windows 7. The logic of that decision escapes me. |
| jdixon Jul 19, 2010 10:13 PM EDT |
> I don't know anyone like that jdixon, do you? I don't know many Ubuntu users in person, but I do know one, and he's never tried another distro. To be fair, Ubuntu works for him, so he's had no need to do so. For me, Slackware simply works better. But that's at least partially because I have a lot of experience making it do what I want. However, I was simply meeting hyperbole with hyperbole. Ubuntu is good, but it's not "the greatest thing since sliced bread", and claims that it is sometimes cause me to overreact, especially when they put down one or more other distros. That's true in this case. > They knew of what they speak! Yeah. Fresh baked bread is better, but only while it's fresh. The only thing which really beats sliced bread is indoor plumbing. |
| bigg Jul 20, 2010 9:58 AM EDT |
> The logic of that decision escapes me. I don't get to use it very often. When I do, which is usually after dinner, I don't really have the opportunity to put a new distro on it. But when I'm playing with my son and take a two minute break to check my email, it gets annoying when it locks up. It's easier just to boot into Windows. I'm thinking I'll give Mandriva a try when I finally get the opportunity. |
| azerthoth Jul 20, 2010 12:31 PM EDT |
@ Gary, depends on what you define as 'the best' OOB support. Not knocking your choice, but the fanboi grates. DVD, 3D acceleration, Full on desktop bling (side effect of 3D) are all most noticeably lacking OOB even though others can and do provide it 'OOB'. Making undefined claims as 'the best' leaves the discussion rather open to unquantifiable opinion. Mind you 'the best' linux distro is the one that works best for you. I will congratulate you though in successfully changing the topic of discussion. p.s. so there is no confusion, I define OOB as not needing an internet connection, what is on the disc as complete. |
| tracyanne Jul 20, 2010 5:37 PM EDT |
[quote]
I'm thinking I'll give Mandriva a try when I finally get the opportunity.
[quote] Mandriva with GNOME is looking very good, I'll have to try it on real hardware. |
| number6x Jul 20, 2010 5:51 PM EDT |
My path in Linux was Slackware --> SuSE --> Mepis -->Debian I tried many different distros over the last 13 years since kernel 1.9 and have enjoyed many. I tried Ubuntu early on, but never saw a reason to switch to it. I bought a laptop 3 years ago with Ubuntu pre-installed. It works great on the laptop and has been upgraded about 6 times but not yet replaced. All of the machines at home are Debian except for that laptop. (I also recently loaded mint on an old computer for my In-laws. ) I probably would not have chosen Ubuntu if I bought a Windows laptop and wiped it, but Ubuntu wasn't too annoying and it worked. It still does. Every distro has warts. |
| jdixon Jul 20, 2010 7:53 PM EDT |
> ...but Ubuntu wasn't too annoying and it worked. It still does. And that's a fair assessment of most distros. > Every distro has warts. Yep. And one person's warts are another person's features. Most users find Slackware's relative lack of gui configuration tools, lack of dependency checking, and limited precompiled packages undesirable. Others find that it gives them the control, simplicity, and speed they want. |
| Bob_Robertson Jul 20, 2010 9:04 PM EDT |
> Others find that it gives them the control, simplicity, and speed they want. Golly, I wonder if that is why there is more than one distribution of Linux? |
| jdixon Jul 21, 2010 8:46 AM EDT |
> Golly, I wonder if that is why there is more than one distribution of Linux? Could be, Bob. Could be. :) |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!