OT: Windows is too expensive

Fyron · #1 March 21st, 2007, 01:45 AM

I wasn't aware that we were arguing; I thought we were just answering BM's questions?

apt, dpkg, whatever. I was just thinking in terms of aptitude and synaptics building off of apt.

capnq · #2 March 21st, 2007, 02:25 PM

FWIW, my techie girlfriend recommended Ubuntu over Suse when I mentioned an interest in trying Linux. She didn't really elaborate on what she disliked about Suse; I got the impression that she mostly disliked the attitude of the people who put together the Suse distribution.

Baron Munchausen · #3 March 21st, 2007, 07:59 PM

Heh...

Yes, Ubuntu is the 'vogue' right now because it's so much easier to install and use than many other distributions. But I am a techie myself, if a bit out of practice, and I want the extra widgets that come with the older distributions. Like source code. I'd probably go for Debian if it weren't so huge and covered so many CDs. I'll be trying to recompile Seamonkey with some advanced instructions (MMX for example) at the very least. Probably will go for a kernel recompile, too -- After I gain some confidence with the system.

parabolize · #4 March 21st, 2007, 11:47 PM

Ubuntu has all you need to compile seamonkey in the build-essential meta package though there isn't packages for seamonkey itself yet (you have to grab the source from mozilla.org for now). Its going to be hard to find a distribution that won't let you build and use a custom kernel though I'm not sure why you want to.

Baron Munchausen · #5 March 22nd, 2007, 12:43 AM

I am presuming that the kernel in nearly all distributions is also compiled for vanilla 'Pentium' rather than using any exotic instruction that risk compatibility. Many Linux installations are on very old hardware that doesn't have any other uses. I'd like to actually use the fancy capabilities of my hardware. The MMX instructions are now something close to 15 years old. Even SSE is about a decade old now. (And then there is SSE2 and SSE3, but I don't have any processors that handle those...

) Also, there might be some services included in the kernel by default that I don't need and don't want for security reasons. It's been a few years but I did tinker with Linux a bit back in the 1.x kernel days. Then, you had to recompile to change quite a few options. Maybe that has been fixed?

parabolize · #6 March 22nd, 2007, 02:06 AM

For the most part yes the default kernel for a distribution is generic usually coming in 386, 686, k7, 64bit and what have you. I have never seen much improvement in making hardware specific kernels or software in general though many people still do it. If you think compiling for days just to get mild performance increases is what you want to do there are many distributions made around that ideology. I would suggest Gentoo.

One thing is for sure, configuring the kernel is a butt load easier then what you remember.

Here is a quick run through: Gentoo Handbook

Baron Munchausen · #7 March 22nd, 2007, 01:02 PM

Days!? When I had Linux 1.x running on a 40 Mhz 386 it only took an hour and a half or so to recompile the kernel. Has it grown that much that it now needs days to recompile on modern hardware? Or has the optimization performed by the compiler become that arcane and complex?

Anyway, the kernel and the windowing system (when in use) underly all other programs running on the machine. I would expect any improved use of hardware features to have a noticeable effect on system performance.