Linux Distros: My Journey from 32-bit to 64-bit Computing

Linux has come a long way from being the OS of choice for geeks to be the OS of choice for all but the most incompetent of users. The most difficult thing about Linux nowadays is perhaps selecting a distribution. Of course, those who just want easy Windows replacement will just go for Ubuntu, SUSE, Mandriva and the likes but being a seasoned user, I wanted something that is tailored for my needs; bleeding edge software, speed, flexibility, simplicity and customizability. Here’s the chronicles of my Linux journey.

Red Hat – first attempt in 1998. Back then Red Hat was THE Linux. Installation failed completely due to unsupported graphic chipset in my then Acer Travelmate laptop, so I went back to Windows98.

Mandriva – took the plunge again 6 years later in 2004 when I can’t afford Microsoft’s expensive license. Installed for my then new AthlonXP 2600+ system with nVIDIA 5900XT during the ‘Mandrake-age’ (before bankruptcy and Connectiva-Lycoris acquisition). It was hailed as one of the most if not the most newbie friendly Linux. Removed due to incompatibility of RPM packages across different distros causing me to fall into the infamous ‘dependency hell’, and too much bloat.

Debian(Sid) – excellent dpkg package management. apt-get and dpkg commands were easy to figure out, all the DEB based distros followed strict packaging guidelines ensuring compatibility and one line of command got my system updated to the latest packages in Debian’s repositories. Removed because Debian was too slow to update packages to the latest versions, and Sid packages broke down on me often enough.

Knoppix – the original Debian-based LiveCD. Did not install onto disk as I found Mepis more interesting.

Mepis – one of the easiest LiveCD installation thus making it very newbie friendly. It was basically Debian with some customization. Removed for the same issues like Debian and also the LiveCD bloat that got installed together with hard disk installation. Note: the latest Mepis release is now based on Ubuntu.

Arch- kept a very simple approach and followed strictly to the KISS philosophy (Keep It Simple Stupid) and the Arch Way. It featured BSD style config scripts a la Slackware yet kept being very bleeding edge with updated stable packages in the repository sometimes in a matter of hours after release. Excellent package management in Arch’s ‘pacman’ a la Debian’s ‘apt-get’ or Gentoo’s ‘emerge’, Arch Build System (ABS) and PKGBUILDS very similar to Gentoo’s Portage and ebuilds but binary instead of compiling packages from source yet just as fast as a streamlined Gentoo system. Arch was optimized for i686 and highly customizable with base installation that allowed users to install only needed packages thus eliminating bloat and making it blazingly fast. Arch seemed to combine the best features of every other distributions yet achieved it while maintaining to be very simple. Without doubt, this became my perfect 32-bit distro.

I spent the last month or so experimenting and deciding on a 64-bit distro to use with my new AMD64 X2 3600+ and ATI X1300Pro machine and here goes.

Gentoo – my first 64-bit experiment after a bit of study and much hype. Generally viewed as having the best 64-bit support. LiveCD installation was easy enough but customizing USE flags took too much time to study, and the compile time really took a while. Took about 3 days for me just to setup the system; obviously not the distro for the impatient, yet extremely customizable. Bleeding edge packages were available but mostly in Testing or Unstable branch so users be warned; Gentoo is NOT for everyone!. Due to the time-consuming nature, I had look elsewhere.

Sabayon – basically Gentoo without all the headache of customizing USE flags. Excellent LiveCD with desktop enhancements, XGL and AIGLX supported by default. HDD installation also was just a matter of defining partitions and username. I had high hopes but the downside was stability and the bloat of software that I didn’t need. Updating the whole system to the latest in Gentoo’s repositories broke a lot of packages. In the end it became another time-consuming distro for me so again i had to remove it.

Kubuntu - It was hard not to see why people fell in love with Ubuntu. You really need to experience it yourself to appreciate the sheer user-friendliness, elegance and the ‘Ubuntu’ spirit extended even to the Ubuntu forums and wikis. There was also very little bloat from the LiveCD installation which impressively installed to my hard disk in less than 15 minutes. 32-bit packages were compatible through multilib libraries so Ubuntu actually was not a pure 64-bit distro per se. Ubuntu/Kubuntu would be my choice of distro in terms of user-friendliness but it was still a bit behind in terms of package updates even by synchronizing with Ubuntu’s snapshot or Debian Sid’s repositories which were unstable. However it definitely became the distro to recommend to my colleagues and friends who were looking for a replacement for Microsoft’s Windows.

Arch64 - 64-bit port of Arch Linux and they target to be a pure 64-bit OS with no multilib for 32-bit compatibility. A 32-bit chroot environment solved this and kept the 64-bit installation clean from excess 32-bit libraries at the same time. The idea was moving forward, sooner or later unsupported packages WILL be supported. After all what I needed from 32-bit were just Opera with Flash support and Folding@Home. Arch64 retained all the philosophies and features of the original Arch Linux, and yet offered something more.

With all that said, it seemed that I really can’t find anything more fitting for myself than Arch and Arch64 Linuxes; they effectively ended my distro hunting days. Kubuntu came close but it was more of a distro for newbies or those who do not want to spend time tinkering with configurations. Many people argued that Linux is just not ready for desktop computing, and 64-bit computing will not be mainstream any time soon but for me, Linux has been ready for desktop since years ago, and 64-bit is already mainstream!

Intel: Technology Leader, or Technology Copycat?

I recently decided to buy myself a new system after my hardworking IDEQ200N barebones with unlocked AthlonXP 2600+ died on me so I thought it would be a good time to jump onto the DDR2 bandwagon. Coincidently this happened amidst all the noise about Conroe and AM2 so obviously decisions had to be made whether I would finally jump to Intel or stick with AMD. Interestingly I choose to go for AM2 even though Conroe’s performances has been times and over again been dubbed stellar across the online comunitites. Could it be because I am a little bit of an AMD fanboy? Well, maybe, but not just blind devotion without reasons.

Intel is a giant compared to AMD. In terms of manufacturing capabilities and raw financial strength, Intel is superior. But being a giant also is what turns Intel to be the Goliath it is now. Despite claiming to be industry and technology ‘leader’ how many times has it been that Intel criticized AMD’s technology decisions but later red facedly tailing after with similar technology? How many times before had we read about Intel denying the need to move to 64-bit technology? How about bashing the advantages of integrated memory controller? How about AMD’s Torrenza initiative that caught Intel off guard?

Core2 processors, Duo and Quad may dominate for now but they are still on age old saturated FSB technology that has almost reached its limits. Despite this, Intel still refused integrated memory controller on the grounds that ‘memory standard changes’ and ‘it’s better to have larger cache on the processor itself’. This claim to ‘flexibility’ turns out to be not flexible at all. Currently Intel’s processors use the same socket LGA775 but it is very hard to determine what processor is compatible with what motherboard simply because of the different MCH chipsets used. This was evident when Conroe debuted a few months back. The only reason for MCH is that it costs one more chip for customers to use an Intel system thus bringing more money into Intel. Comparatively, socket AM3 processors in the future are guaranteed to work with current socket AM2 boards due to the integrated memory controller thus proving that it is more flexible for the memory controller to be integrated. The much anticipated CSI bus (successor to the old age FSB) is a similar point-to-point bus as HyperTransport that AMD had been using for years and even that is expected only by 2008 in Intel’s Tukwila chips in servers. Chances are it will also finally features integrated memory controller for Intel but who knows when it’s going to reach us laymen end-users, your guess as good as mine. EM64T is nothing more than a copy of AMD64’s instruction sets yet they dare to call it their own. At IDF recently Intel announced Geneseo as an answer to AMD’s Torrenza, opening up FSB and PCI-express bus for developers to build on, which I personally agree with the Inquirer’s article that is a waste of good R&D funds. Logically, why would people want to build on a soon-to-be-obsolete FSB when CSI is on the horizon? Then with recent AMD’s acquisition of ATI, suddenly news flew around that Intel is jumping into CPU-GPU integration. Not to mention they are actively hiring graphic engineers while firing HR and marketing personnel all over the world. Intel also will be shipping their quad cores ahead of AMD, even if that means slapping 2 dual cores on the same package. Guess who’s going to ship native quad cores first? Now, who’s exactly the technology ‘leader’?

AMD offers customers and users with choices. With AMD customers have the freedom to choose components, suiting the best of each and everyone’s needs. Use VIA’s components, or NVIDIA’s, ATI’s, Broadcom’s, use whoever’s chipsets, graphics, wireless chips, use whatever suits you, that’s the freedom of choice AMD brings. And AMD, being small, has technology partnerships with many other companies for example IBM giving them the advantage of innovation through open standards. Even HyperTransport is governed by a consortium. Sure, they might be behind in terms of process technology, but who cares if the processor is built on 65nm or 90nm if they perform just about the same? Do not forget that AMD64 with inferior process technology and only DDR out beat Pentium4 with DDR2 for years before Conroe came about.

With Intel, users have to stick with the so called ‘platforms’ to get the best performance. It always has to be Intel’s processor, Intel’s chipsets, Intel’s motherboard, Intel’s radio and soon, Intel’s graphics. While they argue that integrated solutions from one company benefits users in terms of cost, I have yet to see any Intel platforms that are priced cheaper than any competing solutions. Just look at VIIV which in fact, is a huge marketing scheme aimed at non-competent users. I attended a VIIV demo here recently and it was disappointing! The bloody thing costs 5 figures in my country, and my system at home can do exactly what VIIV can do for just a little over 3k! Not only has it cost a bomb, it also shuts the door for independent system builders like myself for VIIV certifications. Only OEMs can produce a VIIV compatible system, stick the VIIV sticker and guess who will pay for the overpriced sticker? Check out this commentary on the Inquirer on VIIV, my thoughts exactly.

Intel may have all the money in the world for R&D but AMD is more flexible and creative, and most of the time more future proof. What is the problem with Intel then? In my opinion, arrogance and pride lead to bad technological decisions. If only they will be humble enough to listen to what customers and people actually want instead of making decisions for them, I think they would be in a better position (and avoid lawsuits, of course). Technology needs to be open to create innovations and to be enjoyed by all, by not doing so Intel is dooming itself to be the Goliath.

First Post: Breaking the Taboo

Up until a few weeks ago I was convinced that blogging is exclusively for wussies. Back then I guess I had the general impression that people who blogged mostly ranted about life, about meeting this girl or that guy, etc etc you get the drift. Blogs had been one of the primary tools used by online criminals for identity thefts, harassments and sometimes even leading to rape and murder, these are the major reasons I avoided and even detested blogging from the start. These people who so innocently shared so much personal information online should be educated on the dangers for doing so.

Me, I had always been interested in the world of technology, not just for the sake of technology itself but also the politics and the drama behind it. Issues like DRM, piracy, Intel vs AMD, NVIDIA vs ATI, FOSS vs Linus Torvalds, the recent HP pretexting scandal, the downfall of Microsoft's monopoly, Windows vs Mac vs Linux vs the rest of the world, these beat our everyday soap opera and the best of all, they are real! Think about soap opera + reality show combo :) . And whenever these pieces of news came about, I always have the urge to share them with peers, to write down my thoughts in words, and to see whether I am alike or alone in my line of thinking. And what better tool to allow me to do just that than a blog. Even if I consider myself a bit of a geek, I certainly am not an expert therefore I consider myself as expressing my thoughts from a layman's point of view.

Don't get me wrong. I still think that blogging about personal life is wussy and dangerous, but even a kitchen knife can be a murder weapon. Please take note that whatever I post here in no way represents the company I work with or anyone else, they are 100% mine, and I will not take credit for anything that is not written by me so I will provide links whenever possible to my source of information. You will find that most of the time I frequent the same websites :) .

Do give me a warm welcome to this world of blogging. I hope you will enjoy it as much as I do. :)