The new laptop (see previous entry) presents a question of what,exactly, to run on it. Is it worthwhile to go for a 64-bit Linux, or am I better off staying with 32-bit for now? With 64-bit cores it seems like 64-bit would be the way to go, but I've seen things pointing out that not much is actually compiled for 64-bit and some stuff has to then run in a sort of simulated 32-bit environment. One potential factor, memory, is not a factor as the maximum addressable memory is 4 GB and I have "only" 4 GB, so I don't need to go 64-bit to use all the RAM.
The other part is, if I do go for 64-bit, then which distribution? And, no, it will NOT be Ubuntu or Debian nor (hopefully) any of their cancerously multiplying derivatives. I would like it very much if the Linux-using internet would kindly pull its head out of Ubuntu's behind. Alas, there is not a 64-bit version of PCLinuxOS or the distribution decision (for 64-bit) would be trivial.
no subject
Date: 9 Nov 2010 19:47 (UTC)All things being equal, I'd go for a 32 bit OS on a machine with less than 1GB or so of RAM, and 64 bit otherwise.
no subject
Date: 11 Nov 2010 01:09 (UTC)I've used the 64 bit versions of both Fedora and KUbubtu. Both are quite acceptable. Your choice will depend on whether you're more comfortable with a SYSV (Fedora) or BSD (Debian/Ubuntu) type implementation of the OS.
I've noted that getting 32-bit Win apps to run under WINE (namely, World of Warcraft...) was much less painful under 64 bit than under 32, once I installed the 32-bit binaries and libs for the video card driver along side the 64 bit ones.