Operating System Geekery

I've got a spare 120GB hard drive installed on my desktop, and I feel like messing with another OS. Most likely, I'll wind up with another Linux distro. I run Ubuntu right now. So far, I'm interested in:

Gentoo - the Portage scheme is intriguing
Yellow Dog - thinking about a PS3, so this would get me familiar with the preferred distro
LinuxMint - curious as to how they've streamlined Ubuntu
FreeBSD - not Linux! Curiosity alone would drive me to install it

Comments/suggestions?

Defiantly windows.

Go old school Yuri. CP/M

I like FreeBSD personally

gentoo is my favorite for speed, options, and ease of use. it has almost all the freedom of building linux from scratch but the easy of using a package manager (emerge) for getting dependencies. I've tried freebsd but never been able to get into it the way I have with linux but thats just me, from everything Ive read about it, it can do everything linux can and more.
with 120GB you could partition the drive with a few small (10gb or so)partitions for each OS/distro and use a common partition for all your large media files since all those OSes/distros listed will play nice together. why not install all of them?

Actually, I was considering a multiple OS install on that hard drive just to play around. Perhaps I'll go with Gentoo and FreeBSD to start.

Just made 5 partitions of fairly equal size. The swap and home partitions reside on the other drive. Gentoo is up first, then FreeBSD. Linux Mint and YDL will follow shortly thereafter. I'm actually posting from the Gentoo Live browser while the installer runs in the background.

CentOS....

cause I'm a RedHat 5 n00b from '97 and I'm chained to the RPM package management system.

Nothing else seems to make sense to me

I started out with Ubuntu, it is easy to install and setup and really easy to make any kind of changes that you want. Although I have been thinking about going to Gentoo or another distro recently just to see how they differ.

If you like Gentoo, you will really like FreeBSD. Portage is very cool. Its been a long time since I used FreeBSD on a desktop, but I still use it on some Server Machines I have - rock solid.

Not quite the same thing, but I've ordered a new motherboard for my main system. The old system will become a database/web server. I've been using CentOS, but the 5.2 distribution is too big to download (Sat. DSL with tight limits) and ALL of the people who sell the CD/DVDs only take PayHel!

May have to drive over to OSU & burn a copy.

I'd say FreeBSD. Haven't used it in years, but it's much geekier to know more OS's than more variations. Anyone for Xenix?

david_42 said:

Not quite the same thing, but I've ordered a new motherboard for my main system. The old system will become a database/web server. I've been using CentOS, but the 5.2 distribution is too big to download (Sat. DSL with tight limits) and ALL of the people who sell the CD/DVDs only take PayHel!

May have to drive over to OSU & burn a copy.

I'd say FreeBSD. Haven't used it in years, but it's much geekier to know more OS's than more variations. Anyone for Xenix?

Click to expand...

Solaris, AIX, OS/400, HP-UX (they left out the S in that), Irix, and Linux

I only use Linux and OS/400 anymore. Irix was about the best out of all the "real" unix systems I messed with, IMHO. O2, Octaine, and Indy were nice boxes.

So far Gentoo is a complete PITA. I expected that, though. GRUB was not as easy to configure as it should have been, so I've been dealing with that for most of the install (GRUB doesn't play well with a mix of SATA and IDE drives). Portage is cool...if it ever gets through updating. I'm in a REALLY generic X environment, so getting video drivers and a working wm are first on the list. Then I'll start exploring Gentoo a little more thoroughly.

I run Debian as my OS and I make heavy use of KVM virtualization to run other things.

Virtualization > Multi-boot.

I like FreeBSD in theory, but in practice it tended to be unstable on my hardware, corrupting my drives and doing general non-workingness.

Gentoo was at one point a great distro, but it's time has passed. It's two biggest pluses, great documentation and a helpful community are both greatly decreased in usefulness. Also, I simply use my computer WAY too much to cope with the compile times for a source-based distro.

I'm chained to the RPM package management system.

Click to expand...

I'm so, so, sorry. RPM makes me want to stomp on puppies and fills me with rage. I avoid it like the plague.

david_42 said:

it's much geekier to know more OS's than more variations.

Click to expand...

I'd agree. It really enriches your experience when you understand how different OSes relate to each other.

With OpenSolaris 2008.05 out, I might recommend giving that a spin if you're only interested in trying out somethign new for fun. ZFS is what got me addicted to LVM which expanded my possibility on Linux and I'm really intriqued by some of the backend things in Solaris like the service management stuff...

Talk about geeking out. :S

I've run Debian before and liked it just fine. Ubuntu (my distro of choice so far) is heavily based on Debian, so I don't plan on installing a pure Debian distro at the moment. I used to run Slackware and RedHat, but there seem to be far better options these days.

OpenSolaris, eh? I think I've got a partition I can dedicate...

+1 on source based Gentoo being slow to install/update! I knew Portage would be a little clunkier than the Debian aptitude system, but this is nuts! It took FOREVER to sync, and I'm only about halfway through fetching/building updates (cable modem, plenty of RAM and processing power). I am curious, however as to whether the end state system will be noticeably faster/leaner than Ubuntu.

Still haven't even gotten to solving some driver issues (or installing FreeBSD)!

OpenSolaris and its fancy zfs may not coexist well on a drive with ext2/3 partitions (so I've read), so I'm not sure if I'll actually install it or just use the Live CD.

You suggest you virtualize... xen is free for the desktop and is FAST.

Citrix Systems » Desktop Management with Citrix XenDesktop

xen is not free - it has a free trial.

i ran gentoo for a bit early in the 00's, and found that every time portage did a general update (they do something akin to a rolling update at lease) specifically x, it would hose all my config files and i would have to babysit each time i ran portage. It was a bit faster than other distros, but i couldnt take the 2 day compile times for kde for instance, as well as the configure it yourself feel it has for _everything_ (hal and other useful stuff for instance)

to each i suppose, but the extra .2 seconds on boot or whatever aint worth it to me....

Yuri_Rage said:

OpenSolaris and its fancy zfs may not coexist well on a drive with ext2/3 partitions (so I've read), so I'm not sure if I'll actually install it or just use the Live CD.

Click to expand...

It "should" work fine. Solaris is a different beast, to be sure. Make sure you install the GNU tools package or look up the Unix Rosetta stone. Same apps, different syntax.

I'm pretty *nix aware, and I've used commercial Sun products before. However, I've read that there are some issues when installing OpenSolaris on a machine with pre-existing Linux. I'll certainly try out the Live CD, but I'll approach a full install with kid gloves.

After all this crazy OS experimentation, I'll have to grab a screenshot of my boot menu!

VMware Server is free... I gave up multi-booting a long time ago.

Gentoo is awesome once you get it set up and running, you need to pay attention to configu files with etc-update, but if you can use diff, you can figure it out. Emerge is head and shoulders above any package management system once you get things working. It is a bit of a chore to get it set up and the kernel tweaked.

I view it as "All Grain Linux"

I'm going to have to start playing with some of these OS's to see what all the whoopla is about. I'm sure I can dig up an old machine at work to install on, but all I can do is test with them. I'm an MSCE and a CCNA so I'm embedded with the enterprise platforms I have running at work. I'd be interested to see what the Linux variations can do though. Can they run Microsoft Enterprise applications like Exchange '07 and SQL '08? Are they native 64-bit OS's?

I'm trapped in my own little IT world and haven't experimented with any of the OS's listed above.

Although for what it's worth, I upgraded my first server to Windows Server 2008 Enterptise (x64) and put Exchange 2007 SP1 on it over the weekend and so far I'm thoroughly impressed.

I view it as "All Grain Linux"

Click to expand...

I like that.
gentoo certainly takes longer to install/update than say fedora or ubuntu but if you select the compile flags and packages carefully the performance increase is worth it. even a full re-emerge only takes me about 16 hours and that's on an old 2ghz P4 system.

Yuri_Rage said:

I am curious, however as to whether the end state system will be noticeably faster/leaner than Ubuntu.

Click to expand...

That's kind of an unfair trial, unless you're really benchmarking equal configurations too. You described your system as having "plenty" so I doubt you'll find the optimizations much use at all. If you want to see a fast system, build up something minimal. Debian and Arch linux are considered some of the fastest.

You can speed Ubuntu up noticably by removing services you don't use. The Ubuntu vs Gentoo comparison will side heavily towards Ubuntu if you factor in download and compile times in "total cost of ownership".

One of the best things I've heard about Gentoo's supposed "optimization" at the compile level is that "-03 doesn't do much except expose compiler bugs".

Yuri_Rage said:

xen is not free - it has a free trial.

Click to expand...

Xen is free (gratis) and free (libre) since it's actually a heavily modified Linux kernel itself. Most distros include Xen, some by default.

Ubuntu -- Details of package xen-hypervisor-3.2 in hardy

You suggest you virtualize

Click to expand...

Virtualization rocks, though I prefer KVM. It's a part of the default Linux kernel since 2.6.20 and Red Hat just purchased the company that maintains it (Qumranet) so it will be supported even more, while the company that purchased Xen is Citrix, a Microsoft Partner. I'm not anti-microsoft but it should be obvious which company will be more aligned towards useful and complete virtualization for Desktop Linux users.

Can they run Microsoft Enterprise applications like Exchange '07 and SQL '08?

Click to expand...

No, Microsoft bundles those products to their Windows operating system. There's nothing directly compatible/comparable to Exchange, but there are things as good (I'd argue better) than MSSQL.

Are they native 64-bit OS's?

Click to expand...

The super duper technical answer is "No, Linux is not an operating system". It's a collection of tools that can be mixed and used as you see fit. This is because the source code is publicly available and the license allows you to use it where and how you see fit. Because you have that source code, it runs just fine on 64-bit platforms. but it runs on a LOT of platforms (ARM, i386, AMD64, SPARC, MIPS, Power, et cetera) and depending on which specific application it may NOT have been developed FOR that architecture but almost always works fine on it.

Good enough for you?

If not, grab a LiveCD and give it a spin. You can run it live, without installing though you should know that it will be slower (CD read speeds suck compared to HD reads) and that some features might not work fully (due to being partly or entirely read-only).

Also, Microsoft Virtual PC allows you to virtualize on Windows so that you can run a different operating system WHILE running Windows at the same time and when I last used it, it was still free to Windows users.

Microsoft Virtual PC 2007 download

I run Slackware on three of my machines, one of which is a laptop, simply because it is rock solid and straightforward to configure. The package manager is really just an installation tracker and you often have to build the packages yourself; it's not an automated system like RPM or aptget with dependency resolution. But I don't care for those features, as I totally destroyed a Fedora system using RPM dependency resolution once.

I used to run FreeBSD on one of my systems until I upgraded my hardware and neither 6.0 or 6.1 could boot anymore. I may try it again someday.

I'm running YDL on my PS3.

I boot Damn Small Linux from a USB key drive mainly as an emergency repair system, although I find the full blown Knoppix LiveCD handier for disk recovery chores.

I've got Ubuntu on a second laptop, but I rarely use it. It's a pretty old and slow laptop with limited resources. Eh, but it works.

Red Hat and I parted ways years ago, and my brief flirt with Fedora 3 and 4 proved unsavory. I had video problems with Debian that I never figure out before moving on to Slackware.

Slackware is great. I'll stick with it for my primary systems as long as Patrick Volkerding continues to support it. Volkerding is a homebrewer, by the way.

Yuri_Rage said:

xen is not free - it has a free trial.

Click to expand...

You are looking at the commercial Citrix version not the xen.org version...

try this:

Xen Hypervisor

More and more of my clients are asking me about the performance aspects of the virtualization of the servers without understanding that since "vmware allows you to assign 8 processors on a 4 processor machine!" doesn't actually make any sense. Still... paravirtualization using an HVM compatible platform is undoubtedly going to take over the enterprise in short order and most likely all enterprise desktop platforms will support HVM moving forward so virtualizing is a no-brainer even if you aren't running multiple vm's.

Sorry - didn't realize that xen had a few variants. I think, in the interest of curiosity and experimentation, I'm going to install a ridiculous multi-boot scheme, then see what happens to functionality and performance when I move to a vm. I doubt that it will be all that scientific a venture, but I'll certainly post my impressions.

BTW, my machine isn't all that impressive. It's a 1.8GHz AMD64 single core with 2GB RAM and an nVidia card. The motherboard is the best ASUS model I could find that would support the processor chipset. I run 32 bit Ubuntu for day to day desktop apps, and I've just installed 64 bit Gentoo, further skewing any direct comparison opportunity. I should probably upgrade to a dual core or even quad core machine if I intend to really exercise the vm possibilities.

EDIT: As it turns out, my processor is just a little too old to support virtualization. Unless I'm missing something, the AMD 3000 series processor will not support xen or kvm.

Gentoo took way too much of my time. I spent 3 months trying to configure my laptop, almost nothing worked, it took 4 hours to install or reinstall anything because it all had to compile from source, then finally something I did screwed up my master boot record.

I installed Ubuntu and I've never been happier. Well, until the 64-bit distro screwed up my hardware and I installed the 32-bit distro. Since then I've never been happier.

SWMBO even prefers Ubuntu with Compiz Fusion to Windows Vista. Number of Linux converts on my scorecard: 1.

Finally!

What a pain in the ass. There were broken dependencies galore! --skipfirst was REALLY handy. I've got the video card working correctly and fluxbox is easy enough to use. There are a few more issues to iron out, but I finally have a useable Gentoo install. Perhaps I'll grow to like it...perhaps not.

Yuri_Rage said:

Code:

# emerge --update --deep world
...
>>> No outdated packages were found on your system.

Finally!

What a pain in the ass. There were broken dependencies galore! --skipfirst was REALLY handy. I've got the video card working correctly and fluxbox is easy enough to use. There are a few more issues to iron out, but I finally have a useable Gentoo install. Perhaps I'll grow to like it...perhaps not.

Click to expand...

'emerge --sync' once in a while to get it up to date. The initial sync pulls down a huge tree of junk, the rest just check MD5 sums and pull down new and changed files (rsync, you should be familiar with it).

Gentoo can be rough. It's great, put yourself through it and reinstall a few times, get it working nice, and play with the hardened stuff (hardened kernel, USE=hardened, etc... hardened.gentoo.org). Then ditch it and go back to Ubuntu.

I've got it working quite well right now. I don't even think I need to worry about a reinstall based on my experience so far (though I guess I could mess with the USE scheme a little more and get things pared down further). I decided to try out all the lightweight stuff (slim, xfce, etc). Actually, I really like xfce. I probably won't ditch Gentoo at all, and I'll likely use it for software development since there's little processing overhead in comparison with my rather bloated Ubuntu install. FreeBSD is up next...but for now I'm playing with a wireless LAN web server based on an NSLU2 Debian Slug and WRT54 + DD-WRT client bridge (perhaps for use with the yet-to-be-set-up brew rig as a remote monitor/control).

OS installs for the week:
Gentoo (AMD64)
FreeBSD x 2 (the AMD64 variety is WAY behind in support, so I abandoned it in favor of the 32 bit x86 flavor)
Debian (NSLU2)

To do:
OpenSolaris - really looking forward to this one!
Maybe CentOS, Mint, or another Linux distro

Impressions so far:

Gentoo is awesome for its lean install scheme and ability to customize. However, it's a real time-waster when you can get a nicely working, up-to-date Linux install in under 1/4 the time using Debian, Ubuntu, or even RedHat.

FreeBSD seems outdated. Support for up to date drivers and apps is severely lacking. Even the boot "splash" is something straight from the 80's. I do like the built-in combination of ports and packages for customization vs convenience. It was also a pretty fast, simple install. I'm posting from FreeBSD's twm right now, while all the goodies get compiled/installed.

My plan is to configure gnome, xfce, and kde on Ubuntu, Gentoo, and FreeBSD, respectively, each with compiz-fusion desktop effects (hey, I have a 3D card, why not use it?!). Ubuntu/gnome will likely remain my day-to-day working system. I'll explore the other OS's and desktop environments as I have the time/desire.

I know even those who were following this thread have ceased to have much interest, so I'll let it die soon. In case you're still reading...

Add Linux Mint to the installs. SWMBO's laptop is now a dual boot machine with Vista.

The OpenSolaris Live CD is downloading as I type.

Guess I'm an official OS whore.

I tried a host of Linux distros a few years ago until I finally settled on Slackware as my personal favorite. Every now and then I'll get the urge to try another one, and I usually do, but don't keep it around or use it much. I just like to get the look and feel. Live CDs are good for that too. Knoppix is handy to have around as a Live CD, as is Damn Small on a USB key.

Try Slackware. It's not glitzy, just solid. The simplicity is alluring. It's a great base for any kind of Linux-based server.

If you're interested in historical operating systems, try IBM OS/2 Warp. I started with Warp 1.3 back in the dark ages. It's a dead OS, but you can still get Warp 3 and 4 to work with most hardware.

I started out on the BSDs, then Slackware, and then back to the BSDs. Then right about the time SUSE 10 came out I never wanted to mess with the BSDs on the desktop anymore. Now I'm very content with my Ubuntus. All the grace of debian/apt and easy enough my kids and wife don't have a problem with it either.

And lets face it, if you're planning on running a server then the distro you choose is insignificant. The only question is what kind of package manager if any do you prefer or maybe you need ports. Beyond that there is really not a nickels worth of difference.

Mutilated1 said:

And lets face it, if you're planning on running a server then the distro you choose is insignificant. The only question is what kind of package manager if any do you prefer or maybe you need ports. Beyond that there is really not a nickels worth of difference.

Click to expand...

I don't agree with this, but I'm not enough of a *nix geek to argue the point. Servers don't need fancy package managers because you don't often install new software or upgrade. They don't need graphical interfaces, web browsers, desktop suites, movie playing software, games, or anything else that could compromise stability because they are often left up for months at a time. They just need a command line. Most distros these days are desktop oriented, so using one that doesn't have all that baggage would seem preferable.

For my two cents, Fedora (open source) redhat, and OpenSolaris x86.
I pretty much stick with Fedora, but Solaris is here to keep me from getting rusty, I use HP-UX at work.

billtzk said:

I don't agree with this, but I'm not enough of a *nix geek to argue the point. Servers don't need fancy package managers because you don't often install new software or upgrade. They don't need graphical interfaces, web browsers, desktop suites, movie playing software, games, or anything else that could compromise stability because they are often left up for months at a time. They just need a command line. Most distros these days are desktop oriented, so using one that doesn't have all that baggage would seem preferable.

Click to expand...

Don't often upgrade ? No.

Did you realize that package managers can be run from the command line as well ?

Servers might not need a GUI wraper for a package manager, but yes they need a package manager

And it would go without saying that if we're talking about servers we are not talking about web browsers, games, and desktop suites.

A shell is a shell, all distros have your choice - as far as servers go you have basically one descision to make - how do you want to install/update/patch your software ? Apt ? RPM ? Ports ? Maybe you might have a preference for where your defaults and config files are kept - other than that there is no real significant difference in the software.

If you're a person who knows *nix, you can sit down and run or manage any of the distros and not need to know or care which particular one it is beyond do I need to use Apt or Ports, or whats the default location of the .config file I'm looking for.

Seriously there is basically no difference.

Mutilated - there is a pretty big difference between ports and packages. For a server, configurable/host built ports may be extremely valuable.

OpenSolaris is AWESOME so far. By far the easiest install, and ZFS is very cool. It even configured my nVidia card correctly and enabled Gnome with compositing right from the get-go. The package manager GUI is apparently broken, but its command line back-end is easy enough. Linux's GRUB will chainload OpenSolaris with no issues at all, so you aren't forced to use the OpenSolaris version of GRUB as many internet sources would have you believe. I had to install a driver for my ethernet interface, but even that was pretty trivial (copy it to a CD since ext2/3 support is not installed by default).



I can now boot to Ubuntu, Gentoo, FreeBSD, and OpenSolaris on the same dual-hard drive machine with no issues. A VM scheme would be awesome, but I need a hardware upgrade before that can happen.