Re: Is AMD-64 mature enough to start using? (possibly on K8V-MX moptherboard)
On 12/21/05, Dean Hamstead <dean@bong.com.au> wrote:
> > I see a lot of complaints on the list ... repeated with some regularity,
> > but few new complaints.
>
> nvidia is the biggest problem :(
yeah, from what I've heard, they don't take well to the idea of making
open-source their drivers. this'll begin the hurt them someday...
> >>Sarge is the reliable one. Unstable is unreliable and etch/testing is
> >>mostly useless on amd64. The script handling our testing migration is
> >>suboptimal and needs someone intrested in writing a full britney clone
> >>that keeps in sync with debian where possible.
> > Not sure where you get that idea about etch, but my experience is
> > completely counter to that. I'm using etch, with nothing from the
> > highly unstable sid, not even kernel packages. It seems like once every
> > week or so I read a complaint about some problem with sid, like such and
> > such library can't be installed because of broken dependencies and the
> > like. I don't want to waste my time with that.
>
> i run etch and its fine. although i cant build my locales. as
> locale-gen segfaults. anyone ? i think its a perl problem.
>
> i have stable, unstable and testing all in my sources.list and
> apt will only upgrade things that arent missing dependencies.
> so things dont break often.
>
> > I highly disagree. It's been working flawlessly for me and as stable
> > as sarge on my non-amd64 machines. Of course, YMMV.
>
> its not the rock that ppc is (which IMO is by far the best linux port)
> but its better than xp.
XP is a joke.
> >>>For the purposes you mentioned the AMD64 machine would not only be
> >>>seamless. It's also a very good/overkill setup :D
> >
> > I call that a "happy setup."
>
> i bought mine to play ut2004. lol, $3k of hardware and about $100 of
> software :P go linux.
Don't you love that? Instead of throwing ~$400 at some stupid
WinXPPro64 you can spend it on a bigger HDD, Processor, and Graphics
Card! Go Linux all the way!
> >>And if you hit any problems you can always back down to Debian i386
> >>and go 32bit. The speed difference is not that relevant and certainly
> >>both are way fast enough to saturate the 100MBit ethernet.
> >
> >
> > I would be quite surprised if that became necessary. I have solved my
> > two problems (openoffice and a very specialized build environment
> > compantibility) with the 32bit chroot solution, which was easier than I
> > anticipated. It's my impression that with a little work tracking down
> > special packages and instructions, you can get openoffice to work w/o
> > the chroot nowadays.
> >
>
> i have avoided 32bit chroot and it really isnt that big a drama.
>
> but i also run linux on ppc, so on ppc its open source or you dont
> run it. so im not accustomed to binary only software. ;)
>
> the number one problem on linux x86_64 is nvidias drivers.
> and the change from agp to pcie is horrible. every problem i have
> had related to nvidias sloppy removal of agp code.
>
> burn nvidia burn.
Don't be *that* mean to them... It's far better than XP (which is
known to spaz out and totally break firefox in a way that prevents it
from working even after reinstalling the program! That *really* sux
to, since ffx is the only usable browser for XP)
Reply to: