VectorLinux

Cooking up the Treats => General Development => Topic started by: caitlyn on June 24, 2007, 11:44:13 am

Title: 64-bit VL
Post by: caitlyn on June 24, 2007, 11:44:13 am
One question I've been asked by several people -- does VL have a 64-bit version?  Obviously the answer right now is "no", but... with 64-bit hardware becoming the norm is there any plan for a 64-bit VL 6?

-Cait
Title: Re: 64-bit VL
Post by: bigpaws on June 24, 2007, 12:18:29 pm
There has been discussion of a 64 bit version. The problem with doing a
64 bit version is that there are still not enough 64 bit apps out there yet.

Most desktop users will not see much of an advantage since the use of
the kernel is usuall less than 10-20% of the system. The folks using more
than 30% will see a difference.

Bigpaws
Title: Re: 64-bit VL
Post by: easuter on June 24, 2007, 12:53:32 pm
I don't know...and I'm not sure how many developers/packagers/testers actually have 64-bit hardware, since VL is aimed at older machines...

Thats not stopping someone with the time and the hardware from making a port if they wish ;)
Title: Re: 64-bit VL
Post by: The Headacher on June 24, 2007, 01:46:55 pm
Another problem is that there is no 64 bit Slack to build from, just unofficial ports (Slamd64 (http://slamd64.com/) and Bluewhite64 (http://www.bluewhite64.com/)).

The way things are at the moment, it's hard enough to release and test 2 main versions (Standard and Soho) without having to roll different packages + iso's for 64 bit users.

On the bright side, VL works just fine on 64 bit boxes.
Title: Re: 64-bit VL
Post by: caitlyn on June 24, 2007, 03:31:49 pm
I understand everything that has been said.  VL SOHO is KDE-based, so it is NOT thought of as being for older equipment.  30% is a big difference, BTW.  The folks I have talked to immediately decide against Vector if they have invested in 64-bit technology.  The one friend I talked to most recently put 64-bit Ubunutu on her machine instead.  My impression was that some significant apps are 64-bit.  This is a real issue. 

Once again it's a question of whether VL wants to be taken seriously as a major distro at a time when there is a lot of interest in it.  Without a 64-bit version that won't happen.

Are the unofficial 64-bit versions of Slackware unacceptable? I've heard good things about Slamd64.
Title: Re: 64-bit VL
Post by: easuter on June 24, 2007, 03:53:13 pm
Quote from: caitlyn
VL SOHO is KDE-based, so it is NOT thought of as being for older equipment.

True, although VL SOHO is the fastest KDE distro I've used, so it still does have an inclination for lower spec machines.  ;)

Quote from: caitlyn
The folks I have talked to immediately decide against Vector if they have invested in 64-bit technology. 

I can understand their stand-point, but most users won't even feel the difference running a 32bit operating system on 64bit hardware.
VL Standard is already fast enough on my P3 workstation, and it simply flies on new(er) 32bit computers.

If you need your 64bit computer to take care of continual and heavy loads, then yes, using a system optimized for 64 bit is really the best option. My 0.02€ of course ;)
Title: Re: 64-bit VL
Post by: uelsk8s on June 24, 2007, 04:22:22 pm
The fact is that most operations on a 64bit OS are actually slower than a 32bit OS on the same hardware.
There are many benchmark results on the web that show this.

Title: Re: 64-bit VL
Post by: Joe1962 on June 24, 2007, 04:36:50 pm
The real benefit from a 64 bit OS and apps is when you need to address over 4 GBs of RAM. Or crunch large numbers.
Title: Re: 64-bit VL
Post by: Toe on June 24, 2007, 04:51:21 pm
Are the unofficial 64-bit versions of Slackware unacceptable? I've heard good things about Slamd64.

I'd imagine they're just fine.  My impression is that it's mainly the lack of manpower that's the problem.

As far as developers having access to 64bit hardware, could a 'virtual donation' be made?  An idea I've been kicking around lately is getting rid of my 'linux box' and running Linux full-time under virtualization on my main Windows system, which has a dual-core A64 processor.  If there were a way for a dev without 64bit hardware to send a compilation batch to my system, I could donate some clock cycles.  Maybe even setup vnc or freenx account for testing?
Title: Re: 64-bit VL
Post by: uelsk8s on June 24, 2007, 05:11:26 pm
I dont think we have a problem with lack of 64bit hardware.
I personally have 3 64bit boxes.
VL is a desktop OS, and I personally dont see any benefit yet in switching to a 64bit system.
Title: Re: 64-bit VL
Post by: bigpaws on June 24, 2007, 05:14:27 pm
Quote
Are the unofficial 64-bit versions of Slackware unacceptable? I've heard good things about Slamd64.

One of the reasons that Slamd64 is not recognized is that the maintainers ability to keep it going.

Quote
The folks I have talked to immediately decide against Vector if they have invested in 64-bit technology.


What is that 64 bit has that the folks are not getting in 32 bit?

Quote
My impression was that some significant apps are 64-bit.  This is a real issue.

Please explain this in more detail. My clients are not able to use heavy apps (AutoDesk) in 64 bit to
get the most out of the floating point integers.

How about an explanation to backup persuing a 64 bit distribution. Vector is for the Desktop. There
are justifiable reasons to go for 64 bit. Running math intense applications for one (compiling).
Now in running servers using hashing algorithms 100s' of users at a time, then you bet 64 bit is it.

There are alot of heavy applications that are not 64 bit. Open Office is just getting 64 bit together.
Office 2007 is not 64 bit.

The problem is this IMHO users are stating they want the latest and greatest, 64 bit being in that group. The same user does not even have a clue about how much processor they use. The users
that are aware are those with limited hardware and resources. Vector is based on those users. Just
because KDE is being used does not mean it has to be bloated. The KDE team has recognized the
resource hog it was, this is being fixed. The true fix will be difficult due to X being a mess, I do not really agree that going modular will help.

I pose this ... think about the state of 64 bit computing it is still somewhat fragmented even today a couple years since 64 bit became available. When having to redesign a program why waste time on
64 bit when 128 is around the corner. The same work even better benefits.

Bigpaws
Title: Re: 64-bit VL
Post by: Toe on June 24, 2007, 05:21:24 pm
I personally dont see any benefit yet in switching to a 64bit system.

Frankly, that doesn't matter.  There are a lot of people out there who want a 64bit OS whether there's a real-world benefit or not.
Title: Re: 64-bit VL
Post by: caitlyn on June 24, 2007, 06:31:05 pm
Toe hit the nail on the head.  Perception *IS* reality.  The woman I referred to who chose 64-Bit Ubuntu over VL SOHO is a very knowledgeable computer professional.  She does some high end graphics stuff (hobby, not work) and there she does see a difference,  AMD 64 systems are everywhere now.  You can get a 64-bit laptop for about $800. 

I agree that SOHO shouldn't be bloated.  I agree that it's the fastest I've seen KDE run.  I agree with most of the points.  The fact still remains:  if you want VL to be considered a major distro you need a 64-bit version.  All the facts cited won't change that.
Title: Re: 64-bit VL
Post by: The Headacher on June 25, 2007, 12:34:59 am
Quote
My clients are not able to use heavy apps (AutoDesk) in 64 bit to
get the most out of the floating point integers.
A floating point integer :-). Something like 14846323.0000?

Quote
if you want VL to be considered a major distro you need a 64-bit version.
If people don't take VL seriously without a 64 bit port, they'd better use ubububu instead, now that's some serious computing :-\ (yay, 64 bit cycles to hog!). A match made in heaven.
 I suppose I just don't really care how people consider VL. I just want it to work and work fine. That's exactly what it's doing now.

Don't get me wrong, if there were a 64 bit VL version out there I'd use it. But I'd hate to see the manpower currently used for creating such a great distro be divided into 2 groups (one for the 64 bit and one for the 32 bit version), and packages being available for one architecture but not the other (or having to package for both).

Lately, people have been making all sorts of demands, but I hardly see anybody doing anything to achieve what they want. "We want a graphical installer, you guys go make one!". "Hey, we want xorg 7.2, you guys put it in!".
If people want something bad enough, they'll start making an effort themselves (like M0E-lnx's xorg+beryl packages + howto).

I'm currently not much of a fan of building a 64 bit VL, but if someone was going to make an unofficial port that's fine of course.
Title: Re: 64-bit VL
Post by: caitlyn on June 25, 2007, 10:15:17 am
Quote
I suppose I just don't really care how people consider VL. I just want it to work and work fine. That's exactly what it's doing now.

I guess this is the main point.  Yes, VL works spectacularly well.  There are some minor bugs that crop up here and there.  I report them and sometimes even fix them (like the need for a new wifi-radar package to run against gtk+ 2.10.11) but generally I'm more than satisfied with the current state of 5.8. 

Having said that I *DO* care how VL is perceived.  It's become my favorite distro and I am pretty hard to please.  I see a review I wrote in January for O'Reillynet still in the Hot 25.  That tells me there is a huge amount of interest out there.  Look... I see VL at the point where it could be a major distro (in terms of popularity) and challenge Ubuntu or Fedora.  The question is whether or not the core developers want that or not.  What's important to them?  That's something I don't know and can't influence.  I just see a huge opportunity for VL if folks want it.

Quote
I'd hate to see the manpower currently used for creating such a great distro be divided into 2 groups (one for the 64 bit and one for the 32 bit version), and packages being available for one architecture but not the other (or having to package for both.

Valid point.  The question is this:  would a larger user community bring some fresh blood into the developer community?  Is that something the core developers even want?  As far as packaging is concerned, for core packages and patches, yes, we'd have to package for both.  (I use "we" because I've been doing some packaging as a volunteer.)  As far as extra is concerned I think it's fair to have some packages available for one and not the other.

Quote
Lately, people have been making all sorts of demands, but I hardly see anybody doing anything to achieve what they want.

Fair comment.  I don't even have 64-bit hardware yet (that'll be my next system) so this doesn't effect me personally one way or another yet.  I was passing along a question I've been asked repeatedly is all.  Since I've been writing about Vector Linux I've somehow become associated with the distro.  I don't know why people feel they can approach me rather than the development community.  :-\

FWIW, the issue I personally complained about was internationalization/localization, and I promptly went to work building packages to address that.  It's still a work in progress but it's getting there and other people have done fantastic work in this area.  When vector built Xfce 4.4.0 with all the language support I was thrilled.  I guess that's why I feel safe raising issues like this -- the developers are very good at listening to and responding to their user community.  I don't think a lot of distros do that as well as Vector.
Title: Re: 64-bit VL
Post by: bigpaws on June 25, 2007, 10:51:20 am
Quote
The question is this:  would a larger user community bring some fresh blood into the developer community?  Is that something the core developers even want?


From the growth I have seen vs the increase of developers it is a very wide margin. More developers
would be a welcome asset to Vector Linux. The problem as noted before is that there are more requests
and even less contribution.

May it be that you are overlooking the resources of Ubuntu and Fedora. These are HUGE projects, as well as Debian and Gentoo. Vector does not compare to those resources. What has put Vector on the map per se is the way things are done here. Ideas are tossed out, then the conversation starts usually to verify that the project is feasible. Then it hashed again, and when the result is a go then the person that proposed it, gets the job. No one here is limited in participation. All can join without needing to "know" someone. So for those that are making these requests take the project. The core
developers will teach you all the tricks and gotchas. The beauty of open source in its' prime.

Bigpaws
Title: Re: 64-bit VL
Post by: easuter on June 25, 2007, 02:02:39 pm
Another problem to consider is that stable Gambas's code isn't 64-bit clean yet.
That means that the Gambas-based tools written for VL 5.8 wouldn't work on a 64 bit build.

Here is an example from a Debian bug-report for their AMD64 build, February this year: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=411257

I think Gambas2 makes some 64bit provisions, but have no idea when it will be ready (feels like an eternity).
Title: Re: 64-bit VL
Post by: The Headacher on June 25, 2007, 02:08:29 pm
Quote
FWIW, the issue I personally complained about was internationalization/localization, and I promptly went to work building packages to address that.
And it is greatly appreciated. I personally don't need i18n, but I'm sure VL could use some more work there and you seem to know what you're doing in that department. All the things you've done lately for VL is a lot more than what I have, and I wish more people had the same attitude as you do.

I know I might seem opposed to changes at times, but I'm not. I'm just afraid of people who come here for a while, then their needs change and suddenly it seems to them that "VL needs to change" (accordingly of course). While the distro itself still has everything that made them come here in the first place.

I don't want VL to change that what makes it VL (great community, slack based, faster and lighter than most other distro's). But then again, it's not up to me to decide what way VL goes. And that's a good thing, I'm just another user.
Title: Re: 64-bit VL
Post by: GrannyGeek on June 25, 2007, 09:36:47 pm
My main desktop has a 64-bit processor. I don't have much interest in running a 64-bit OS.

As far as I can discover, I wouldn't gain anything with a 64-bit OS unless what I'm running needed more than 4 gigs of RAM. My CPU is not dual core. What I'm most interested in is compatibility with the programs I run now.

Hearing about people who won't consider VectorLinux because it doesn't have a 64-bit version reminds me of those people who won't consider VectorLinux because it doesn't meet their standards for prettiness.
--GrannyGeek
Title: Re: 64-bit VL
Post by: nightflier on June 26, 2007, 04:49:08 am
There is a lot of life left in 32 bit machines. I know I have been able to get several more years out of mine since switching to Linux. Still, it is only a question of time before 64 bit becomes the standard. One can be on the bleeding edge or wait until the path is better defined and smoother.

Personally, I'm happy to wait a while.
Title: Re: 64-bit VL
Post by: caitlyn on June 26, 2007, 12:33:18 pm
64-bit gear and 64-bit distros have been around for a couple of years at least.  I'd hardly call that "bleeding edge" any longer.

As some of you know I wrote a very positive review of Vector Linux 5.8 SOHO yesterday for O'Reilly.  One of the questions in the comments already is asking if there is going to be a 64 bit version.  I pointed that person to this thread.  Folks, the demand is there.
Title: Re: 64-bit VL
Post by: nightflier on June 26, 2007, 06:34:20 pm
Just read that review. Very nice.  :)

If you go 64-bit, do you have to re-do all the packages? If maintaining two versions, would you need different repos?
Title: Re: 64-bit VL
Post by: Toe on June 26, 2007, 07:51:20 pm
In theory, all that's required is a recompile.  I'm not sure how close reality follows this, though.
Title: Re: 64-bit VL
Post by: easuter on June 27, 2007, 02:15:10 am
In theory, all that's required is a recompile.

Yes, then after that comes testing and maintenace...

Honestly, it really gets to me when people won't try something because they think they know it won't work. Example, if someone is complaining about Windows and I sugest they try Linux, they may ask:

Quote
- So does Linux have MSN?

You mean MSN messanger? Yeah, you can communicate with your palls on the MSN network, but using a different app. Pidgin or AMSN are two MSN-compatible instant messangers for Linux.

-No, I mean I want "normal" MSN. If I can't use "normal" MSN, I'm not even gonna try Linux!

I understand that this is a very simplified example, but if someone is going to refuse to try a 32bit distro like VL simply because they have the all-mighty new 64bit hardware, then that person is really pretty impervious to reason...

Sorry if it sounds harsh, but unless someone actually benchmarks VL versus some other 64bit distro on 64bit hardware, and proves that VL suffers from a monumental performance loss on that hardware, then I guess its not really viable to make a 64-bit (official) port at this moment. (not my call of course :P)
Title: Re: 64-bit VL
Post by: alec on June 27, 2007, 04:23:08 am
Yes, I admit VL is faster than any other distro out there. But knowing that, it could be even faster in 64-bit!

I benefit a lot from 64, but I do much numbercrunching scientific work. Also all kinds of compile and archiving is faster. Python too is much snappier in 64.
Other than that, its all about autosuggestion of perceivable difference, because there is none. But you never know which next program may benefit a lot from 64. And 4 gig is really becoming mainstream nowadays.

On the positive side, all 64-bit arch is new, so you don't have  to support older i486 machines and get a small boost from there too.
And new Opera 9.5 is coming with x64 linux packages! And OOo will eventually break through too.

If at least compiling/packaging/building part can be automated, Vector has many testers to find bugs. So perhaps its not double amount of work.
Title: Re: 64-bit VL
Post by: Joe1962 on June 27, 2007, 07:42:48 am
Yes, I admit VL is faster than any other distro out there. But knowing that, it could be even faster in 64-bit!

Actually, it seems that it can't be faster:

The fact is that most operations on a 64bit OS are actually slower than a 32bit OS on the same hardware.
There are many benchmark results on the web that show this.
Title: Re: 64-bit VL
Post by: Toe on June 27, 2007, 01:26:38 pm
The answer to the performance question is pretty much 'depends'.  If you need to crunch a lot of big numbers, like for scientific data or some types of image processing, then yes it's probably going to be faster.  If you need more than 4GB of RAM, then obviously yes you want 64bit.  But it does have some drawbacks.  For example, moving from 32 to 64 bit, you've pretty much cut your CPU's cache size in half, which affects performance.
Title: Re: 64-bit VL
Post by: SummerNight on June 27, 2007, 01:34:45 pm
I am the one of the people who had asked Cait about a 64bit VL. I was getting rid of a previous distro and I had listened to her rave about VL so I asked the question. I did go with Ubuntu because I do get a noticeable improvement on my projects which are very memory intensive.

On small scale projects, there is very little difference between the two architectures but the system can most definitely handle more complex projects and that means being able to do a bigger chunk at once rather than to keep churning out render after render an then hope I can splice everything in at the end using an editor. That can be hours to days of extra work. Of course I am but a beginner right now and as my knowledge grows (hopefully along with my artistic abilities LOL), the demand that I place on a given system will grow as well.

I do agree with the notion that many people out there will not see a huge difference, if any. Depending on what they do and what they chose to do it with, they could see a decrease. However, there are many out there who will want and desire a 64bit distro because that is what they have at the moment. They view going to a 32bit environment as a step down and the consumer does not like to step down.

I did google some benchmarks and did see where 32bit ranked faster on a number of them. A couple of the reviewers knew that the codecs and drivers being used at the time did not have a 64bit equivalent and noted that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64-bit#Pros_and_cons

Thanks to everyone for the info. If VL ever puts out a 64 distro, I will definitely give it a try.
Title: Re: 64-bit VL
Post by: cintyram on July 10, 2007, 03:47:08 pm
I recently bought a new computer. AMD Athlon 4400+ X2,  64bit
but the OS it came with? Microsoft Windows Vista Home Premium ( 32-bit)
[ why do they have to have such long names? compare with Leopard, Solaris10,VL5.8 ]

And The highest RAM i could get in a home machine was 2GB, shared with the graphics card,.

So for most people buying new machines, they may get processors with 64bits but the memory and OS are still not stellar.

Personally i think it would be amazing to have a 64 bit version of VL.  but really lets be pragmatic here, if i had more time to contribute, my priority is to build and test packages.  But if some one else can give me a script to run, i will gladly donate my time and my machine's time.

This is not just a statement. some time back i had written a script to build Enlightenment packages and ran into some hardware issues, so i gave it to others, and the packages i got back were good. soon the E17 team released their own script, and then others on the web released them too.

So just between the people on this thread we already have atleast 6 64 bit machines.
Here is my advice to those who want 64 bit VL.
1. start a poll and ask how many people can donate time on their machine, and donate time to test a 64 bit package.
2. if you see enough response, get the build scripts together, and share them with the volunteers. Again remember you dont have to write the scripts yourself from scratch, look hard enough and youll find them.  in most cases it is just a change of some flags.  and VL is a fairly well automated build.  you just need to get the slack dependencies right [ and the scripts for that].

3. pretty soon all the volunteers will buzz with activity and you will have a testable alpha build.  seed that to more testers and 64bit VL would have taken its baby steps :).

I am happy that some one took the initiative to bring this topic to discussion.  Now one more small step needs to be taken, actually three small steps, listed above.
cheers
ram


Title: Re: 64-bit VL
Post by: rbistolfi on July 10, 2007, 06:25:08 pm
Even when I think the arguments against the 64bit VL are strong, I will give my time for testing and installing, and if someone guides me, for packaging. I have one 64bit box, VL runs great on it. I am planning to install some 64bits sys to test, since I do some graphics and I think the 64bit will improve performance, almost in rendering video. I think a 64bit box is really needed by just very few people. When I work on my graphics seriously, I use a render farm made with several pentium III, in the house of a friend. I save my files, and he renders. A professional designer who have a 8gig of ram machine, and has the needs of use them would be a target for the 64bit VL. I think they are just a few. A server edition of VL is not developed atm, so the possible users are even lesser.
I agree with cintyram about would be a great system, but I agree with the others about the 32bit version is the priority.
The needs of 64bits cpu in the low end market is just generated by the publicity, and is not a real need. Most of the people dont know what a hell that means, and they are selling it because the price difference is little enough.
The argument "is what people wants" is not good enough, imho. I dont know if we want to be considered a major distro, but yes I know we want to be considered the ones who do the rigth thing, and just because is the rigth thing. Of course, which one is the rigth thing will come out, probably, from topics like this one, so, I am happy that someone brings this to discussion too...
Title: Re: 64-bit VL
Post by: GrannyGeek on July 10, 2007, 07:35:23 pm
One of my computers has a 64-bit CPU, but I can't volunteer to test a 64-bit version of VL. I would have to repartition my drive yet again and I don't want to do that.

If  64-bit official release came out, I might install it in place of VL 5.8 but ONLY if everything I want to run would work without recompiling and kludges.

Cinty:
>> The highest RAM i could get in a home machine was 2GB, shared with the graphics card >>

My very inexpensive 64-bit Compaq, bought in January, 2006, can take 4 gigs of RAM. I'm surprised you couldn't find a "home machine" that would take more than 2 gigs--or maybe I'm misunderstanding. Mine came with 256 megs (obviously inadequate) but I intended to increase that when I bought it and the price even with the RAM I bought was still extremely good. Within two weeks of getting the computer I increased the RAM to 1.5 gigs, but I recently upgraded it to 3 gigs because RAM is very cheap right now and I like having plenty of RAM for my virtual machines. And who knows? Maybe the world will come to an end and I'll decide to upgrade XP (also on the computer) with Vista. I have no such plans now, but I've learned to never say never.

rbistolfi:
>> The needs of 64bits cpu in the low end market is just generated by the publicity, and is not a real need >>

Newer processors are always being developed and they displace the old processors in manufacturing facilities. Newer processors then carry a premium price as older processors go down in price. If I'm buying a computer or CPU, I won't deliberately get something already obsolete if something newer is in my price range. Even if I don't need it now, I probably will in the future. I agree, though, that many users don't need 64 bits or dual core.
--GrannyGeek
Title: Re: 64-bit VL
Post by: rbistolfi on July 11, 2007, 04:43:43 am
I agree, Granny. The low price of 64bits cpu is a factor, I have one no because is a needed, but because the price difference was insignificant. The dual core are not needed also, but they are a big improve on performance, and developers will build more demanding apps, according to the new hardware, eventually.
Title: Re: 64-bit VL
Post by: bigpaws on July 11, 2007, 07:08:59 am
The problem is that newer processors, bigger hard drives, and such
allow 2 things to happen. One being a user that is loaded with viruses
and malware can continue using their machine. The other is that the
design for stream lined programs that carry low overhead is no longer
thought about. Not to mention auditing is even harder.

The user without dual core or 1 gig of RAM is forgotten. I personally
use stream lined programs. The other problem is that end users are
demanding more without looking at the whole picture.

My .002

Bigpaws
Title: Re: 64-bit VL
Post by: GrannyGeek on July 12, 2007, 04:02:17 pm
One being a user that is loaded with viruses
and malware can continue using their machine. The other is that the
design for stream lined programs that carry low overhead is no longer
thought about.

The desire for streamlined programs vanished many years ago. Most users don't know what you're talking about, those with adequate equipment don't care, so it's only a small techie contingent that mourns the loss of tight code.

As for the load of malware, I sure don't advocate sticking with slow computers as a solution. If users won't learn safer computing habits for what they have, I don't think anything will force them to do it. I've never had a virus or malware on my computers (I've had Windows since 1991).
--GrannyGeek
Title: Re: 64-bit VL
Post by: cintyram on July 13, 2007, 11:52:47 am
Cinty:
>> The highest RAM i could get in a home machine was 2GB, shared with the graphics card >>

My very inexpensive 64-bit Compaq, bought in January, 2006, can take 4 gigs of RAM. I'm surprised you couldn't find a "home machine" that would take more than 2 gigs--or maybe I'm misunderstanding.
--GrannyGeek
Granny,
 I meant that when i went to buy a machine, among those available on display, the highest available RAM was 2GB. not the capacity. most new ATX mother boards support maximum capacity of 4GB or more.

Most end users just buy a machine, they don't upgrade RAM etc.  even if they do , it will be at the time of purchase, under the influence of the sales person.
either way looks like the poll indicates that there is not that much interest in a 64-bit VL from a dev, testing perspective.

cheers
ram

Title: Re: 64-bit VL
Post by: The Headacher on July 13, 2007, 07:12:09 pm
Quote
I meant that when i went to buy a machine, among those available on display, the highest available RAM was 2GB. not the capacity. most new ATX mother boards support maximum capacity of 4GB or more.

With 2 GB of ram, other pieces of hardware are more likely to be the bottleneck, like the videocard. I'm sure my perfect computer is not on sale anywhere, I'd have to upgrade a stock computer or build myself. This is fine, because I am a moderately advanced computer user.

Computers on sale in "normal" computer stores are meant for "normal" people who don't have a need for more than 2 GB of ram. I have 1.5 GB of ram and never use all of it (according to the tools available), even though I push it pretty hard at times. It's hard to imagine anyone who buys his/her first computer running low on ram with 2 GB even on Wind OS Vista. Users who need more than this probably already know so, and can get an upgrade at the store. I do mean proper computer stores here, not electronics stores or the local supermarket.

Most people just don't need a quad-core 64-bit computer with 16 GB of ram and 2 video cards. But if you need one ( or want it bad enough ) and have the money you can get it. But if I were a store owner I wouldn't display a computer like that either, it's just not economical.
Title: Re: 64-bit VL
Post by: Lyn on July 14, 2007, 02:19:40 am
Quote

FWIW, the issue I personally complained about was internationalization/localization, and I promptly went to work building packages to address that.  It's still a work in progress but it's getting there and other people have done fantastic work in this area.  When vector built Xfce 4.4.0 with all the language support I was thrilled.  I guess that's why I feel safe raising issues like this -- the developers are very good at listening to and responding to their user community.  I don't think a lot of distros do that as well as Vector.
That is one of the things that impresses me most about Vector, the developers have a way of making people feel that its their own distro, they are happy to take on suggestions and ideas.  Look at how the look and feel has been adopted with some talented people customising window managers and producing stunning wallpaper, where non packagers views are taken seriously in constructing a set of applications that work for them.  My own experience included back in the days of Vector 4 standard getting some simple spreadsheet programs included that I thought would enhance the appeal of the lightweight verson.... Vector is a distribution that listens to its users... and long may that continue..... now if I could only get my head around packaging I might be of some more use :-)
Title: Re: 64-bit VL
Post by: Joe1962 on July 14, 2007, 11:00:45 am
It's hard to imagine anyone who buys his/her first computer running low on ram with 2 GB even on Wind OS Vista.
Actually, it doesn't seem to be so hard to imagine. According to most reviews out there, you REALLY need 2 GB of RAM just to run MS office on Vista. And 4 GB of RAM to get any recent 3D gaming done... :o
Title: Re: 64-bit VL
Post by: nubcnubdo on August 01, 2007, 09:02:56 pm
We had to push and prod to get the devs to finish up the VL 5.8 Std LiveCD, what, 6 months after VL 5.8 Std went Gold. Four versions: VL 5.8 Std, VL 5.8 SOHO, VL 5,8 Std LiveCD, VL 5.8 SOHO LiveCD. That's a lotta choices and a lot on our plate.

I think we should concentrate on the computers, and thus the users, that Microsoft Vista leaves behind. Leave state-of-the-art for another distribution.* We dont have to be all things until we get in the Top Ten or Top Five, and attract more users and developers. Let's not spread our efforts too thin. Instead, cultivate our niche. We're tops at what we do now--speed, performance, stability. I dont see any significant increase in VL stats by catering to 64-bit consumers.


* Heck, let M$ have state-of-the-art. Microsoft is driving the hardware industry anyway, with the likes of Vista.  Keeping up with state-of-the-art is playing Microsoft's game on Microsoft's court.
Title: Re: 64-bit VL
Post by: caitlyn on September 13, 2007, 01:38:36 pm
For those who haven't noticed yet, 64-bit VL is now a reality.  I've downloaded VL64 5.9-Psuedo0.1 and will be testing it and packaging for it.
Title: Re: 64-bit VL
Post by: wcs on September 16, 2007, 11:34:17 pm
Quote
I've downloaded VL64 5.9-Psuedo0.1 and will be testing it and packaging for it.

Same here, as soon as I get some more time. I don't know if there will be that many of us packaging for the 64-bit version though.
Hope it will turn into a reality...

Actually, I have no idea if the benefits are that great. I would certainly like to test some simulations written in R in both versions.
Title: Re: 64-bit VL
Post by: Vxt on September 17, 2007, 10:43:01 am
To be or  :-\ not ?

Quote
I'm just afraid of people who come here for a while, then their needs change
and suddenly it seems to them that "VL needs to change" (accordingly of course).
 While the distro itself still has everything that made them come here in the first place.
It would be hard to sum all up any better !

Just for background- the vast majority of droolers & wannBeZ that insist on "their distro_flavour_of_the_ moment'
Rule as THE Linux  El-Supremo _

W H Y ??

Respectfully -&  :-[ not in any manner to denigrate any  personal viewpoints _ it is contended:

If any 'special needs' - we should try to  develop our OWN pet project to fulfill

If the users "need" any binaries pre-supplied - some requests don't seem  realistic

E.G.  > Why on earth would they then  use PRE SUPPLIED  binaries in first place ?

That  was one precept to ~ why sources-based platforms were concieved !
(and virtual 'linux-within' chrooted development jail ~ environments)_

In reality ~ it  seems the concept of 64-bit vs pure computing power_
is presently better served using SMP
(I.E. ~ Do  You ;)  USE  distcc Caitlyn ?)

According to Gentoo - there are many Apps that do not  adapt well to 64 bit;
And yes - there may be a performance "hit" to running in 64 bit mode !

ANY benchmarks still  apply only primarily to the individual's environment
> hardware - Linux savvy - tasking ~ 'emperically' tested 

It would seem a safe bet,  most don't even use present inherent latency  or tmpfs to best advantage

Why not then  1st master what is available vs  pander to un-posted 'qualified'   perfomance  statements ?

Seems to me - The whole premise & strengths of FOSS;
 were all about  enabling  unlimited self-empowered choice

NOT "Linux must rule the world"

And sure as H - - - shun  MY distro gotta be 'bestest' cannabalism
 
That wierd behaviour - is enshrined weekly in  I.E.  DWWeekly  non-stop fanBois dissing * eating  own !
Title: Re: 64-bit VL
Post by: uelsk8s on October 19, 2007, 09:07:21 am
Well, You asked for it, so now we need your help testing it.
http://vectorlinux.osuosl.org/Uelsk8s/old-pkgs/VL64-5.9-STD-A2.iso
Title: Re: 64-bit VL
Post by: alexdsp on October 22, 2007, 07:38:10 am
I try to install it on my hardware (amd64 x2 3800 + nvidia 7900gs)... (sorry for my bad english)
Hardware recognized quite fine, sound, monitor resolution and refresh, but network (nforce430 (mcp51)) is not.
At the booting time, after running rc.m, i saw error message like something about "ifconfig is missing".
After the "login" as root, i have test network commands (ifconfig,ping etc.) with no success.
Also, i notice that the famous vpackager present as 32 bit package.
Does the vpackager in this release can make 64-bit packages?
Title: Re: 64-bit VL
Post by: GrannyGeek on October 22, 2007, 06:49:41 pm
I installed it today on my troublesome laptop: Turion 64 X2, 2 gigs RAM.

dmesg shows a bunch of errors, for example, many lines of "PCI driver blahblahblah lacks driver specific resume support." I couldn't set up a network. I use fixed IP addresses, and when I tried to type in my computer's IP address in VASM networking (192.168.2.12) I got "Invalid IP address." This happened no matter what I typed in as the computer's address. I know the IP address is valid--I've been using it for years on this computer.

The ifconfig command is apparently missing. I got "command not found" when I tried to run ifconfig as root. I also couldn't find it through the locate command after doing updatedb as root.

VL recognized the sound chip and installed the snd-hda-intel driver, but as with all other distros I've tried on this laptop, no sound comes from the speakers. So 64-bit VL couldn't do anything about that ongoing problem.

Without the wireless network and sound, the laptop is useless to me. I hope at least the wireless can be fixed in the next version.
--GrannyGeek
Title: Re: 64-bit VL
Post by: wcs on October 26, 2007, 08:56:23 am
So, I just installed the 64 bit alpha 2.

First impressions: Looks great, and most of it seems to be working.

A few problems, though.

1. Even though I chose to install the NVIDIA source, when I tried to install the driver, it went directly to the X configuration without compiling the driver. After the reboot, the driver in the xorg,conf file was "vesa".

2. Kdm wouldn't start, so I had to start X by issuing startx from the terminal. When I chose "nv" as the driver in xorg.conf, and on the second reboot, kdm now starts.

4. Gnumeric doesn't launch and complains about missing libgnomeui

5. Gslapt doesn't start; complains about not being able to create /home/ftp/...

6. Print dialog and print manager don't launch. Hitting the print button in Seamonkey leads to it getting blocked and needs to be killed. Maybe because I don't have a printer installed yet?

7. A few issues with the mplayer plugin. After the second reboot it seemed to be working fine, but on the first attempt, I couldn't play a lot of the files in the "plugger testing ground" or the "linspire file types" pages. It seemed to hang after buffering.

8. The same ifconfig missing message at boot that others have reported. Although internet access is working fine.

Other than that, the bits I've tested seem to be working as they should... although I only played with it for 10 minutes, it felt gooood.

Thanks a lot for the great work.
Title: Re: 64-bit VL
Post by: uelsk8s on October 26, 2007, 09:23:54 am
thanks for the report wcs.
I have uploaded a new alpha 3 iso.
it should fix the ifconfig and nvidia isues. I will look into the others you have mentioned.
the ISO is here: http://vectorlinux.osuosl.org/Uelsk8s/old-pkgs/VL64-5.9-STD-A3.iso
Thanks,
Uelsk8s
Title: Re: 64-bit VL
Post by: TonyH9904 on October 27, 2007, 09:55:47 am
I wanted to try that A3 iso but firefox won't dl it for me. Is there a ftp solution? thks
TonyH9904
Title: Re: 64-bit VL
Post by: uelsk8s on October 27, 2007, 10:16:14 am
yes here is ftp:  ftp://vectorlinux.osuosl.org/pub/vectorlinux/Uelsk8s/old-pkgs/VL64-5.9-STD-A3.iso
also you could try wget from CL it works better for me
Title: Re: 64-bit VL
Post by: TonyH9904 on October 27, 2007, 10:54:52 am
Thanks! Since I ended up witha 64 AMD I think I should try it out, help on it if I can.
tonyh9904
Title: Re: 64-bit VL
Post by: wcs on October 27, 2007, 02:57:39 pm
This one (alpha 3) is very promising! Installation was very clear and fast, nvidia driver installed with no problems, kdm shows up nicely after rebot. For the first time ever, I didn't have to change anything in xorg.conf after installing VL, and was greeted by a perfect display.  Xfce compositing seems to be working fine as well.

Most of the problems I referred to above are solved. Except for gslapt and gnumeric that do not launch (either from root or normal user).

Also, there seems to be that problem with the mplayer plugin. I could play most formats, but sometimes they don't play. For instance, with the avi divx file in the "plugger testing grounds" I had to try it 3 times, and the file showed up only after the 3rd refresh, then it stopped working again the 4th time. In all tries, the buffering completes but there's only a white square where the movie is supposed to show up. Clicking (or right-clicking) on it doesn't change anything nor does the context menu show up.

Just guessing, but maybe this is a npwrapper issue. Would it be possible for this version to ship with a native 64-bit mplayer plugin?

By the way, npwrapper with the flash plugin seems to be working fine with youtube videos.

Great work! Thanks again.
Title: Re: 64-bit VL
Post by: TonyH9904 on October 27, 2007, 07:01:55 pm
Hello,  Installed the newest alpha , and so far it looks great, and what I've tested works well. The Nvidia installer , which I've not ever messed with before, was awesome, automatic, and did what it was supposed to do. I can't get cups to start , for some reason, so far, so I can configure printer. There is no firewall running that I can find, so it must be something else. Tried to install my favorite old game Lbreakout2 but when I run configure, I get "C compiler cannot create executables." It's been about 2 ys since I messed with installing frm source, I forget how to fix this.
 I did install by the package manager, the penguin game, PPL?, and it complains about wrong LibSDL, I can prob find the right one someplace.
   Overall it looks great, it configured the onboard lan card (without any onscreen feedback though -had me worried)
which works fine , internet is up and good. Havent checked browser plugins yet. Bootmessages have a lot of complaint lines about no basic support for this, that and the other, but mustn't hamper anything, CDs mount and umount perfectly, sound system is super. I'll check mplayer later. Other than crappy fonts on the yahoo pages in FF, I like this version!     I can email any log files that might help, pm me.  Here's equipt I have now: Asus M2R32-MVP , no fancy INtel crossfire cards in it though, 2 GB ram , old 40gb ide HD . & cheap video card GeForce 5500. AMD64  X2 dual-core 4200+   
TonyH9904
Edit> The fault may be in /sbin/vcupsweb, line 75........this is where it 'faults' when I run the cups config from VASM----Can anyone tell me how its supposed to read???  here's the way it is now:
yesnobox "Hmmm ... CUPS is not running.\nLaunch it, shall we ?"
    [ $? != 0 ] && clean_exit
    clear
    service cups start
the last line is line 75. Browser won't open, cups wont start , can't config printer. THANKS
Title: Re: 64-bit VL
Post by: GrannyGeek on October 28, 2007, 06:19:56 pm
I installed 64-bit alpha 3 on my laptop. It's the first version of 5.9 (32- or 64-bit) that installed the default kernel. On all others I had to keep trying until I found a kernel that wouldn't stall early into the installation.

The NVIDIA proprietary driver installed easily and auto picked up my 1280x800 resolution.

Now for the bad parts:
*  Like every other distro, version of VL, and LiveCD I've tried, sound won't work. Everything looks good, alsaconfig brings up the mixer for STAC9200 (correct), but--no sound.

*  I can't get wlan0 to come up. I'm using ndiswrapper with a Win XP driver for Realtek 8185. I made the necessary changes with /etc/modprobe.conf and /etc/ifplugd/ifplugd.conf. If I do ifconfig wlan0 or ifconfig wlan0 192.168.2.12 I get this:
wlan0: error fetching interface information: Device not found

So....
Dead in the water. I can't continue with testing until I can get a wireless connection.
--GrannyGeek
Title: Re: 64-bit VL
Post by: TonyH9904 on October 28, 2007, 08:25:20 pm
  That would be a stopper, GrannyG. I had good luck with this until I tried to do a printer. At first it would not open up a browser to do the cups config, just saying unable to start cups at this time. Then I figured out it had a glitch in a script, so I replaced that vcupsweb file with one from Soho5.1.1, (same old file they used) Now it opens browser and says it can't connect. I hate running down these cups problems more than anything else! I may find it yet though, I've lost some of my debugging skills in the last 2yrs though, lol.
   This 64 version found my sound on this new MB with no problem and configured it, same with onboard lan. It installed the nvidia drivers perfectly. It has potential, this new version.
Title: Re: 64-bit VL
Post by: saulgoode on October 29, 2007, 03:58:47 am
*  Like every other distro, version of VL, and LiveCD I've tried, sound won't work. Everything looks good, alsaconfig brings up the mixer for STAC9200 (correct), but--no sound.

I recall reading -- though I was unable to locate it in the ChangeLog -- that kernel 2.6.24 has some bugfixes for Intel HD sound. You may wish to look into that.
Title: Re: 64-bit VL
Post by: The Headacher on October 29, 2007, 09:32:18 am
Quote
I recall reading -- though I was unable to locate it in the ChangeLog -- that kernel 2.6.24 has some bugfixes for Intel HD sound. You may wish to look into that.
try searching for hda-codec ;).

There HAS been a fix for stac9200. It looks like it's a fix in alsa-1.0.15 though, so getting a new alsa might be easier.
Title: Re: 64-bit VL
Post by: GrannyGeek on October 30, 2007, 06:23:15 pm
There HAS been a fix for stac9200. It looks like it's a fix in alsa-1.0.15 though, so getting a new alsa might be easier.

I did try alsa-1.0.15 on an earlier beta (or maybe it was on 5.8 Standard) I compiled all alsa files for 1.0.15. I still couldn't get sound out of the speakers.

If I can get a reliable wireless connection on this laptop, I'll do more experimenting with sound. I'm hoping that a newer alsa and newer kernel might do it
--GrannyGeek
Title: Re: 64-bit VL
Post by: nubcnubdo on November 03, 2007, 05:32:12 am
Bluewhite64 is an unofficial port of Slackware Linux to x86_64 processor architectures.
http://www.bluewhite64.com/news.php
Title: Re: 64-bit VL
Post by: alec on January 07, 2008, 12:44:58 am
Bluewhite64 is an unofficial port of Slackware Linux to x86_64 processor architectures.
http://www.bluewhite64.com/news.php
Do you think they could have some packages we can use? I mean, slacky and linuxpackages are out of question (?) with 64-bit.
Or is there a way to use 32bit packages in 64-bit? Whats this ia32-emulation about?
Title: Re: 64-bit VL
Post by: uelsk8s on January 07, 2008, 12:58:39 am
We are already using some of there packages :)
the latest version of VL64 is here: http://vectorlinux.osuosl.org/Uelsk8s/iso-test/VL64-5.9-STD-A7.iso
you can use 32bit packages as long as you have all the 32bit libs on the system.
DO NOT use installpkg to install 32bit packages without making sure they do not install anything into /lib or /usr/lib.
Title: Re: 64-bit VL
Post by: jack baron on January 20, 2008, 06:22:28 am
We are already using some of there packages :)
the latest version of VL64 is here: http://vectorlinux.osuosl.org/Uelsk8s/iso-test/VL64-5.9-STD-A7.iso
you can use 32bit packages as long as you have all the 32bit libs on the system.
DO NOT use installpkg to install 32bit packages without making sure they do not install anything into /lib or /usr/lib.
            What works from bluewhite ,tgz files:
Openoffice 2.3
Audacious
Firefox 3 beta 2(need a reboot to fully install)
asm


  what fails:
vlc
"libiconv.so.2: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory"