Re: gEDA-user: Help request

[al davis <ad106@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thursday 15 June 2006 07:17, Stuart Brorson wrote:
> 1.  I don't recommend using Ubuntu to build software.  Ubuntu
> doesn't come with the usual build tools (gcc, header files
> and all that) installed.  That's why you had all the
> dependecies to deal with.
>
> Ubuntu is good for e-mail and text editing, but not at all
> good for the task you are attempting.  Try Fedora Core or
> SuSE instead.  They are reasonably user friendly, and are
> *complete* distributions.

After reading this too many times I decided to try it.

I have an old computer, 850 mHz, with a big disk.  I partitioned 
it into 5 gig pieces and tried a few of those distributions.  I 
did a quick install, with the minimum extra packages that would 
get a graphic interface.  Mostly I took the defaults, but used 
manual partitioning to allocate that 5 gig partition so I could 
have them all.

Summary:  those comments about Ubuntu are completely false.  
Ubuntu is as complete as any, and compares favorably with the 
others.  

Some comments:
=================================
Ubuntu: 

There is a bug in the installer that puts it into 640x480, which 
isn't big enough for the graphic installer.  Pick the "safe 
graphics" mode, and it uses the full resolution and works well.  
I think they screwed up the menu.

It boots into a live CD, sort of like Knoppix.  To install, 
click the "install" icon on the desktop.  Install is mostlty

One CD, full.  Yes, the compiler is on it.   Basic install did 
not include development tools.  They can be easily installed 
using apt-get or synaptic.  They work well and fast.

It includes md5sums of all files, and a way to check the CD, 
which checks all the files.  To see why I bothered to mention 
this, see Fedora.

Package completeness:  By default: average.  Enable "the 
universe"  then it is excellent.  All Debian packages, 
including gnucap, geda, pcb, gwave.

Booting uses grub.  Automatically sets up the menu to boot all 
others.  Plays very nice with others.

After installing, on first update, 96 packages were updated over 
the net.

Summary: That graphics bug is a big one.  Get over that, it's 
pretty good.  You can install without a net connection, but it 
uses what you have.
===============================
Fedora:

Boots into a graphic installer.  Pretty, but hides a lot.  Often 
shows the nervous cursor when it could show real information.

There are 5 (five) CD's.  It only really needs 2, but I didn't 
know that.  I tried one first, thinking that one is plenty for 
a basic install, but it didn't work.  When it asked for the 
second, there was no way out other than rebooting.  By then it 
has already messed with the boot record leaving the system 
unbootable.

The only check sums are of the whole CD's.  The menu offers to 
check the media, but all it does is check the whole CD image.  
If there is any padding during write, or if the disk controller 
has the overrun bug, the check fails even though the disk is 
good.  3 out of 5 failures was not reassuring.  To really check 
them, I did "md5sum * */* */*/*" and compared the CD to 
the .iso.  They really were all good.  False alarm.

Basic install DID NOT INCLUDE DEVELOPMENT TOOLS.  Installing 
using yum worked.  The package named are different from debian.  
For example, "g++" is "gcc-c++".  I had to do some searching to 
find that out.  This is not a big deal.  "yum" works much 
like "apt-get".  This is a big improvement over the Red Hat I 
moved away from years ago.  It is SLOW.  It took about 2 hours 
to install the C++ compiler and libraries, as if I was on a 
dial-up.  "yum search" gave lots of stuff, in a non-compact 
form.

Yum seems to be slow for just about everything.  It shows lots 
of stuff on the screen.  The command set is comparable to 
apt-get, but the performance isn't.

Package completeness:  average.  Specialized packages, like 
geda, are not there.  It does have gnucap.

Booting uses grub, with a pretty image.  It only recognized 
itself, and makes a menu.lst file that has macros that expand 
incorrectly when it is moved, as you would want to do if you 
are setting up a multi-boot machine.  Did not play nice with 
others.  The error caused corruption of another partition that 
it wasn't supposed to use at all.

Summary:  Get this one if your net connection is a dial-up.  It 
is probably the most comfortable transition from MS.
===============================
Slackware:

The install disk is a live CD.  It tells you "login as root".  
Then tells you how to install it, what commands to type.  There 
is a sequence of things to do.  There are 2 CD's.

It asks lots of questions.  An experienced user probably knows.  
Some choices ...  filesystem type (ext2, ext3, 
reiser)  ..   "choose a kernel"  There are about 10.

Booting: uses LILO.  Does not play nice with others.

Window manager gives choice of kde, xfce, some older ones.  No 
gnome.

Packages are .tgz files.  

Summary:  Not for beginners.  Having said that, many years ago 
it was my first, with floppys.  It still has the feel of the 
simple systems of years ago.
================================
Debian sarge (stable):

Install CD is about 100 meg.  Installs a very basic system.  
Then boot it.  Then install packages.

Installation was very smooth, but there were some questions that 
require advanced knowledge to answer.  Some questions were 
about things that should have been automatic.  (What X driver 
to use.)  

Install CD has NO packages on it.  It is all over the web.  
Complete install took less than an hour, including X, gnome, 
kde, dev tools, etc.

By default, installs both gnome and kde.

Even given the numbers, it still set the display to 800x600.  I 
had to edit the config file to set it to proper resolution.

Very complete package selection, including gnucap, geda, pcb, 
gwave.  All a couple of years old.

Summary:  Fast easy install, if you are somewhat knowledgeable.  
Some little glitches that are almost nothing to experienced 
user, but are proably show stoppers for beginners.  Consider 
this only if you have a good net connection.
================================
Debian etch (testing):

Install CD Is about 100 meg.  Net based install.  Package 
selection and installation is now in first pass.  More 
automated than sarge.

It set everything up correctly, including the display.  

Boot uses grub.  It plays nice with the others, sets up a big 
menu with them all there.

If you want choices, there are lots of them.  For example, lots 
of filesystem choices, including ext2, ext3, reiser, jfs, and 
several others.

Very complete package selection, mostly fairly recent.  For even 
more recent, install etch then switch to "sid" (unstable).

Summary: Fast easy install.  A little rougher than sarge.  
Consider this only if you have a good net connection.
================================
SUSE:

Net install didn't work.  Failed to install.  I gave up.

It asked questions like the IP number and directory where the 
install files are.  I couldn't make it work.

Before it got there, it asked questions like the ones Debian 
asked.

Complete iso's are available.  It takes 5 CD's.  I chose not to 
download the 5 CD's.

If someone can tell me what I did wrong I will give it another 
try.
==================================
I didn't test yet....

Mandriva.  No iso's to download.

Gentoo:  I played with this one a while back...   Very manual 
procedure, very well documented.  Pick this one if you want to 
really dig in.

The BSD's ...

============================
My conclusion:

I use Debian unstable for development, testing on the laptop, 
stable as a server.  Based on this survey, I would still make 
that same choice now.

Ubuntu is a credible choice.   It is prettier than Debian, more 
up to date than Debian Stable, and quickly sets up what casual 
users want.  When you get serious, make believe it is Debian.

Fedora works.  I can see how some people like it best.  There 
are some issues that make it not my choice.  It has fewer free 
packages available than Debian or Ubuntu, but most commercial 
software supports Fedora first.  This is the best choice if you 
want to run commercial software (Cadence, Synopsys, Mentor, 
etc.)

SUSE didn't work for me.

This is based on doing a quick install and making a few tests.  
I did not evaluate the upgrade procedure.  I know how Debian 
does it, and how Red Hat used to do it.  If someone has 
recently upgraded a Fedora or SUSE system, I would appreciate a 
report.


If you are having trouble compiling, your choice of distribution 
probably isn't the problem, no matter which of these you are 
using.  If something is missing, it probably takes one simple 
command to install it.  The hard part is figuring out what its 
name is.



_______________________________________________
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user