After testing some distros of VM, looking for some advice on if is should try others or just stick to one?

[EternalSeeker]

So in context to my old thread: 

 

Spoiler

Dear LTT,

 

So as a little off the books work/my own research and learning I want to utilize linux (I haven't decided on a distro but something debian based would be great) to run some hpc software such as Calculix, Blender, Octave, Scilab,C++/Python, Comsol multiphysics etc. along with my windows running matlab, ansys, and visual studios to learn about differences, similarities and special case scenarios. I am contemplating if I should run a vm and allocated 4 cores/4 threads (simulating a i7 6770k) for a linux os to run those software? What limitations would I have versus dual booting (besides the fact with dual boot I get full access to my cpu and gpu)? Should I consider a dual boot or should I VM it up?

 

Also for distro's, what would be the most stable debian based distro? Unless Fedora's gum is more robust than apt-get? I am not worried about gui, since I can customize that correct? (something like KDE?)

I have tried Ubuntu, Linux Mint and OpenSUSE in a vm running with 4 cores. I am trying to run linux for testing out hpc applications and seeing the difference between windows and since I got into using Debian on ARM as well it seemed like a nice project. 

 

Anyway I tried Ubuntu and it seems to have more documentation on these packages, i just didn't like amazon integration and such. Despite being so similar to ubuntu linux mint didn't cut it for me, some packages would require many workarounds to run. OpenSUSE is good so far but need more testing.

 

So should I try Debian and Fedora? 

 

What about arch and these other flavours? How much work does it take to set them up?

[zMeul]

9 minutes ago, EternalSeeker said:

So should I try Debian

debian is the base on which Ubuntu (and its spawns) is built on

[Electronics Wizardy]

Personally I'd just install debian and use it. There is no big difference between the main distro and all the big ones can run most of the big software. Also debian can run Ubuntu software and use all the guides. For desktop environments you can install multiple and pick one when you login. 

[SCHISCHKA]

use ubuntu if you need the newer kernel otherwise debian is better

[EternalSeeker]

On 12/13/2016 at 10:34 PM, zMeul said:

debian is the base on which Ubuntu (and its spawns) is built on

 

On 12/13/2016 at 10:35 PM, Electronics Wizardy said:

Personally I'd just install debian and use it. There is no big difference between the main distro and all the big ones can run most of the big software. Also debian can run Ubuntu software and use all the guides. For desktop environments you can install multiple and pick one when you login. 

 

On 12/13/2016 at 11:02 PM, SCHISCHKA said:

use ubuntu if you need the newer kernel otherwise debian is better

What does the newer kernal offer? 

 

Also I will defiantly try Debian, is archlinux worth trying to?

[Electronics Wizardy]

12 minutes ago, EternalSeeker said:

What does the newer kernal offer? 

Newer driver support, for example if you want nvme, you need kernel 3.19 or newer to boot from it. 

 

13 minutes ago, EternalSeeker said:

Also I will defiantly try Debian, is archlinux worth trying to?

Id personally try debian. Arch is fun, but not really bettter in any noticable way.

[SCHISCHKA]

20 minutes ago, EternalSeeker said:

is archlinux worth trying to?

No. It offers the latest software but things can break and everything needs to be manually configured

[g el]

23 hours ago, SCHISCHKA said:

No. It offers the latest software but things can break and everything needs to be manually configured

Arch can be as stable as you want it to be. That said it takes a lot of discipline not to use the breaking edge stuff in a rolling release model. 

 

My 2¢ 

If you felt more comfortable with one of the distros don't go hunting for more. As you get used to Linux you will realise that switching distros is relatively easy, as long as you keep your home partition separate you will not be loosing any data or even configuration, at that point the only advantage of one distro over the other is the package manager and the update frequency/philosophy

[EternalSeeker]

On 12/15/2016 at 1:52 AM, Electronics Wizardy said:

Newer driver support, for example if you want nvme, you need kernel 3.19 or newer to boot from it. 

 

Id personally try debian. Arch is fun, but not really bettter in any noticable way.

 

On 12/15/2016 at 2:01 AM, SCHISCHKA said:

No. It offers the latest software but things can break and everything needs to be manually configured

 

On 12/16/2016 at 1:55 AM, g el said:

Arch can be as stable as you want it to be. That said it takes a lot of discipline not to use the breaking edge stuff in a rolling release model. 

 

My 2¢ 

If you felt more comfortable with one of the distros don't go hunting for more. As you get used to Linux you will realise that switching distros is relatively easy, as long as you keep your home partition separate you will not be loosing any data or even configuration, at that point the only advantage of one distro over the other is the package manager and the update frequency/philosophy

 

I see, thanks for the answer, I will be trying debian, fedora and majerno (i think its an arch derivative?) To see which ones package manager is better and which one I like more. I am used to debian repositories so apt-get and such, I guess I will try rpm and aur. 

[/dev/God/Haruhi]

18 hours ago, EternalSeeker said:

I see, thanks for the answer, I will be trying debian, fedora and majerno (i think its an arch derivative?) To see which ones package manager is better and which one I like more. I am used to debian repositories so apt-get and such, I guess I will try rpm and aur. 

AUR is not a package, it is a repository. Arch and derivatives uses .pkg.tar.xz files installed with pacman package manager, or one of it's frontends/wrappers (like pacaur for aur packages). AUR is a repository for build scripts maintained by users, so if you want a package that it is not available on the main repos, instead of manually making a package yourself, you can just grab the script someone presumably already made that will automatically make it (oversimplified, in a day to day basis is what it will allow you to do) It feels like having every single package that you need and then some more, and pacman is blazing fast. Still, what @g el said holds true, find what makes you a happy camper and enjoy your ride, be that ride Debian, Fedora, Arch, Manjaro or whatever tickles your fancy, don't be afraid to play around with them until you find "The One".

[vorticalbox]

I would just install ubuntu/mint and if you don't like the looks then install a different desktop environment

[EternalSeeker]

On 12/18/2016 at 11:18 AM, /dev/God/Haruhi said:

AUR is not a package, it is a repository. Arch and derivatives uses .pkg.tar.xz files installed with pacman package manager, or one of it's frontends/wrappers (like pacaur for aur packages). AUR is a repository for build scripts maintained by users, so if you want a package that it is not available on the main repos, instead of manually making a package yourself, you can just grab the script someone presumably already made that will automatically make it (oversimplified, in a day to day basis is what it will allow you to do) It feels like having every single package that you need and then some more, and pacman is blazing fast. Still, what @g el said holds true, find what makes you a happy camper and enjoy your ride, be that ride Debian, Fedora, Arch, Manjaro or whatever tickles your fancy, don't be afraid to play around with them until you find "The One".

 

On 12/18/2016 at 3:25 PM, vorticalbox said:

I would just install ubuntu/mint and if you don't like the looks then install a different desktop environment

Thank you for the clarification. I am not worried about the DE or look/feel since I can install either gnome or lxde (the ones I prefer the look of). I am just using vm to check which distro has the most packages or the latest ones. I do believe Debian/Ubuntu are really good bet as most run it and I can easily interface with my debian jessie chroot on my armv8 devices. 

 

I was just wondering if Fedora or Arch is better in this regards over debian/ubuntu?