Which OS is more suitable for programming?

This is a discussion on Which OS is more suitable for programming? within the Tech Board forums, part of the Community Boards category; pfft, most people move to SuSE because of Yast! It supports the same hardware Ubuntu does, just it doesn't come ...

  1. #16
    Woof, woof! zacs7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    3,459
    pfft, most people move to SuSE because of Yast! It supports the same hardware Ubuntu does, just it doesn't come packed with the drivers you might need. It offers grub and lilo for boot loaders out of the box, Ubuntu offers grub also, so it was obviously a configuration error, not SuSE's fault. I'm not here to rage a distro war, but I have openSuSE running fine, on pretty new hardware, and triple-booting.

  2. #17
    Registered User Utopus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    beautiful place
    Posts
    26
    Originally posted by zacs7
    I pick which one I want to boot (ie when I turn my PC on) using a boot-loader)
    How can I set up so? I like to be able to use both vista and ubuntu.

  3. #18
    C / C++
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    312
    During the install of a distro, you can set up partitioning and choose to use a bootloader. Ubuntu does this (almost) automatically (if you choose the right option). Using SuSE you might get in trouble.
    Operating Systems:
    - Ubuntu 9.04
    - XP

    Compiler: gcc

  4. #19
    Registered User Utopus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    beautiful place
    Posts
    26
    Originally Posted by Ideswa
    During the install of a distro, you can set up partitioning and choose to use a bootloader.
    Ok, let me try that now...

  5. #20
    Woof, woof! zacs7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    3,459
    No, SuSE also does it automatically, and it also mounts your NTFS partitions for you (using the kernel NTFS module (not NTFS-3G (ie no write support)).

    Install Windows first, then install Ubuntu (*sigh*) and it *should* set up the boot loader for you, (grub probably), else use the grub shell to install it yourself.

  6. #21
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    465
    I hated how the ubuntu root works and gnome seems to have broke 3 days after I installed it. I like using MEPIS.
    My computer is awesome.

  7. #22
    Ethernal Noob
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    1,901
    How do I get rid of the boot loader for Kubuntu. I want to install one on my windows disk but if I did it would just load the boot loader for the disk I have kubuntu on afterwards.

  8. #23
    C++ Witch laserlight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    22,256
    Never said it was
    Implicitly you did, since you recommended against it pertaining to the question "which OS is more suitable for programming?". It turns out that your recommendation was due to looking at things from the point of view of learning how Linux works, and while I agree with that assessment, I disagree with the assessment that Ubuntu is not "a real distro" and thus is not suitable to use for programming.
    C + C++ Compiler: MinGW port of GCC
    Version Control System: Bazaar

    Look up a C++ Reference and learn How To Ask Questions The Smart Way

  9. #24
    The Right Honourable psychopath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Where circles begin.
    Posts
    1,070
    Quote Originally Posted by zacs7
    No, SuSE also does it automatically, and it also mounts your NTFS partitions for you
    Unless you're using Vista. I've had a lot of trouble getting SuSE and Vista to live together. Took me forever to get the partitioning right in the SuSE install for it to even recognize Vista, and then Vista kept stealing the bootloader, and when trying to fix it with the SuSE installer, it wouldn't recogize Vista anymore (or even install the bootloader).

    At least that was my experience. The same setup worked just fine when I was using XP.
    Memorial University of Newfoundland
    Computer Science

    Mac and OpenGL evangelist.

  10. #25
    Frequently Quite Prolix dwks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    8,048
    My copy of MEPIS (2004, on a CD, not a DVD) is not very extensive. Because it had to fit on a CD, they cut out GDB, info, many man pages, and all sorts of useful stuff. If you use it, you'll have to do a lot of downloading.

    I dual-boot myself, and I find that it works very well. The only annoyance is that Windows cannot read the Linux partition, so if you need to access a Linux file in Windows, you have to reboot. Linux can read the Windows partition in my case, but the Windows partition is FAT32, not NTFS. FAT is supposed to be read-writable, but Windows doesn't like it if I create directories.

    Emlating an OS is probably a bad idea unless it's a really old OS, in which case it would run faster than normal instead of slower. Emulating Mac OS 7 is fun.

    There's no reason you can't do all three -- I do. [edit] "All three" being multi-boot, live CD, and emulating. [/edit]
    dwk

    Seek and ye shall find. quaere et invenies.

    "Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it." -- Alan Perlis
    "Testing can only prove the presence of bugs, not their absence." -- Edsger Dijkstra
    "The only real mistake is the one from which we learn nothing." -- John Powell


    Other boards: DaniWeb, TPS
    Unofficial Wiki FAQ: cpwiki.sf.net

    My website: http://dwks.theprogrammingsite.com/
    Projects: codeform, xuni, atlantis, nort, etc.

  11. #26
    Malum in se abachler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    3,189
    Quote Originally Posted by dwks View Post
    Emlating an OS is probably a bad idea unless it's a really old OS, in which case it would run faster than normal instead of slower. Emulating Mac OS 7 is fun.
    Not even in batman camp universe will emulating anything be faster than running it in hardware, sorry to call you on this one dwks, but you are wrong. Perhaps you mean emulating it on a quad-core 3.2 GHz is faster than running it natively on its original target system.
    Until you can build a working general purpose reprogrammable computer out of basic components from radio shack, you are not fit to call yourself a programmer in my presence. This is cwhizard, signing off.

  12. #27
    {Jaxom,Imriel,Liam}'s Dad Kennedy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    1,065
    Quote Originally Posted by laserlight View Post
    Implicitly you did, since you recommended against it pertaining to the question "which OS is more suitable for programming?". It turns out that your recommendation was due to looking at things from the point of view of learning how Linux works, and while I agree with that assessment, I disagree with the assessment that Ubuntu is not "a real distro" and thus is not suitable to use for programming.
    Furthermore, while listing the "real distros" you left out Slackware. . . Why do people always do this? ::Sighs heavily::

  13. #28
    Massively Single Player AverageSoftware's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Buffalo, NY
    Posts
    141
    Quote Originally Posted by Kennedy View Post
    Furthermore, while listing the "real distros" you left out Slackware. . . Why do people always do this? ::Sighs heavily::
    Fear not, I'm a dedicated Slackware user. I even payed for the nice 6 disc set. I have it running on three computers in very different roles. Easily the most versatile OS I've ever used.
    There is no greater sign that a computing technology is worthless than the association of the word "solution" with it.

  14. #29
    Frequently Quite Prolix dwks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    8,048
    Quote Originally Posted by abachler View Post
    Not even in batman camp universe will emulating anything be faster than running it in hardware, sorry to call you on this one dwks, but you are wrong. Perhaps you mean emulating it on a quad-core 3.2 GHz is faster than running it natively on its original target system.
    Let me elaborate. Say you had an old OS which ordinarily ran on 486es. If you emulate that on a "quad-core 3.2 GHz" processor, it's going to seem faster than it would have on its native platform, a 486, no matter how slow the emulator is.
    dwk

    Seek and ye shall find. quaere et invenies.

    "Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it." -- Alan Perlis
    "Testing can only prove the presence of bugs, not their absence." -- Edsger Dijkstra
    "The only real mistake is the one from which we learn nothing." -- John Powell


    Other boards: DaniWeb, TPS
    Unofficial Wiki FAQ: cpwiki.sf.net

    My website: http://dwks.theprogrammingsite.com/
    Projects: codeform, xuni, atlantis, nort, etc.

  15. #30
    Disrupting the universe Mad_guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    258
    VMware emulates a new OS using pure software (it uses an instruction re-writing translation mechanism to make things 'safe,') and while it's slower, it is not crippled by any means.

    How do I know? Because I use it and run 2 OS's in it at just about all times. And I have almost not complaints as to speed. I have 1gb of RAM with a p4 processor, and I run both Linux and OpenBSD pretty much at all times. Normally I just connect and program though SSH since it's convenient, but I've run them both with GUI's as well, and it's really not that taxing on your computer, nor is it really that slow.


    I would highly recommend VMware if you're willing to pay the bucks for it. It's a great piece of software, and yes, while the OS will run slower (I still would not call it 'crippled' however,) it can be pretty convenient to just have it running there for you.
    operating systems: mac os 10.6, debian 5.0, windows 7
    editor: back to emacs because it's more awesomer!!
    version control: git

    website: http://0xff.ath.cx/~as/

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. Detecting if OS is Windows???
    By Ktulu in forum Windows Programming
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-19-2006, 02:49 AM
  2. Mac OS X Programming
    By Exile in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 05-06-2005, 04:12 PM
  3. a simple OS
    By DavidP in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 06-06-2004, 11:47 PM
  4. Linux OS to Windows OS code
    By sw9830 in forum C Programming
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-28-2003, 03:11 PM
  5. How do they compile code for an OS ?
    By Nutshell in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: 03-28-2002, 12:16 AM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21