*** For details on how to be removed from this list visit the ***
*** CCP4 home page http://www.ccp4.ac.uk ***
I agree entirely with Kevin. We have installed SuSE Linux 9.3 or 10.0 on
a variety of computers here and it was very straightforward. A big
advantage is the large number of useful applications that come with it.
For example when I bought a Dell laptop a few months ago I finished up
spending much more time (and money) getting a suitable development
system set up on the preinstalled Windows partition than on the SuSE
Linux 10.0 partition that I added. I should also add that the graphics
and USB ports worked fine under Linux wih no special action on my part.
To be honest I have to admit that I had one small problem - with Coot
0.0.33 - but Paul Emsley very kindly fixed it for me by return of email
(Coot is perfect for testing that you have all possible libraries etc.
installed properly because it uses ALL of them). I suspect that many
people who may have burnt their fingers a few years ago trying to
install early versions of Linux simply do not realise how robust and
easy to install the more professional of the current distributions have
become.
George
Kevin Cowtan wrote:
*** For details on how to be removed from this list visit the ***
*** CCP4 home page http://www.ccp4.ac.uk ***
Does anyone who has actually done it in the last year still believe that
setting up a Linux machine is harder than setting up a Windows machine,
in the case where compatible hardware has been selected in advance?
To set up a Linux machine with recent FC versions I just put in the DVD,
answer a handfull of questions, and leave it running for 40 mins. I get
OS, firewall, all the apps I need, a YUM gui for getting anything not
built in (such as media players etc), automated updating of the whole
system by a single unified mechanism.
To set up a Windows machine I have to do roughly the same steps, but I
only get the OS, a few half-baked apps, and a media player. I have to
get licenses for all the other software I want, especially an internet
security suite, office suite, languages, graphics etc, install them all,
work through the security policies, install virus protection and decent
web browser, and then cope with the constant bombardment of update
messages from every individual incompatible update system. And then
resinstall the whole system again when it gets clogged with spyware,
incompatible updates, or a destructive virus.
Of course, it is easier to buy a Windows or OS-X system preinstalled.
Which is I guess the difference.
K
Sergei Strelkov wrote:
*** For details on how to be removed from this list visit the ***
*** CCP4 home page http://www.ccp4.ac.uk ***
Dear All,
like many other groups, we are currently facing the need
to move from an aging SGI/Alpha cluster to a more modern
computing environment. The obvious alternatives to choose from
are Linux, OSX or Windows. We are aiming at solving interesting
structures
rather than at developing software -- and yes, we only have a limited
support from IT professionals.
1. MS Windows:
While many people would probably exclude Windows right away,
I am especially interested in collecting opinions about this option.
True, a Windows box can never be a full replacement for a Unix
workstation. However, many pieces of software (not least the CCP4/CCP4i)
are perfectly usable under Windows! The main advantage in our case,
and in most other places, probably, is that nearly all students
use/own PCs
(desktops or laptops) already.
Do there happen to exist any web resources summarising the setup and
use of Windows for biocrystallography (something like the
awesome site by W. Scott on crystallography on OSX)?
It does seem that there are no Windows versions of several important
crystallographic programs/packages but I may be not up to date --
does anyone have a list of those that are available?
With Windows, there exist ways and tools that provide
modalities typical for unix environments -- how usable are
all these? How usable is cygwin?
2. OSX:
Clearly, there has been much attention to this platform
lately, and most Xtallographic programs have been ported.
Hardware is generally good. The setup/maintenance
is generally easier than for Linux.
One specific quiestion: is buying an Intel-based
Mac (and not a G5-based) is advisable at this stage
as much of the software is not yet optimised for Intels?
The well-known problem with Macs is a lesser choice
of general-purpose software. One particular difficulty
is that the OSX version of MS Office (especially the Powerpoint)
has never been optimised properly (IMHO).
3. Linux:
Many advantages and one big concern: the difficulty of setting up.
I would be very grateful for any feedback, please write either
to the BB or to me directly. I will post a summary of all replies.
Best wishes,
Sergei.
--
Prof. George M. Sheldrick FRS
Dept. Structural Chemistry,
University of Goettingen,
Tammannstr. 4,
D37077 Goettingen, Germany
Tel. +49-551-39-3021 or -3068
Fax. +49-551-39-2582
