My question is whether it would be feasible for me to convert to OpenSuse given these software restrictions.

I am a student in math and physics, so I absolutely need to have the programs Wolfram Mathematica and MATLAB working flawlessly For speed of numerical computation, I would be going with the 64 bit version. Is it possible? How difficult would this be.

Edit: I would prefer not to resort to Wine or Xen or other emulation because I would like them to run quickly, but will if needed.

AntonMazurenko wrote:
> Hello,
>
> My question is whether it would be feasible for me to convert to
> OpenSuse given these software restrictions.
>
> I am a student in math and physics, so I absolutely need to have the
> programs Wolfram Mathematica and MATLAB working flawlessly For speed of
> numerical computation, I would be going with the 64 bit version. Is it
> possible? How difficult would this be.
>
> Edit: I would prefer not to resort to Wine or Xen or other emulation
> because I would like them to run quickly, but will if needed.

Wine should run them at native speed or faster.
The places where wine fails ideally wouldn’t affect you… but
with that said, I have no idea how well the programs
mentioned are written (even thought they may seem “great”,
they might actually be garbage that does something useful).

Matlab is fully available for Linux (no wine needed). I don’t know that other program. You should check the vendor’s website when you need commercial software.

Mathematica, Matlab, and Maple are all available for Linux so that shouldn’t be much of a problem. I use Maple 12 myself, 64-bit no-less without a problem.

At least Matlab and Maple are available in 64-bit Linux versions. Mathematica seems to as well, although they say that on newer distros additional compatibility libs may need to be installed but they don’t say which ones.

In short, Matlab shouldn’t be a problem. Mathematica may require some trouble-shooting if you’re unlucky.

>
>Mathematica, Matlab, and Maple are all available for Linux so that
>shouldn’t be much of a problem. I use Maple 12 myself, 64-bit no-less
>without a problem.
>
>‘Mathematica for Linux is Released’
>(http://www.wolfram.com/news/presslinux.html) (Mathematica)
>‘Maple 12 System Requirements Maplesoft’
>(http://www.maplesoft.com/products/Maple/system_requirements.aspx)
>(Maple)
>‘MATLAB - Requirements’
>(http://www.mathworks.com/products/matlab/requirements.html) (Matlab
>7.8)
>
>At least Matlab and Maple are available in 64-bit Linux versions.
>Mathematica seems to as well, although they say that on newer distros
>additional compatibility libs may need to be installed but they don’t
>say which ones.
>
>In short, Matlab shouldn’t be a problem. Mathematica may require some
>trouble-shooting if you’re unlucky.

Just stumbled across this thread. Thanks for the links. I will be
looking more closely at buying one of these.

I have Matlab running under OpenSUSE 11.0 (64 bits). It runs flawlessly. I am planning to install Mathematica as well as soon as I have some time.
If you are in physics/engineering, I expect that you will need FORTRAN or C/C++. For those, you may use the freely available Sun Studio 12 or G95. If you are willing to spend some $$ on a high quality compiler I would go for PGI optimizing compilers for Linux. You will need to get comfortable with some kind of text editor with highlighting syntax (Geany, Nedit, Kate etc.). Or you can opt for a compiler with an integrated IDE such as Absoft ($$$).
For plotting you can obtain Tecplot for Linux. But you can always make use of the freely available LabPlot which is quite comparable to Microcal Origin.
Of course, needless to say, you can use OpenOffice to replace MS Office
The only component which is still lacking in Linux is a powerful Design suite like SolidWorks. ProEngineer released a native Linux edition, but that has to become a mainstream trend yet.

microchip8: Actually the website of Scientific Linux mentions clearly that the naming has NOTHING to do with scientific software. It has to do with the fact that a bunch of Scientific labs developed this distribution.

A. This linux distribution is called Scientific Linux because it is made by scientific labs, for scientific labs and universities. It is not named Scientific Linux because it has the largest collection of scientific programs. It was named back when it was small, and only the scientific labs were using it.

I’m aware of that. Before SL, there where two different Linuxes. One from Fermilab and one from CERN. To avoid duplicate work, they combined these into one and called it SL. It is just a rebranding of RHEL with here and there a few tweaks and optimizations. That’s why I put at the end of my reply, to indicate that it’s a bit sarcastic