Mandrake Linux 9.0 Beta 1 554
leviramsey writes "MandrakeSoft has released the first beta of the next version of its distribution. It features XFree86 4.2, KDE 3.0, GNOME 2.0, and is compiled with gcc-3.1, which (alas) makes it incompatible with a fair amount of commercial software."
Compiled with gcc-3.1 (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, someone had to be first to ship with this compiler. I wouldn't worry. Vendors will catch up.
Which apps won't work with gcc-3.1? (Score:4, Insightful)
Wow, 9.0 so soon? (Score:2, Insightful)
I feel like 8.x went by as I blinked.
they've really been churning them out lately.
Re:java (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Compiled with gcc-3.1 (Score:3, Insightful)
Linux Useability (Score:2, Insightful)
Look at all the fuss over gcc 3.1 not being compatible with Java, other software packages and even 3.2 that is suppose to be out soon. The average user doesn't want to have to deal with that.
I myself have used Mandrake for about 3 years now and love it, and will buy the retail package when it comes out in stores. But I don't expect my 70 something year old grandfather to deal with gcc version compatibility when all he wants to do is email and look up stuff he watched on Discovery or The History Channel.
Mandrake all the way. (Score:3, Insightful)
Although I am a FreeBSD [freebsd.org] dude, I loved my workstation running Mandrake. I think they do an excellent job by trying to make the system more optimized for an end user, rather than a professional sys. admin. For a while, I thought that RedHat was the most user friendly, but I was wrong. The installation process was very smooth and clean, that's where most of Linux distros lag behind. With this in mind, I am thinking of getting the latest Mandrake release and putting it on my moms computer. I've heard that she is sick of 'those blue screens'
Re:Question (Score:2, Insightful)
In addition, the most efficient way of implementing a given task may differ across the two platforms, so there may be a difference between "fast i386 code" and "fast i586 code", even if the code is compatible.
If RedHat is compiling for i386, it's probably to make their distro better for people who're slapping Linux on an old 486 to use as a server. Mandrake targets the desktop, hence most of their clientele will be using the newer i586 chips.
get 2.95 apps to work with 3.1 comiled mozilla (Score:2, Insightful)
To compile your own 3.1 Java (wahoo, a JVM w/ optimizations!)
http://hints.linuxfromscratch.org/hints/javafro
Also, you CAN get flash to work, there's a post in gentoo's message boards on how to do this:
http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic.php?t=4753
Hope this helps.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Question (Score:2, Insightful)
There's no reason for RedHat to support the 386 and 486. At least they can gain a little more speed by optimizing for the Pentium.
Re:They always have been incompatible (Score:2, Insightful)
http://www.bero.org/gcc296.html [bero.org]
Re:mandrake and gentoo (Score:2, Insightful)
Carl
Re:Question (Score:2, Insightful)
> old machine with low hard drive space.
And this was exactly my point. It's possible to install RedHat on a 486, but it's a huge pain in the *ss. You'd be better off using Slackware or Debian anyway. So what point is there in continue to support 386 and 486?
Re:Linux Useability (Score:3, Insightful)
Wrong. Does it have games? Minesweeper? Nope
Are you trolling, or just misinformed? The kdegames package (included with every distro that includes KDE) has "KMines", which is a Minesweeper clone. GNOME has "gnomines". Both these are included under the "games" tab in the K menu ("Start menu") in an installation of SuSE 8.0, and I'd certainly be amazed if Mandrake didn't put them in a similar place.
Diablo?
There's no Diablo for Linux, so it's not on the installation CDs for any distro. You can install Falcons Eye Nethack [sourceforge.net] for something arguably better than Diablo, or Zangband [angband.org] for, again, something arguably better than Diablo.
Falconseye Nethack is on many distro CDs, Zangband is not.
MS Paint? Right. Paint Shop Pro for me. The same goes for default shipments of Linux
GIMP comes with every distro, and is as good or better than PaintShop Pro. Curiously, you haven't mentioned any Linux applications in your half-formed rant, only Windows applications. What, praytell, are some examples of applications you think you need that aren't included in a recent distro CD or aren't available via Sourceforge/freshmeat.net ?
Re:java (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Two options (Score:3, Insightful)
If necessary you could even write "java", "javac", "javah" etc. scripts in /usr/bin which fixed up the lib paths before invoking the real tools.
Re:Compiled with gcc-3.1 (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you think Microsoft does any differently? I have Win2k apps that won't run on WinNT, WinNT apps that won't run on Win2k, nothing worked on WinXP, and don't get me going about all the applications I bought for Win95 (mostly games) where WINE is my only hope of ever using them again.
If applications support Win95, WinNT, Win2k, WinME and WinXP out of the box it's only because the vendors went through trials that would have made Heracles cringe.
If anything, I'm more impressed by the Linux camp because Linus refuses to change for changes sake and the libc guys are positively anal about backwards compatibility.