Lunar Linux 1.0 Released 254
Ivan writes "Lunar Linux 1.0 was released today. It's a source based distribution, with gcc 3.2 and the latest versions of packages such as Mozilla 1.1, OpenOffice.org 1.0.1 and GNOME 2 and KDE 3. From the about page on their website: 'In the beginning Lunar was a fork of Sorcerer GNU Linux (SGL). The fork occurred in late January to early February of 2002 and was originally made up of a small group of people who wanted to collaboratively develop and extend the Sorcerer technology.' Download the ISOs here."
Penguins! Argh! (Score:1, Funny)
Wow!!! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Wow!!! (Score:4, Funny)
I'm now browsing at 0 looking for the karma whore who posted a copy of the page.
Not very similar to sorcerer.. (Score:2)
It appears to be almost totally different now judging from the other info given on the site..
Re:Not very similar to sorcerer.. (Score:1)
So would that be nicknamed "Lunix"? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:So would that be nicknamed "Lunix"? (Score:3, Funny)
(For those of you who don't get the joke..)
http://www.somethingawful.com/jeffk
Lunix is taken (Score:2, Informative)
Download ISOs here! (Score:5, Funny)
Name Last modified Size Description
Parent Directory 01-Oct-2002 09:19 -
ChangeLog.lunar 02-Oct-2002 20:01 1k
ChangeLog.moonbase 30-Sep-2002 22:50 13k
ChangeLog.theedge 02-Oct-2002 20:02 8k
ISO.Changelog 01-Oct-2002 09:37 8k
art/ 18-Aug-2002 20:05 -
distrowatch.txt 02-Oct-2002 19:32 2k
init/ 31-Mar-2002 19:14 -
lunar-20021001.iso.bz2 01-Oct-2002 09:30 89.3M
lunar-20021001.iso.md5 01-Oct-2002 09:19 1k
lunar.lsm 01-Sep-2002 20:57 1k
lunar.tar.bz2 02-Oct-2002 20:01 104k
lunar.tar.bz2.1 02-Oct-2002 19:01 104k
mirrors/ 26-Aug-2002 13:57 -
moonbase.tar.bz2 02-Oct-2002 20:02 552k
moonbase.tar.bz2.1 02-Oct-2002 19:02 552k
old/ 01-Oct-2002 06:52 -
testing/ 01-Oct-2002 09:30 -
theedge.tar.bz2 02-Oct-2002 20:02 106k
theedge.tar.bz2.1 02-Oct-2002 19:02 106k
Re:Download ISOs here! (Score:2)
Last time I checked, you could install SuSE that way...download and write some floppies (a boot disk and one or two disks with kernel modules for SCSI/network/etc. support), boot up, and install from an FTP server.
Re:Download ISOs here! (Score:2)
Last time I checked, you could install SuSE that way...
...and RedHat, you just need the right boot floppy.
Al.Re:Download ISOs here! (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Download ISOs here! (Score:2)
And while I'm offtopic, I wanted to use Linux From Scratch but it isn't (from scratch), it's from an existing Linux installation, on an empty partition. I coulda loaded RedHat first, but my laptop doesn't have room for RedHat and LFS, so I tried Gentoo. It didn't support my (PCMCIA) network card. Being offline kinda stops Gentoo dead in its tracks. In all fairness to Gentoo, Mandrake didn't support my network card either, so I'm back to RedHat. I guess I'll try Lunar Linux and see if it can finally free me from Corporate domination of my desktop.
Ah but the question is (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Ah but the question is (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Ah but the question is (Score:1)
Re:Ah but the question is (Score:2)
If it did, (Score:2, Funny)
Hey it was a joke (Score:2)
/. needs another section (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:/. needs another section (Score:2, Insightful)
Read the comments under the announcement... (Score:5, Insightful)
Now there are the source distro wars.
Anyway, I thought this was a humourous comment under the announcement on the Lunar site that indicates just how far out of the mainstream source distro geeks are:
Oh! I get it. First I burn the ISO and then boot and that gets to the MOTD. Then it points me to a man page which details lots of little command line programs that I use to install. That's gotta be the ultimate in user friendly!
Sorry, but it just made me laugh out loud when I read how easy [sic] it was. For what it's worth, I struggled through several Gentoo installs and, except at work where we have system administered by someone else, I use Gentoo and love it. Even "converted" one of my friends recently. I know what it's like to have to do obscure things, but sometimes it takes a comment like the above to realize just how "deep" I've fallen into the world of Linux geekdom.
Re:Read the comments under the announcement... (Score:1)
Re:Read the comments under the announcement... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Read the comments under the announcement... (Score:2)
- get my laptop's PCMCIA to play nice with their ISO image
- get their kernel to work without having SMP turned on
This is back from the 1.0_rc6 days, and rc6 worked just great with my system. Unfortunately, the way they had their kernel set up, you had to do a "make clean" right off the bat or you got something that didn't work quite right unless you left SMP turned on. Don't ask me why...that's just how it was.
Furthermore, when they went to 1.0 (final) it wasn't clear to me that an upgrade would be a clean process. So I instead chose to install again, and their 1.0 ISO would cause a really nasty kernel hang when trying to enable PCMCIA on my laptop.
From there I used my 1.0_rc6 disc to get the system half-working and then used the 1.0 final disc to finish everything up. I know it sounds odd, but it worked, and everything has been smooth since.
Then there were a few compile problems, probably related to me using the gcc 3.x profile, but I worked around those too.
Struggle may sound harsh, but that's how it feels when you're getting what look like serious problems and the help online isn't helpful enough.
Note: Gentoo devs and mailing lists have seemed generally helpful, from what I've experienced, but I don't think they were nearly as helpful in March 2002 as they are now.
In case people read this and not my other followup, yes, I'm positive about Gentoo.
Re:Read the comments under the announcement... (Score:2)
Phillip.
Re:Read the comments under the announcement... (Score:2)
I've heard good things about Gentoo, and I'm quite tempted to try it. I'm currently a Win2k user, but I plan on trying Linux within a couple weeks. Though I'm quite comfortable with Windows (including the command line), I'm a bit of a Linux newbie. So, do you think Gentoo would be worth trying for me?
I wasn't quite sure whether your post was pro-Gentoo or anti-Gentoo ;). At one point you say "I struggled through several Gentoo installs" yet you "use Gentoo and love it"? (I'm not trying to be snarky, just honestly curious).
Re:Read the comments under the announcement... (Score:3, Informative)
Gentoo promises a close working relationship with your system, access to the very latest packages, and a growing and generally helpful community.
Try it out: Gentoo home [gentoo.org]
See my other post in this thread for why I had problems with it initially.
Re:Well.. my problem with gentoo (Score:2)
Re:Read the comments under the announcement... (Score:3, Informative)
I haven't tried out a source distro yet (it seems the only occasions I have to install Linux happen to be pretty bizarre network installs...so I usually just opt for RedHat because this is the *only* distro I've been able to get to install easily in these circumstances).
Re:Read the comments under the announcement... (Score:2)
a) don't know what startx is
b) don't understand what it is doing
c) don't know what a window manager is
d) don't have a favorite
innovative Linux distributions (Score:3, Funny)
I'm glad to see some new innovation in Linux distibutions. Lunar Linux is completely unlike those other Linux distributions. It includes innovative new software that other Linux distributions do have, such as Mozilla, GNOME, KDE, gcc, and the Linux kernel.
Old Term New Term (Score:4, Funny)
New Command: fakelunarlanding
Old Term: Kernel Panic
New Term: apollo13
Re:Old Term New Term (Score:5, Funny)
ISO Download (Score:4, Informative)
Since the lunar-linux site is probably bogged down at the moment, you can probably grab an ISO from:
DistroWatch [distrowatch.com]
or
LinuxISO.org [linuxiso.org]
Got burned... (Score:4, Interesting)
If they are compiling in Ramfs still (Like Sorcerer used too), it is a horrible waste, the benefits are negligible compared to the pains in the ass it can cause and the limitations it must have to deal with under the circumstances. I thought RamFS would be cool, but there is not much of a difference on an operation the user rarely performs and one that isn't baby-sat. If you are already on the install-from-source mindset, you have given up the speed of, say, binary apt installs to gain what is needed in terms of speed at runtime (and customization).
Re:Got burned... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Got burned... (Score:2)
After that, I suppose I see the charm of other source based distros. Gentoo really isn't that intuitive on the installation for those unfamiliar with the guts of the software...
Re:Got burned... (Score:1)
But yes, it was not document. I was just about to install it myself from a floppy when I noticed it was already there.
Re:Got burned... (Score:2)
Re:Got burned... (Score:2)
Re:Got burned... (Score:1)
Re:Got burned... (Score:2)
Especially since the 4 doesn't have instruction reordering and optimizes very differently than the 1 source distributions aren't such a bad idea.
What? (Score:5, Insightful)
I always hear this stuff about not reinventing the wheel and such here on Slashdot, and yet I see it every day...
Gentoo Question... (Score:2)
So there's a problem. I only have a 56k modem. Is there a way around this? Do I at least have the ability to continue where I left off? Or if I get disconnected, am I screwed?
Re:Gentoo Question... (Score:2)
That being said, a straight install from a modem takes about 30 hours from start to bash. About 30 more hours till I had kdebase and kdenetwork installed. It wasn't really that painful, I just had to do something else for a few days...
RTFM! (Score:2)
What, you want them to actually have a "purpose" or something? Stop harshing our buzz you square!
More Variety (Score:5, Insightful)
Point of source-based distributions? (Score:5, Insightful)
The latest rage is to say that compiling your stuff is pointless, because the binaries are not that much faster than generic binaries.
Well, I really don't know, but I'm running Gentoo anyways... why?
Perhaps is that I like tinkering, and perhaps it's that I have too much spare time (although only some packages are time consuming, namely Mozilla and OpenOffice), but I find some advantages to source based distros.
After all, it's much easier for developers to provide packages for them. No need to support a zillion architectures. No need to choose ./configure settings (Gentoo's USE works very well). You can also make cvs packages available (that fetch the latest cvs version and compile it).
Even though I still consider Debian's apt (and esp. the quality of packages) superior to Gentoo (just a personal oppinion), Gentoo usually provides more modern stuff (for the reasons outlined before), but I have chosen to give Gentoo some time.
Certainly, the state of Linux distros is getting pretty interesting. Debian and Gentoo have worked perfectly for me. I keep hearing good things about SuSE and Redhat's newest releases.
Perhaps some of the myths about Linux are beginning to fall?
Re:Point of source-based distributions? (Score:3, Informative)
For me it's not about the 2% speedup (well in some cases it's a lot better for certain apps, but I digress...), it's about the ease of source modification.
You see, if I have a RedHat isntallation that uses an RPM of apache, and I decide I need to tweak the apache source a bit, it's a pain in the ass. I suppose if you get really used to using SRPMs it's manageable, sorta.
With Gentoo, it's real easy for me to add a patch to an ebuild and re-install - or to unpack an ebuild, edit the soruce in
And well, a bunch of other things, but I guess the overall point is that for the draw is the power over the system, not the speed of the binaries.
Re:Point of source-based distributions? (Score:2)
I really do like to tinker, I learn a lot from it. Debian is a noble cause, or at least they were, I don't keep up with it much anymore. Gentoo is a bit more bleeding edge, it suits me better. You can tinker and still get things done though. I tinker Gentoo on dev boxes, and deploy the results to Gentoo production boxes that are based on customized portage trees and customized ebuilds.
Re:Point of source-based distributions? (Score:2)
I think the real advantage is being able to get the same package regardless of your library versions. So long as they're source compatible (and library providers generally try to make sure of that), the same source package will install on a huge number of systems which would require different binaries (if it links against 10 shared libraries, and there are 2 binary-but-not-source-incompatible versions of each, that's 1024 different binaries you'd need).
Add one more to the total (Score:1)
This is like watching B.Bonds go for the HR record!
Kyle back at Sorcerer? (Score:1)
Re:Kyle back at Sorcerer? (Score:2)
distros (Score:1, Informative)
How many distro's for Linux there are around. Some spouting optimised for 686 or desktop or server env. If you really are into Linux for the long haul, most of us usually do end up either rebuilding our packages or upgrading to a newer version before the actual vendor does. Be it because the package was fsck-up or because or some vendor favors a package verses another and doesn't look at the big picture of the software overall extending the software to it's fullest capabilities. my current dist is Arch Linux [archlinux.org]. Shameless plug I know, but this dist for the most part meets my current needs.
How can it be any good? (Score:1)
A great option for sysadmins (Score:2, Interesting)
Of course, for slower/older machines it would take a while to perform the install, but based on my experience with SourceMage the install can be done remotely and for the most part unattended.
More on the fork (Score:4, Informative)
Link: http://www.sourcemage.org/
Sorceror was a cult-hit when it first hit the attention of Slashdot (late last year?). Many people raved about it, so I'm happy to see that both prongs on the fork are following the same tradition.
Re:More on the fork (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, Source Mage GNU/Linux is not, technically speaking, a fork of Sorcerer. It is the original. However, after the Lunar fork, the old leader of Sorcerer, Kyle Sallee, blew a fuse over having his distro forked and declared Sorcerer dead. The problem being, of course, Sorcerer, being an open source project, is not only open to forking, it can't be closed down simply because one guy has decided to take his toys and go home. The rest of the Sorcerer team said, "Hey, no it's not!" and continued maintaining the Sorcerer distro. Then Kyle decided to get back into the game, and called his own tree (now covered by a closed source license to prevent forking) Sorcerer. The original Sorcerer team then changed their name to Source Mage GNU/Linux to avoid confusion and emphasize their commitment to an open source licence, and they drew up a debianesqe social contract.
Phew! Anyhow, that's the Readers Digest version of the story. Thus, confusingly, the distro that was called Sorcerer is now called Source Mage, the distro now called Sorcerer is a fork by the old project leader away from the rest of the old Sorcerer team, and the distro called Lunar is the original fork that caused all this confusion to begin with.
And now you have the rest of the story... :)
Re:More on the fork (Score:2)
No CD Burner (Score:2)
TWW
Re:my only question is .. (Score:1)
Why Lunar? (Score:4, Informative)
Mainly because Lunar Linux and Sorcerer GNU/Linux [wox.org] aren't quite as difficult as Gentoo [gentoo.org]. More of the installation chores are automated. For example, while Gentoo expects the user to manually chroot and copy the system over from the CD to the root partition, Lunar and Sorcerer do this automatically. Also, optimisation is broken down into a series of easy-to-grasp choices (the optimisation setting for really fucking fast code is labelled clearly) rather than expecting the user to muck around with CFLAGS and CXXFLAGS.
Best of all, IMHO, it's feasible (though almost time-consuming as installing software through FreeBSD [freebsd.org]'s ports system) to install Lunar on a machine using a dialup. As far as difficulty is concerned, I'd class Lunar between Slackware [slackware.com] and Gentoo. Hope this helps a bit.
--
St. Matthew, Patron Saint of Cheeky Programmers
Re:Why Lunar? (Score:2, Insightful)
1. I learned stuff i didn't know about the workings of my system, and
2. it sets the barrier to entry just slightly higher: In order to run it, you have to be able to follow instructions for long enough to complete the install (basically, all day). This serves to mostly keep whiners off the mailing lists.
I mean, come on. "Gentoo expects the user to manually chroot and copy the system [ hopefully you do this in the opposite order] over from the cd to the root partition". This is such a diffucult task. especially since it's spelled out step by step in the readme. I mean, having to remember a command long enough to hit alt-F1 and type it is just sooo hard.
Re:Why Lunar? (Score:2)
I do make a point to replace:
emerge
with
emerge -f && emerge
Otherwise my dialup link will tend to timeout while kde is compiling and then it won't be there to download the next package. If anyone involved with gentoo development reads this it might be a good hint for the install FAQs.
Re:I'll consider it..... (Score:3, Insightful)
If I have a linux distrobution, and I want to have a decent webserver with great uptime, the cheapest solution is probably not to host my own servers. One can select between a myriad of online hosts that already have the generators, UPS, backup systems, redundancy, and a fat pipe. So, clearly, if they are not running their own distro to serve web pages, I don't think it's a good deal.
While it may be expected of large companies to 'prove themselves', in a situation like this it would likely just cost more and deter from actually improving the distro and paying the workers.
Re:I'll consider it..... (Score:1)
Re:I'll consider it..... (Score:1)
Yeah, but, it doesn't look like they're running a professional organization here, yet. If I making a distro with a few friends or other interested people (and their list of contributors if I recall was under 10 people....but the page is
Re:I'll consider it..... (Score:2)
Ever considered that they might be running on some dedicated server physically far away on which it's not worth the time to reinstall?
Re:I'll consider it..... (Score:2)
Re:source based distros make no sense (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:source based distros make no sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Here are two (of I'm sure many more reasons)
If you look at the ISOs that you get from Red Hat for example, they are for i386 arhcitectures. This is a least common denominator approach. It will run on any 386 or better processor. Those with a P4 will not get to utilize P4 specific enhancements.
The other reason I like a source based distro like Gentoo is that I can install only those apps that I want and configure and compile in the options I want. I don't have to rely on the makers of a bloated distribution to make those choices for me. They are shooting to please the majority of people with a single release.
The full distributions like Red Hat and Mandrake are quick and easy installs and great for probably the majority of users BUT if you want to try a fully and easily customizable and optimized distro, try a source based one.
Plus emerge rocks
Joe
Benchmarks? (Score:5, Interesting)
I keep hearing about these enhancements, etc, from Gentoo people, but are there any NUMBERS to back this up? Are there any tools have shown a definite decrease in application latency (especially in X) ? Will my kernel compile faster? Will Vorbis encode noticably quicker? WHERE'S THE BEEF??!?
Re:Benchmarks? (Score:2)
Re:Benchmarks? (Score:2, Insightful)
seriously though, things like this should be measurable in benches.. turn off hw accel while benching if you don't want it to interfere then..
and it's pretty absurd to say that you can't measure it but you can feel it, you'd think computer bench would notice the difference before eye.
(disclaimer-- i don't own a honda)
Re:Benchmarks? (Score:2)
But Gentoo on a Desktop feels a lot faster since it uses some kernel patches which make the proccess a lot better responsive (preemtp ?? forgot the name). I think this is what you feel right away.
Also what other allreaddy said and i can back up it starts application faster.
I have installed Gentoo on a P150 with 64MB and before that it ran slackware and latest X, but mozilla was too slow to use allthough it used XFCE as a desktop, now after 4x48 hours compiling it runs still slow, but faster
Re:Benchmarks? (Score:2)
More probably just a customized kernel vs a stock kernel. Or your friend has more hardware (RAID, etc.) that needs to be initialized by the BIOS before booting. Compare a "ps aux" between both computers, and you'll probably see a lot more processes on his computer than on yours.
Re:source based distros make no sense (Score:1)
There is quite a noticable difference in the bigger packages like KDE, Gnome, X, etc. just because it is optimized for your hardware.
Agreed, it more than most people want to do, but there really is a difference. The question is whether a noticable speed increase is worth it. TO most it simply is not. (Espcially on supder-duper fast modern hardware).
Re:source based distros make no sense (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:source based distros make no sense (Score:2)
Too bad the hard drive is utter shit.
Re:source based distros make no sense (Score:5, Insightful)
The crux of your argument is that source distros don't realize enough speed benefit to make it worth your while. Be that as it may, people use them for reasons other than speed: increased understanding, sheer boredom, quite granular customization, and a desire to be closer to the internals of their operating system. You may not care about these things either, but why be upset that others do.
It harms you in no way that people use source distros. You should be happy that people are enjoying free software and possible learning a lot.
-A
Re:source based distros make no sense (Score:5, Insightful)
The 'two major CPU manufacurers' are not the only ones that matter, for one. They hardly make a difference between each other. There is Sparc, Mips, PPC, Alpha, and other architectures. Mostly source based distributions who don't rely on paying to support what they allow can more easily adapt to many different platforms, not just 'AMD or Intel'.
Secondly, it isn't merely about getting things installed on your system or squeezing every last optimization in, it is about installing it the way you want it. Binary packages are compiled with certain #defines and linked against libraries of other packages which you may not care about. For example, mozilla compiled against gtk or gtk2. xchat with or without Gnome support, gaim with or without gnome support. Freetype with or without the patent infringing bytecode interpreter. With binary distributions, they are forced to make decisions about what the best way to proceed is, and most often the answer is to compile with support for everything and require everything as a prerequisite, even if the source only optionally supports another piece of software. With Gentoo, I define USE flags and emerge, and it figures out dependencies on the fly and passes the right options to configure and applies the right patches to get the featureset I want, with as little of the optional cruft as possible.
Related to the previous point, the performance boost is not as negligible as you would think. First off, the compiler optimizations and omitting debug code (useful for support and development, so often included) do help significantly on their own. Add to this that packages aren't carrying baggage from other unwanted and unused packages unnecessarily. This also saves on drive space and, more importantly, memory.
Sure, installing goes from being measured in minutes/hours to hours/days depending on what you need, but the process requires little intervention and once started, you can walk away and do other things. The time spent running these compiles is the price to pay for very good benefits.
Of course, your post has troll written all over it, but it in part reflects some real concerns people have about source based distributions, so I think it is worthy of a response..
Re:source based distros make no sense (Score:2, Insightful)
They make great sense when you have everything distributed from one core CVS tree, thus any snapshot of the tree will give you a choerent OS (if it is properly managed that is). That's the FreeBSD method, and IMHO it's fantastic. You shouldn't ever get a kernel & userland that are out of synch with each other. Given how many Linux distributions are packages taken blindly from all over and then duct-taped together I think this is a step in the right direction. Centralized control enforces coherency.
Now you gotta break the users out of "Linux freak mode" where they read freshmeat every day and upgrade individual items by hand simply to have the latest versions. "You'll get the new kernel when the core group says it's ready and not before!"
I use FreeBSD for this reason. Linux got to be a headache with multiple independent development projects moving at breakneck speeds such that it was impossible to build a coherent system at times. I gave up with RedHat 5 and haven't looked back. I don't need the latest version of everything. What I need is a reasonably recent working version. I'll let the FreeBSD core team work out all the integration headaches and I'll take the OS as a cohesive unit as opposed to managing all that stuff by hand. You gotta love "cvs update; make buildworld; make buildkernel; make installkernel; make installworld"
Re:source based distros make no sense (Score:1)
Re:source based distros make no sense (Score:2, Informative)
# emerge rsync
To install GNOME:
# emerge gnome
To update all of your packages to new versions:
# emerge -u world
To remove all of the *old* versions of the packages updated by the last command, since they are protected until "cleaned" out:
# emerge -c world
To forcibly remove a package:
# emerge -C $PACKAGE_NAME
To "pretend" you're running a given command:
# emerge -p$ADDITIONAL_FLAGS $PACKAGE_NAME
**
There are far too many conveniences to list them all so far as emerge goes, but those are just a few. Other conveniences:
The portage system (emerge, ebuild, etc.), when installing files to
Updating your default runlevel is amazingly easy:
# rc-update del telnetd default
# rc-update add sshd default
Each rc-script has a "dependency" function which relates it to other rc-scripts (for instance, "checkroot" must run *before* all other rc-scripts; or the mail server courier must run *after* all its components).
The default Gentoo kernel is based off the Alan Cox tree, and thus includes support for things like xfs, jfs, grsecurity, etc. Very convenient, and I have to say that xfs rocks.
The list of cool features like these just goes on and on...if you go to the Gentoo website there'll be plenty of info there.
I'm still a fan of FreeBSD, but I have to say that Gentoo's
Re:source based distros make no sense (Score:2, Informative)
Updating software is a matter of changing the version number in a small file(the source location usually includes $VERSION). Changing from stable to unstable development versions is quite easy--modify the version number. Keeping the source available uncompressed or keeping the object files in case you update frequently are command line options.
If you know how to code, problems are easier to fix in a source distro than a binary(if not, though, they are more difficult).
Then there are optional dependencies. You don't need to download different RPMs if you can do without PHP's ability to create image on the fly.
In many cases, a source is a smaller download than a binary(exceptions being the linux kernel and Mozilla).
Re:source based distros make no sense (Score:4, Interesting)
On the contrary, under gentoo you can have the latest and greatest software without waiting for the next version. Everything just works and handled by package management. The only time you need to compile things without emerge is when the software you want is not yet available in gentoo portage.
Re:source based distros make no sense (Score:2, Informative)
I would just like to add that in my experience if you must install something that is not handled by portage, the best way to do it is to write an ebuild for the software in question. After the first time you do it it only takes 10 minutes to produce an ebuild for most standard (ie. uses AutoConf/Make) compile processes.
The advantage of doing this is that your package will then be maintained by portage for you, and provided you specify it's dependencies correctly portage will prevent them from being removed and killing your custom installed software.
Cheers,
Andy
Re:source based distros make no sense (Score:2, Insightful)
This is the main reason, for me at least, for using Gentoo. After using RedHat and Mandrake for several years, this is the first time I have ALL my apps working properly, and I'm actually USING my system (not just f'n around with it). The dependency management and package installation just works.
Why not?? (Score:2)
The real question should be, why does Slashdot put dinky distros on the from page?
Re:Ok... (Score:1)
Re:Yet Another Pointless Linux Distribution (Score:1)
I doubt these tiny little distros will have any impact one way or the other with Billy G. affairs...
Cheers
DT
Re:Yet Another Pointless Linux Distribution (Score:2, Informative)
There were reasons for the fork of Sorcerer. See this page [sourcemage.org] on the Source Mage site. But no, last I looked Lunar Linux wasn't very clear about these reasons. People should be required to have a good reason for making a new Linux distribution.
If people were required to have a good reason to start OSS projects, we would never have got Linux in the first place. I won't even bother responding to the rest of your argument.
Re:What exactly IS Lunar Linux all about? (Score:2, Informative)
I personally see the future of Lunar linux going towards an easy to install, easy to configure source distribution (the built from source at install kind). I do not know how all the developers view the future of Lunar however.
But, as far as getting a base system up and running, Lunar is much easier for newer linux users than Gentoo.
Re:What exactly IS Lunar Linux all about? (Score:2)
*How many ways are there to interpret this?
Let's see. There's "we built the binaries from source, you can't see it", "source is available", "source is installed with binaries", "binaries built with the source at install" and "no binaries, no tools, just the source". That's what, 5 possible ways to interpret it?
I'd guess they're in the second-to-last category, although when I did run linux I always wondered why there wasn't a distro with an install option that actually built the to-be-installed binaries from source at install time, or at least the kernel. It would have solved *some* of the problems of trying to build a universal kernel that supported everything out of the box.
Actually... (Score:2)
At least compared to the other choice - Gentoo linux, which has a userbase the talks to each other on the forums (imagine!) and they update much more frequently than all the Sorceror distros.
My thought when I read this was: they JUST made 1.0? What took them so long?
Re:Mozilla (Score:2)
For being involved in a translation of Mozilla, let me tell you this: Mozilla 1.0.1 and 1.1 have a lot in common over 1.0, but there's more features in 1.1. And if you really want the latest, go get 1.2a (although it's an alpha rather than a release).
Re:Intelligent discussion of the source distros (Score:2, Interesting)
which compares the various packages that each distro includes.
Now, personally I use Source Mage, so I am biased towards it. I have found though that often looking at the scripts on Gentoo that they seem many times larger than ours, and sometimes when looking at them, I often wonder what the person who wrote that script was thinking. Now granted, some of the more complicated packages do have more complicated scripts. But a lot of them only contain the very basic info of where to download from, version number, name, and a couple other fields, which come to about 10 - 15 lines total. Which I found easier to figure out my first time how to write the script. I think my first one took me only 30 minutes. After that it was much easier. An quick script now, can take about 3 - 5 minutes to create.
I just find the scripts behind the packages easier to follow in SM than in Gentoo. I also like the way that when you do an update in SM that it checks afterwards it checks to make sure all the packages still work. For example, if you do an update of libpng, which is a dependency of several apps, SM and Lunar as well will check to make sure that those apps still work, and if not will recompile them to use the updated library. Gentoo will only do that if it is a setting in the 'ebuild' file. for both SM and Lunar, it's built into the main scripting, and doesn't have to be part of the 'module' or 'spell' which are the equivalents to the ebuild.
Gentoo from my understanding is not as cutting edge as a whole as SM. For example, the main release of grub is version 0.90, but they have also managed to get the splashimage patch of grub to work. Ours is version 0.92, and the patches we could not get to work with that version, and yes we were using the patches designed for grub 0.92. So this can be seen as both good and bad. Good in the fact they have managed to get a feature to work we have not, bad in the fact they are a couple versions behind. So in that it's up to the end user which they prefer.
One big advantage to Gentoo, has to do with it's maturity. The fact that it has been around so much longer than the others.
A disadvantage I heard about from a guy who claimed to use Gentoo and was wondering about a reason to change to lunar was that gentoo doesn't have an installer, and that you have to do a lot of chrooting to do the initial install. SM, Lunar, and Sorcerer all have installers which are fairly easy to use.
I hope this helps. I tried to be rational about it, and I hope I got all my information on Gentoo correct.
Use whichever one you like. I prefer Source Mage [sourcemage.org], but that is me.
As for the development team on Lunar, congradulations.
Re:Intelligent discussion of the source distros (Score:2)
Well, it's one chroot, I don't know if that's a lot. You chroot from the boot CD into the untarred base install on your harddrive and do the rest from there. If you have to abort the install (boot into Windoze for a little Counter-Strike or so) you basically boot off the CD again, chroot in and continue where you left off. You don't have that extra layer of fluff between yourself and the bare metal and I guess that can be intimidating, but as long as there aren't any really good UI utils for running stuff like ifconfig (Winipcfg) or fdisk (HDToolbox or PartitionMagic) I think of it as good teaching. You tell people that this is how to set the most common settings for your Ethernet card so if they ever have to change it again, they have some kind of idea what's involved.
It's no big deal to me. When I first looked at Gentoo and the install docs I almost ran for cover, but if you have the ability to read and write it's basically a no-brainer. I agree that it could be scripted to work completely automatically for maybe 90% of the users since you just follow the doc and type in what it says, but the remaining 10% (multibooting, exotic hardware and so on) wouuld be SOL.