Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Debian

LinuxOrbit Looks At Libranet GNU/Linux 2.7 163

Posted by timothy from the polished-goodies dept.
GonzoJohn writes "Linux Orbit has reviewed Libranet GNU/Linux 2.7: Other Linux distribution companies have tried to create commercial Linux products based on Debian GNU/Linux, but few have achieved long term success. Progeny Linux comes to mind as a commercial Linux distribution company whose Linux product met with good reviews, but couldn't remain in business. Libranet is a rare exception to this rule. Libranet GNU/Linux has been around quite a while and continues to build a devoted Linux user base on a commercial product based on Debian GNU/Linux. With their most recent release of Libranet GNU/Linux 2.7, Libranet continues to improve on an already solid Linux distribution."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

LinuxOrbit Looks At Libranet GNU/Linux 2.7 More

LinuxOrbit Looks At Libranet GNU/Linux 2.7

Comments Filter:

  • slackware (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 03, 2002 @02:26PM (#4382291)
    The only Linux distro I would run on a server is Slackware because it is the least performance hungry and most stable distro out there and I have used almost everything. Debian is great on workstation, but not servers because its just a bit more resource hungry then Slack, but it is easier to use for common tasks! Frankly all my servers run BSD except for database boxes for which nothing beats Solaris with Oracle running on top, but most firms and people cant afford Sun Servers so they should run BSD for things like Apache and MySQl. Now you can comment away.

    • Re:slackware (Score:3, Informative)

      by weierophinney ( 410749 )
      I can't comment on BSD, but I can comment on Slack vs. Debian.

      I've used Mandrake, Slack, and Debian for my server. Mandrake almost maxed out my 2GB harddrive (/home was a separate 3GB harddrive, and was used for all data), Slack had it at approximately 53% disk usage, Debian currently has it at 37% usage. In addition, I noticed significantly better performance immediately under Debian, and much better stability (I had something like 5 kernel panics over the course of 6 months under Slack, none so far in 8 months under Debian). Security updates are also much easier to perform on Debian (a crontab entry to do updates from security.debian.org can do them unassisted in most cases). I liked Slack... but maintaining it was too non-trivial to justify my time.

      • Re:slackware (Score:5, Informative)

        by schon ( 31600 ) on Thursday October 03, 2002 @03:05PM (#4382584)
        I had something like 5 kernel panics over the course of 6 months under Slack, none so far in 8 months under Debian

        What did you change?

        I've been running Slackware for 5 years (on a couple of dozen servers, and on my home and work desktops and laptop), and have never _once_ had a kernel panic, in any version (from 3.0, up to and including Slack 8.1)

        Performance was fine too - I don't know what you mean by "significantly better performance", perforance doing what?

        crontab entry to do updates from security.debian.org can do them unassisted

        You've never run an important box then, because no sysadmin worth his salt would ever trust something as critical as security updates to an automated process. You manually test each update on an offline machine to make sure nothing breaks (like maybe the config file changed?), then deploy it on the live machines. Trusting software install to a script is just asking for trouble.
        • >>crontab entry to do updates from security.debian.org can do them unassisted >You've never run an important box then, because no sysadmin worth his salt would ever trust something as critical as security updates to an automated process.

          With the stable distribution, using apt-get upgrade, you'll probably never get screwed up doing this. It's STABLE, which means that things don't change. You're still right about the wisdom of testing, but you're very unlikely to get burned on anything with stable.

    • What a load of crap - the distro is only as resource hungry as the apps YOU chose to run on it or install. Unless you are talking about the kernel, in which case just compile a new one. It doesn't matter which distro you run, just how you configure it. I've seen plenty of distro's pass 200 days uptime easy, and have a Mandrake machine with over 400 days uptime right now, which is a router,accounting,firewall,QoS machine routing multiple T1's.

  • Problem with commercial Debian (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dionysus ( 12737 ) on Thursday October 03, 2002 @02:27PM (#4382295) Homepage
    I think the problem with commercial Debian derived distributions is that there are no 'guaranteed' future income. Debian makes it so damn easy to upgrade.

    When I used RedHat, I always bought a CD for each upgrade (from 5.0 to 5.1, to 5.2, to 6.0 etc). The reason: upgrading meant manually download individual packages and installing them in the right order. When I recently upgraded from Debian 2.2 to 3.0, all I had to do was change the sources.list, do apt-get update, and apt-get dist-ugprade. All dependencies and installation order was taken care of.

    With RedHat (and I suspect other RPM based distributions), they were 'guaranteed' money from me, since I wanted to upgrade. With Debian based distribution, I no longer feel the need to buy a CD to keep current (even on dialup).

    • Corel (Score:1)

      by qurob ( 543434 )

      Corel's Linux was based on Debian, was it not?

      It didn't get them anywhere....not to say it's Debians fault. It was a decent product, however.

      • No it wasn't. It was an insecure piece of shit, with a few nifty closed-source add-ons to make it unique.
    • When I used RedHat, I always bought a CD for each upgrade (from 5.0 to 5.1, to 5.2, to 6.0 etc). The reason: upgrading meant manually download individual packages and installing them in the right order.
      But wouldn't you agree that this makes Debian a better distro for people who want to learn any kind of serious syadmin chops vs. something like Red Hat?

      Speaking as somebody who upgraded a production Red Hat 4.2 box to glibc2 by hand, I still cringe every time I overhear somebody asking for help with their Linux problems, and the first thing out of the "guru's" mouth is, "Which version of Linux are you using?" Not kernel version, not software versions -- Linux version. And of course they mean which version of Red Hat is installed.

      To me, Red Hat version numbers are almost completely meaningless -- unless you're not actually using your box.

      • But wouldn't you agree that this makes Debian a better distro for people who want to learn any kind of serious syadmin chops vs. something like Red Hat?

        I think he was trying to imply that while this makes Debian a better distro for most people, it causes problems for people trying to sell it. If it's easy to update a system via apt-get or whatever method that OS uses, even to new versions of the distro, then the users will probably not go out and buy the box for the new version.
      • I still cringe every time I overhear somebody asking for help with their Linux problems, and the first thing out of the "guru's" mouth is, "Which version of Linux are you using?" Not kernel version, not software versions -- Linux version. And of course they mean which version of Red Hat is installed.

        I don't see why that's such a problem. Various distros have corresponding libaries/kernels, although the next question should be "have you kept up with the updates?". And the user (probably) knows what distro they're running whereas they (probably) don't have the other information offhand; your guru may be talking userspeak to keep from scaring them off or to get an immediate answer. Finally, sometimes it actually helps to know the distro ("where are the init scripts located", etc.)

        OTOH if the guru/sysadmin has direct control over that box, he should be able to get in remotely and find out the necessary bits himself. Why trust the user's answers?

        Of course the best question in this situation is "what was your username again?" :)

        • They should be asking "What distro are you using?" and possibly "What version of that distro?", or even "What version of RedHat are you using?" iff they can safely assume they are running RedHat. But they should never say 'Linux' when they mean the distro.
      • I still cringe every time I overhear somebody asking for help with their Linux problems, and the first thing out of the "guru's" mouth is, "Which version of Linux are you using?" Not kernel version, not software versions -- Linux version.
        And what is the problem with this? Wouldn't a perfectly good answer be "I am using Red Hat 7.2" or "I use Debian GNU/Linux 2.2 (`potato')". These are "versions of Linux", yeah, they are "distributions", but they are versions too. There are lots of versions out there, and the "guru" should certainly find out what it is that they are helping with.
        • The problem is, the corrept answer to that question would be "2.2.19" or "2.4.19-ac3", or "2.5.9".

          Red Hat is not a version of Linux, Linux is a kernel. Libranet is a distribution. GNU is the OS. Maybe a guru would literally ask "Which version of Linux are you using?", but only the the query was directed at a fairly knowledgable Linux geek who had compiled their own kernel, if not rolled thier own installation. Being that this thread in in a story about a Commercial distribution of GNU (Libranet GNU/Linux that is) it is probably safe to assume that the user is a "luser" who didn't roll their own.

          It could even acceptable to ask "what system", as in what Operating System are you using... even though this may be offensive to myopic so-called "Linux" fanatics, it would be valid and not totally incorrect. Red Hat and Libranet both distribute different variations of the GNU OS, so you might say "I am using Red Hat 7.2" as your OS. At least you aren't saying you use "Linux 7.2"
    • Two words: Gentoo Linux. Two more word: emerge rocks! :)
      • emerge: package `rocks!' not found.
        • $ apt-get install rocks
          Reading Package Lists... Done
          Building Dependency Tree... Done
          The following NEW packages will be installed:
          rocks
          • if only i had mod points for you, however
            rocks looks like it could rock too:

            $ apt-get install rocks
            Reading Package Lists... Done
            Building Dependency Tree... Done
            The following NEW packages will be installed:
            rocks
            0 packages upgraded, 1 newly installed, 0 to remove and 45 not upgraded.
            Need to get 74.3kB of archives. After unpacking 250kB will be used.
            0% [Connecting to wwwcache.bangor.ac.uk]
            excalibur:~# apt-cache show rocks
            Package: rocks
            Priority: optional
            Section: net
            Installed-Size: 244
            Maintainer: Guus Sliepen
            Architecture: i386
            Version: 2.4-2
            Depends: libc6 (>= 2.2.5-13), libssl0.9.6
            Filename: pool/main/r/rocks/rocks_2.4-2_i386.deb
            Size: 74260
            MD5sum: eea2f47e02ea6d72d17fe664d9100c27
            Description: Make network sockets reliable in a transparent way
            Rocks protect sockets-based applications from network failures, particularly
            failures common to mobile computing, including:
            .
            - Link failures (e.g., unexpected modem disconnection);
            - IP address changes (e.g., laptop movement, DHCP lease expiry);
            - Extended periods of disconnection (e.g., laptop suspension).
            .
            Rock-enabled programs continue to run after any of these events; their broken
            connections recover automatically, without loss of in-flight data, when
            connectivity returns. Rocks work transparently with most applications,
            including SSH clients, X window applications, and network service daemons.

            $

            now I have an isp that disconns u after 2 hours this looks like a cool package!
    • With RedHat (and I suspect other RPM based distributions), they were 'guaranteed' money from me, since I wanted to upgrade.

      Mandrake (an RPM based distribution) has urpmi, at the simplest level an apt-get for RPM. If I want to upgrade my whole system, I do:

      urpmi.update -a
      urpmi --auto-select

      I can also just update a single package by doing urpmi foopackage; urpmi will even figure out the deps for me and download the packages. This is where Mandrake beats out RedHat, imho (Please Don't Flame Me!). But now I hear RedHat has such a feature... anyone?
    • I used RedHat up until a month ago when I had to switch to Win2k for a apecific program. I upgraded from RH7.0 - RH7.3 using apt-rpm. When i switch back, I'll be able to upgrade to 8.0 with the same old CD's.

  • These Names Suck (Score:5, Funny)

    by Pave Low ( 566880 ) on Thursday October 03, 2002 @02:30PM (#4382327) Journal
    Libranet GNU/Linux? Can anyone seriously say this without getting tongue-tied or feeling stupid?

    Seriously, open source software just does not name their products well. Who in God's Green Earth this is a good name for their product? It's not sexy or cool, and is too convoluted for such a simple product, which is Linux.

    And the number of times this articles says GNU/Linux is more than enough to make me nauseous.

    • Re:These Names Suck (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Otter ( 3800 )
      And the number of times this articles says GNU/Linux is more than enough to make me nauseous.

      What I'm wondering is why the submitter thought that six "GNU/Linux"'s were necessary, while another six "Linux"'s were allowed to slip through. (Not counting the "Linux Orbit"s and "Progeny Linux".)

    • This way we'll get RMS off our backs (it has all leters of GNU in it) and we don't have to change the way we pronounce it.

  • New Users, Huh? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Mandi Walls ( 6721 ) on Thursday October 03, 2002 @02:32PM (#4382340) Homepage Journal
    (I'll try to leave my usual Debian-disparaging comments out of here. You can check my past comments for some of those)

    But I will say the Libranet GNU/Linux 2.7 does NOT use X Windows for the graphic installation routine. Instead, Libranet uses easy to follow ncurses-based text menus for its install method is disturbing. After having walked 17 new-to-UNIX students through an ncurses-based ftp install of Red Hat, I will tell you that ncurses is not the way to go for new users.

    Why? Because there is NO work-alike in the Windows world. What do I mean by that? Well, occasionally, you'll end up with a new-to-UNIX user who remembers DOS, or has used a terminal-based app before at work. What have they probably never seen before? ncurses. You are throwing them right into the fire, and giving them nothing that looks familiar to work with.

    Talk about pain. And misunderstanding. And confusion about what the icons really represent and the cursor-flow mechanisms.

    GUI install is where it's at. It's the best way to get a new-to-UNIX person onto a UNIX-alike system from install on, because you're building on something they are already familiar with - clicky clicky buttons and menus.

    But you can ignore me. I just teach this stuff. :)

    --mandi

    • WRONG! (Score:3, Informative)

      by metalhed77 ( 250273 )
      The menu paradigm in the GUI world was taken from that of NCURSES. All you need to know is TAB, Arrow Keys, Spacebar, and Enter. The menus usually have some sort of message like 'Use the tab key to move between fields' and sometimes the same for the Enter and Spacebar keys.

      Ncurses is fine, it takes literally one paragraph for someone to learn how to use it, and most pick it up intuitively. If you're going to run a distro like libranet and you can't figure out NCURSES then you'll suck a lot when it boots up too. There's a reason mandrake and lindows exist
      • It doesn't matter if it only takes one paragraph to learn how to use it. It wouldn't matter if it only took one *word* to learn how to use it, people refuse point blank to ever RTFM. No one will ever do it. People designing computer interfaces just have to accept that - just like anyone in any other branch of design.

        ncurses was fine (and great) when it was the only way to get things done (e.g. all those ncurses-style DOS installers), because every computer user at the time knew how to use it. But this kind of interface is dead, most computer users need a mouse.

        Sure it has its uses - the ncurses linux config is handy if you don't have a working X-Windows system, but you wouldn't (honestly now) use it if X was working and you could use the X based linux config.

        I don't mind ncurses myself, because I have experience with it, but you cannot say it is nearly as easy to use for someone who has only used Windows/MacOS.

    • Re:New Users, Huh? (Score:2, Interesting)

      by iggymanz ( 596061 )
      nonsense, remember the ncurses-like installs of the later versions of DOS? GUI assumes you have proper driver for graphics card and mouse, not always a good assumption given space limits of install media.
    • Intuition is in the eye of the beholder. Even the nipple is not intuitive (it uses two reflexes that don't always work together.)

      I don't know what age of people you teach, but the people I run into, where I teach, are half Windows only. The older people are more familliar with DOS and this kind of interface.

      I'll give you, in the future GUIs will be more prevalent, so they should move to GUI in the long run. Even there, however, you have to account for the tradeoff: ease of video card config vs. ease of gui installer.

      The students I see have barely heard of Linux, it's just some buzzword. What's worse, they know enought not to waste resources on a buzzword,so they want to install it on a 386 out of the 80's.
      They don't realize how hard that can be.

      My point? The ncurses can be useful on older machines that aren't going to have easy video card config. More importantly (and more relavent) this kind of interface is MORE fammiliar for older students.

    • Re:New Users, Huh? (Score:2, Redundant)

      by JLester ( 9518 )
      I agree. We have users call the help desk pretty often when they have to force a reboot of their Windows machine. It of course runs scandisk while booting and then asks them what to do if it finds problems. They are very puzzled when their mouse doesn't seem to do anything (you have to use the arrow keys to select the options). Text-based interfaces just aren't intuitive to many modern users.

      Jason
    • there is NO work-alike in the Windows world

      Um...maybe I'm the only one here who has ever installed NT??? I mean...it's not like the fist half of ANY NT based install startes out with an ASCII interface that some people find even harder to use than ncurses.

      Well, occasionally, you'll end up with a new-to-UNIX user who remembers DOS, or has used a terminal-based app before at work. What have they probably never seen before? ncurses

      As others have mentioned, this type of interface was not only prevelent during the DOS days, but many of these interfaces weren't as easy or intuitive as ncurses. When I finaly made the switch to linux (about 5 years ago), I had no problems with the install interface. Now granted I might be a rareity, but if I can walk new users through it all the time, and they don't complain...then from what I have seen, your argument is not very valid. Of course the others are right, it's also nice to have access to an install interface that is not video driver dependant.

      Ok, ncurses isn't as flashy as a GUI, so maybe we start out with some simple ncurses stuff untill we can get X11 installed and running a svga xserver to compleate the installation...just a thought, but it should be feasible...

      As for your regular Debian bashing...I can't imagine why you would want to bash Debian. True the install system isn't as easy as Redhat, but with 3.0 they have made a lot of improvements. Debian is IMHO easily the most stable distro out there. Even Debian's Sid (unstable) is fairly rock solid in my experiance. For those less daring, the stable distro simply does not break. Granted you won't be running the latest and greatest versions of software, but with the stability, simplicity of package management, the ease of security patching (just proper lines in your sources.list and an addition of a cron job), and the ton of pre-packaged software availible...it's a damn good system. If stability is a primary concern, I can't think of a better distro. After all...what is one of the biggest complaints of windows people? "It crashes all the time"...

      I teach this stuff too...just my $0.02

    • The initial interface of the Windows 2000 installer bears a strong resemblance to ncurses. I think it's even still there with XP. The long and short of it is, if users want to install any OS (as opposed to just using it) they'll probably have to learn something new, GUI or no.
    • Why? Because there is NO work-alike in the Windows world. What do I mean by that? Well, occasionally, you'll end up with a new-to-UNIX user who remembers DOS, or has used a terminal-based app before at work. What have they probably never seen before? ncurses. You are throwing them right into the fire, and giving them nothing that looks familiar to work with.

      Have you bothered looking at your BIOS configuration screen lately? That's pretty similar, and I think many people have seen that screen on their windows based pc.

      I don't mean that people who have never configured their BIOS should also not install a new OS, but I'm just giving a counter-example that proves your statement was wrong. Make whatever logical conclusion you want from it.
    • So you've never installed Winnt 3.1/3.5/4.0/Win2K/XP? The first portion of the install for these is text based. So, anyone who has installed any version of Winnt should be comfortable with the installation interface for Debian, Libranet and any other distribution with an ncurses based text install.

      Gui is not where it is at, especially if you want to install a headless server. But you can ignore me. I just teach network administrators how to use this stuff.

    • I disagree that GUI install is where it's at, unless you are teaching somebody who already has some experience using a desktop computer productively. To somebody who has never used a computer, avoiding the mouse is a good thing. Have you ever tried to teach a "newbie" over the age of 45 how to simulaneously click the proper button, while the cursor still pointing at the proper icon? I highly doubt it.

      NCurses is great for basic installation... the focus doesn't change while you are trying to punch the enter key. Anybody who has used a computer before, even an utterly mouse dependant Mac OS 6.x user, can learn to use "TAB, up, down and enter" in under five minutes in a classroom setting. Try that multibutton mouse with someone whos hand-eye coordination has declined since the dawn of the PC era, even one-on-one. I dare you.

      BTW, it seems likely you haven't used an NCURSES based Installation like Debian/Libranet. There are no "Icons" to be confused about, just highlighted words and phrases. As for the confusion over flow, explain the whole "top to bottom" flow that most civilizations active for the past two milleniums have been using, let them watch the highlight rotate around as they press the tab key (harmlessly) about twenty times, and they usually get the hang of it. Engourage them to read the phrases on the screen, and point out the significant items that they will need to actually look at. On a Debian derived system, this should almost always be the topmost item in the list, right in the upper-middle portion of the screen. You don't even have to clean out the grimy mouse ball which won't track on the filthy desk, which has no room because it is cluttered with papers and textbooks!

      Maybe you aren't leveraging the average computer user's Win/Mac experience, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing. In fact, it is the perfect opportunity for some re-education... don't press ctrl-alt-del if something doesn't look right... don't necessarily shutdown or reboot multiple times daily... don't eject a floppy disk without warning the system... don't expect to run the cutesy little "dancing elves" attachments some friend sent from their Windows computer... I'm sure you have plenty you could append to this list as a computer teacher.

  • *chuckle* (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Reading that long winded pro-Libranet story header, one has to think of Calvin and Hobbes:

    'You know, I'm not sure if I'm reading an advertisment, a review or the product itself' ;-)
  • Libranet seems like a good idea, but to expensive for me. I cant waste my money on a linux distro at the moment, because 9 times out of 10 I wont like something about it and I will go try another free distro. Im very picky about my computer, it has to do what I want, and if I buy a product and its nothing I expected I will be really mad. Why pay for this when you can grab Gentoo linux and build a better system for free? Yeah it might take alittle longer but who cares, Its a hobbie isnt it? Oh well Ill stick with Gentoo linux they are the only distro currently that has Phoenix 0.2 running perfectly with Gtk2!
    • Yeah it might take alittle longer but who cares, Its a hobbie isnt it?

      Um... no. It's a job. It used to be a hobby 'till I started getting paid ;-)

    • Why pay for this when you can grab Gentoo linux and build a better system for free? Yeah it might take alittle longer but who cares, Its a hobbie isnt it?

      Hey, I put Gentoo on my home box and liked it so well I put it on my work machine. It only takes longer to do the initial install. After that, updates are a piece of cake. I find Gentoo to be the easiest distro to administer that I've ever used. I even think it's nicer than FreeBSD.
  • www.progeny.com

    for those of you who don't know it is a commercial company founded by the original creator of linux and is based in indianapolis

    eventhough it appears that they are no longer releasing their own distribution just modifying debian they are certainly NOT out of business

  • GNU (Score:4, Funny)

    by Glanz ( 306204 ) on Thursday October 03, 2002 @02:39PM (#4382407)
    GNUness gracious! Gnuys! I'm GNUnna try it right GNUow.
    • Chaos is freedom

      GNU/Freedom!

      • GNU GNOW it!!!!

        I am Chaos.
        I am the substance from which
        your artists and scientists build rhythms.

        I am the spirit with which
        your children and clowns
        laugh in happy anarchy.

        I am Chaos.
        I am alive, and tell you
        that you are free.

        -Eris, Goddess of Chaos, Discord, and Confusion...

  • wireless setup (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I've used Libranet and loved it. For a desktop, it was more user friendly than Redhat, and even Mandrake.

    My only bitch is the lack of GUI wireless PCMCIA card setup, which is present in Mandrake, Xandros, etc. In MS Windows, you plug it in and it works. In linux, it's not that simple at all.

  • How is it better than plain Debian? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Ian Bicking ( 980 ) <(moc.ydutsroloc) (ta) (bnai)> on Thursday October 03, 2002 @02:48PM (#4382480) Homepage
    I read the review, and it wasn't clear to me how this was significantly better than plain Debian. It seems to have a better installer -- and that's nice, but it's just not enough to make another distro worth it. They mentioned an admin tool, but again... that's just one tool (but if it was all-encompassing, that would be cool, but I didn't get that impression).

    Sure, there's lots of apps -- but that's because it's Debian. Why is it really better?

    • Basically this distro's bread and butter are that it's debian with all the current packages one might want while running debian. XFree 4.2, kde 3 etc, and while I know these are avalible from unsupported apt sources not everyone who runs debian might know this or care to risk the stability and security of their system. I have no clue how stable or secure libranet is but I'm just pointing out some possible concerns. For instance my laptop requires that I have XFree 4.2.x which debian doesnt provide unless you want to install branden's not-ready-for-prime-time packages, it just makes using debian a tiny bit more difficult. That said I'm glad libranet is around it cant hurt to have a little healthy competition.
    • Easier installation: I was never able to install Debian Potato, but I was able to install Libranet 1.9 (based on Potato) with little trouble.

      The admin tool Xadminmenu makes life easier. It is pretty much all-encompassing, if you're an average joe. It lets you do pretty much everything you need including installing a new kernel with just a couple of clicks.

      The Libranet community can be another reason to go with Libranet. It's much smaller than Debian's community which makes it easier to develop relationships with people. Perhaps, it's more newbie friendly, but I don't have much experience with the Debian community.

      You may also wanna check out my older comments on Libranet.
    • The real reason that it's worth it is that it comes with a few extras right off the bat... (gnome2, kde3, etc)... The admin tools are very well done. Libranet also has very good technical support which helps if you run into problems. If you are really poor it might just be best to use debian, but time is money and Libranet will save you time...
    • Libranet is Debian with KDE 3.03 and a few other newer packages (see Libranet [distrowatch.com]) Libranet tends to have newer packages than the current stable. Due to some delays that the KDE maintainers have put on the KDE waiting for a bug free release, KDE 3 is not on the offical mirrors of Debian right now. There are unoffical debs available and you can always go to the source code, not the way to go on a binary release. Debian has chosen to support many different platforms and therefore is forced to be slower than a one platform release like Libranet.

      The problem is if there isn't a deb supplied by Libranet you forced to the source. I found that out when I went looking for Kwintv. If I wanted the deb from the offical Debian mirror I would have to uninstall 150+ packages, all of KDE3, needless to say I canceled that option.
  • Can you say Story is OLD...

    The Previous /. article [slashdot.org]

    • Re:*Oops* (Score:1, Funny)

      by monthos ( 591823 )
      No its not, the story you showed stated it was released, and this story is about how its not dying liek other debian forks have.

      Seriously, dont look at names in articles and quickly post how its a repost just becouse you have a hunger for kharma, you really do look very stupid.

  • Just a reminder... Xandros due out shortly (Score:4, Informative)

    by mbourgon ( 186257 ) on Thursday October 03, 2002 @03:05PM (#4382593) Homepage
    And another commercial distro, Xandros, based off of Corel Linux 3 (which is, in turn, based off Debian), is due out in the next 3 weeks.

    http://www.xandros.com/anticipated.html

    "Our manufacturer indicates the product should be available for shipping in the week of October 21."

  • Strange Pricing (Score:3, Interesting)

    by sterno ( 16320 ) on Thursday October 03, 2002 @03:06PM (#4382599) Homepage
    So I went to look at libranet's product because I like debian but would like something with a better installer and hardware detection. I thought to myself that I could just download the ISO from linuxiso.org but that maybe I should help support them and pay for a real copy. So I decided to look at the prices.

    They offer 4 different prices, one for past customers, one for new customers, one for students, and one for corporate users. There is not an immediately obvious difference between any of these releases and I can still download the ISO's from linuxiso.org. A student discount makes sense, fine, but then why does a corporation have to pay more per copy than a home user?

    It seems like a much better model to offer two levels of product. The first is a retail model (possibly with an available student discount) with instructions, limited technical support, etc. Then you offer corporate contracts where you agree to provide a higher grade support (24 hour service, increased response time, etc) and you provide that at a higher rate. I see no evidence that as a corportate customer I would get anything better for my extra $40/copy, especially when I can just download an ISO.
    • First, there is no difference between the different "releases", because they're all the same release. Just different levels of support, and they decided to give a break to people who upgrade. Although I would have given a better discount to upgraders than to students, but whatever.

      Second, you can't download the ISO of Libranet 2.7 anywhere. Libranet are the ones that only offer the previous version free to download (so right now version 2.0 is available on their website and LinuxISO.org for download, but not version 2.7, the latest and spectacularest). They had a beta program for 2.7, but that only went on for a few weeks.

      The pricing levels don't bother me as much as the fact that the prices more than doubled since the last version I purchased. Version 1.9.1 cost me $25 and was well worth it. $60 is getting a little steep for what amounts to a somewhat polished Debian install.

      That said, Libranet is a great distro for a new Linux user, especially if you're looking to get into Debian and want something that isn't slow as molasses in January on an older system (if you've tried any recent Mandrake up to 8.2, you know what I'm talking about. Ugh. Looking forward to trying 9.0). Libranet sets up a nice, working system from which you can fiddle around and graduate to plain Debian later on if you're inclined that way.

  • My Libranet Experiences (Score:4, Interesting)

    by greenskyx ( 609089 ) on Thursday October 03, 2002 @03:07PM (#4382605)
    I've been using Libranet since the 1.x days. I've found it to be a very good distrobution. I found the Libranet install to be very easy and I love apt-get. Libranet reminds me of what Mandrake used to be in it's earlier days. It is a lot like Debian but with a lot of extra value added in. My favorite feature is their kernel compiling setup. They have a very easy to use process that lets you recompile your kernel. After you recompile the kernel it adds the newly recompiled kernel to lilo and keeps the old kernel as a lilo option so you can switch back if you have any problems.
    • After you recompile the kernel it adds the newly recompiled kernel to lilo and keeps the old kernel as a lilo option so you can switch back if you have any problems.


      You can do this in regular Debian too, with kernel-package.

      • Everything you can do in LibraNet, you can do in Debian... theoretically. The difference is, LibraNet automatically recompiles Linux for your machine as part of the standard install. As in, you don't need to install Debian, RTFM about stuff, become root to apt-get kernel-package...

        Nobody said that Debian Can't DO That... the point is that LibraNet is nicer, easier, and better supported (because you are paying them for it!) Eventually Debian will get these features... that is good. LibraNet does it now, and the installation leans more toward hand holding then saying RTFM you clueless newb!

        Not that I have anything against Debian... it is great. Maybe you were just enlightening us vanilla Debian users so that we don't get LibraNet envy, so I shouldn't think of you as taking a lame pot-shot against a valuable part of the Free Software community that values dpkg. But I really think that we should let LibraNet brag a bit... having a commerical version of Debian, that has stayed afloat as long as it has, and isn't harming the Debian community, is a VERY Very Good Thing. Please recognize that, and consider that at this point in time, a capital generating version of Debian should be Respected and Encouraged. Especially in light of Progeny, who I was full out rooting for, who has done significant good for Debian, and who is sorely missed.
        • He said "It is a lot like Debian but with a lot of extra value added in. My favorite feature is their kernel compiling setup." I was simply saying that this feature, at least as it was described by the poster, was an instance of "extra value" on top of regular Debian. I did not intend to slight Libranet at all.

  • Still Debian for me (Score:3, Interesting)

    by dh003i ( 203189 ) <`dh003i' `at' `gmail.com'> on Thursday October 03, 2002 @03:23PM (#4382740) Homepage Journal
    I'm still not sold on this new Debian-based distribution. I'm not an idiot newbie user, so i can handle Debian's text-based approach to installation, administration, and customization.

    So why should I shell out $60 dollars for Libranet? All of these applications it has can be downloaded and installed in Debian. The one major exception appears to be Adminimenu, which you can only get (to my knowledge) by ordering the Libranet CD or downloading the ISO. If you really want the program that bad, just download the ISO and burn it on a CD. Then find it in the CD.

    But there's a reason (a good one) why Debian is always "behind the times" and doesn't include the latest software. Stability and continuity. Are all of these latest applications really that essential to get? No, most of them aren't. So let other users and other distributions struggle with their bugs.

  • Here's a thought (Score:1, Interesting)

    by incripshin ( 580256 )
    Instead of it being GNU/Linux (four syllables), it could be called GNUL? Huh? HUH? Pronounced like NULL so it would only be one syllable. On second nobody'll listen to me.

  • Bad business model & big whiners (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dh003i ( 203189 ) <`dh003i' `at' `gmail.com'> on Thursday October 03, 2002 @03:49PM (#4382959) Homepage Journal
    A few comments.

    (1) Giving away a ISO for download is all good and fine for non-profit Linux distributions like Debian. It makes sense. It doesn't make sense, however, for a corporation trying to make money off of it to do that. The Linux community is not going to chastise the company because they don't offer ISO downloads. Think the path of least resistance. If you want to sell a product, you shouldn't also make it available for free.

    (2) I stand by my earlier assertion that this isn't worth the extra $60 as opposed to downloading Debian. Almost all the additional software apps it has can be downloaded. And there's a reason why Debian doesn't always include the latest greatest software -- because it usually has problems. Debian prefers to let other distros walk through that minefield and benefit from the knowledge gained.

    (3) For those of you talking about how much more "resource hungry" one distro is as opposed to another (i.e., many saying Debian more resource hungry than Slackware), do try to remember that they're all based around the same thing. You can remove anything you don't like, and if you remove enough stuff, Debian eventually looks like Slackware.

    (4) For those of you whining about having to say all those extra syllables in GNU/Linux. Get over it. Its three extra letters to write, and if your giving a speech you don't have to say it every time. Distributions can simply be referred to by their distribution name (i.e., Debian) for short. But when something is written formally or said for the first time, it should be "Debian GNU/Linux" or "Redhat GNU/Linux" or whatever it is. Because that's what it is. Most of the tools and utilities and programs you use in a distribution are GNU stuff. Its only appropriate to say Debian GNU/Linux when speaking (at least upon any introduction; it need not be said more than once upon entering a new topic, after which simply Debian suffice's). It is not that hard to type in Debian GNU/Linux at the beginning of a paragraph.

    Credit should be given where it is due. If your going to mention the kernel of an OS like Debian, you should also mention all the software around it. Hence, formally, Debian GNU/Linux.

    I get sick of hearing how the FSF and Stallman are so greedy and unreasonable by expecting us to (at least formally) call a distribution like Debian "Debian GNU/Linux". Asking for due credit is not greedy or unreasonable. And, quite frankly, the reason they're asking isn't because of vanity, but because few new Linux users have any idea about Free Software and what it means to them.

    Stallman was right when he said that he was being written out of history. GNU/Linux supporters don't want to bother telling new users about that wierd, long-haird, hippie guy who's always talking about this silly notion called Freedom. People afraid to talk about Freedom in the context of software because they think it makes them seem weak and foolish.
    • The Linux community is not going to chastise the company because they don't offer ISO downloads. Think the path of least resistance. If you want to sell a product, you shouldn't also make it available for free.

      If there is one thing that I can say with utter certainty, it's this: If you don't offer ISO downloads, the Linux community is going to chastise you.

      Actually that could probably be generalized to: Whatever you do, the Linux community is going to chastise you. (If your Red Carpet service offers free downloads and free updates, and you add some faster, dedicated servers for an optional paid service, the Linux community is going to chastise you.)

    • I prefer to not download large files (dial-up connection). I don't like a lot of hassle when setting up a new system (I switch systems too often for that to be palatable). And I even have one computer that doesn't have any modem at all. To me LibraNet is quite worth the cost. ($60 is only the first time. Updated CDs are cheaper.)

      My problem was that it didn't do what I wanted. Appearantly the problem I was having was with the recent kernel version, as going back to RH 7.2 fixed things. But with the new kernels, one of my computers was too slow to use. Mandrake 7.0, Red Hat 7.2, those work well. But 7.3 crawled! So it's back to 7.2, and hit up2date. (I thought that the problem was KDE, but even iceWm was too slow [that's what LibraNet thought I should use].)
      • Too bad you didn't just try an earlier version of LibraNet. Especially since if it fixes the problem (maybe by using an earlier revision of the kernel) you can then apt-get to the more featureful apps included with later versions (especially since you already bought the newer version).

        Whether or not it was Linux, the kernel causing the problem, you probably should have reported it back to LibraNet. since you bought it, you should be entitled to some support, and they can then improve LibraNet for everybody.

        If Red Hat is getting the job done, then Kudos. But if you have to reinstall, maybe you could give LibraNet a heads up to fix your problem.
        • That would probably have worked too, but I had already tried Red Hat 7.2 (and Mandrake 7.0) and I *knew* that they worked. I tried Mandrake 7.0 first, but all the mirrors seem to have removed it, so I wasn't geting any of the security updates installed. So I switched over to Red Hat, and I'm updating it now.

    • It doesn't make sense, however, for a corporation trying to make money off of it to do that.(ie, ISO downloads)

      I'm going to assume libranet has a very small userbase. If I was them I'd want to build my userbase before I started making it hard for potential customers to try my distro out and get "hooked". Even if I lost a little money (no Profit! jokes please). I'm not defending ISO downloads in particular, just the convenience principle.

  • Linux Naming FAQ (Score:4, Funny)

    by asv108 ( 141455 ) <asv@nOspam.ivoss.com> on Thursday October 03, 2002 @04:23PM (#4383201) Homepage Journal
    Obivously the poster didn't read this. [phataudio.org] :)

  • Uh, Progeny *is* still in business (Score:5, Informative)

    by Overfiend ( 35917 ) on Thursday October 03, 2002 @04:29PM (#4383255) Homepage

    [Sorry, repost. I had cookies turned off in this browser so my login didn't work. Please mod down the Anonymous Coward version as redundant, not this one; thanks.]

    Progeny Linux comes to mind as a commercial Linux distribution company whose Linux product met with good reviews, but couldn't remain in business.

    I guess I have Santa Claus to thank for the paychecks I've been getting every two weeks for the past 2 years plus, then.

    Progeny did discontinue [progeny.com] its Progeny Debian product, but we remain in business and continue to do interesting things, IMO.



  • Debian? People still use that?

    (BRRRSshehahahahaaa.. Sorry, I couldn't resist!)

  • THE LESSER-KNOWN PROGRAMMING LANGUAGES #8: LAIDBACK

    This language was developed at the Marin County Center for T'ai Chi,
    Mellowness and Computer Programming (now defunct), as an alternative to
    the more intense atmosphere in nearby Silicon Valley.

    The center was ideal for programmers who liked to soak in hot tubs while
    they worked. Unfortunately few programmers could survive there because the
    center outlawed Pizza and Coca-Cola in favor of Tofu and Perrier.

    Many mourn the demise of LAIDBACK because of its reputation as a gentle and
    non-threatening language since all error messages are in lower case. For
    example, LAIDBACK responded to syntax errors with the message:

    "i hate to bother you, but i just can't relate to that. can
    you find the time to try it again?"

    - this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...

Slashdot Top Deals

If all else fails, lower your standards.

Close