Mandriva Linux 2008 Now Available 189
AdamWill writes "Mandriva Linux 2008 is now available for download on the official site and on the network of public mirror servers. In 2008 you will find KDE 3.5.7 and the new GNOME 2.20 already integrated, a solid kernel 2.6.22.9 with fair scheduling support, OpenOffice.org 2.2.1, cutting-edge 3D-accelerated desktop courtesy of Compiz Fusion 0.5.2, Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.6, and everything else you've come to expect. We have integrated a reworked hardware detection sub-system, with support for a lot of new devices (particularly graphics cards, sound cards, and wireless chips). There is a wizard to import Windows documents and settings, a new network configuration center, and a set of improvements to the Mandriva software management tools. Read about the new features in depth in the release tour, or view the release notes. The One installation CD is the recommended download: it comes with a full KDE desktop and application suite, NVIDIA and ATI proprietary video card drivers, Intel wireless firmware, Adobe Flash and Sun Java browser plugins, all included."
Link leads to archive (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What happened to Matisse? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Link leads to archive (Score:5, Informative)
Re: bells and whistles (Score:4, Informative)
Okay, so most people put it in for "I can make my windows do silly transitions", and it would be better if more functionality were added instead, but the eye candy can be the basis for functionality as well
Oh, go to Hell. (Score:5, Informative)
Linux has Active Directory authentication out of the box, an easy front end to ndiswrapper, an easy method for adding Internet software repositories. I really hate this guy. e all work so hard and he tramples on everything we have done.
Mark my words, I will see you using a Linux Desktop yet!
Re:What happened to Matisse? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Non-Free (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Outdated Firefox? (Score:2, Informative)
Why wouldn't it come with the latest version of Firefox, 2.0.0.7?
Because the people who compile and package the distro from source need to draw a line somewhere, and test for proper functionality with what they have.
If they kept updating distro packages every time a minor thing changes before release, there would never be time for any real testing, and overall quality would suffer.
Bleeding Edge... (Score:2, Informative)
However, if you're adventurous and would like to build your own Linux box with all bleeding-edge components, you could try the guidelines posted on the "Linux From Scratch" website (not an endorsement, just a place to start):
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/ [linuxfromscratch.org]
Re:Outdated Firefox? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Ubuntu (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Outdated Firefox? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:64 bits? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Ubuntu (Score:3, Informative)
I constantly see this touted. I've tried various distributions with different package formats. Frankly I found debian to be the exact same as RPM based systems. Both have their problems. Both have their advantages. Both have pretty much the exact same problems, differing only in implementation details. IMO, to say one is better or worse based only on the package format is to be ignorant of the subject matter. Heck, I actually had a harder time managing packages on debian based systems than I had on RPM based systems at one point in time. And I'm sure the inverse is true for others. It all depends on what you're trying to do.
There is no such thing as a magical package format which makes dogs love cats, in a romantic kind of way. Ultimately, it all boils down to the utilities available to manage those packages. And these days, they are all more or less the same. With tools like urpmi and yum, anyone that has RPM hell is suffering from a self imposed affliction. Heck, it is pretty easy to turn tar files directly into RPMs these days too. Most RPM distros addressed "RPM-hell" some three to five years ago, if not longer. It happened about the time debian guys started claiming they had resolved the issue. Seems so many listened, they missed that most other distributions had too.
I do agree RH (commercial version) was probably the last, or at least one of the slowest, to address this of modern distributions. Not long ago up2date was their tool of choice. These days it is yum.
Long story short, anyone complaining of RPM-hell is either living in the past or flat out suffering from denial.
Re:transitionary distro? (Score:3, Informative)
I installed 2007 Spring as my fist linux distro in 5 years. Mandriva auto detected everythign and set it up. My Wireless and sound worked out of the box. Not something I can say for Ubuntu. Ubuntu was a PITA to get wireless working. And I never got sound working on Ubuntu. That alone was a deal maker for me. I don't want to mess around for hours trying to get stuff to work. I jsut want it to work. I actually like Mandriva better than XP for internet/office stuff.
Keep in mind this is coming from a novice with linux, so if you want someone who's opinion would be comparable to the everyday-joe's opinion, yeah you found it here. I can stick a disk in and follow the on screen instructions, and that's about it. Mandriva worked, Ubuntu didn't.
Re:64 bits? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:64 bits? (Score:4, Informative)
Mandriva definitely went through some growing pains. Okay, okay, it was growing leprosy. The three releases prior to 2007 had some real crufty bugs and lots of things which just didn't work right. These problems brought into question the viability of the entire distribution. Since 2007, they have finally come full circle and now offer a high quality, robust (fat) distribution, like what originally made them popular. The 2007.1 release only continued to improve and polish.
Don't be afraid to try Mandriva. I've tried many different distributions and went elsewhere during their dark days, but I came back. Personally I like it much better than Fedora and especially Red Hat. I consider in on par with Ubuntu for package completeness. And the wizards is a real bonus for most inexperienced users.
Re:What happened to Matisse? (Score:3, Informative)
Admittedly, many of the composite features are similar to what's been available in MacOSX for a while, but it's hardly a ripoff of Exposé.
Re:And now we present... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Package repositories? (Score:4, Informative)
No. No, you don't, and you haven't for several years, as I said. Please read:
http://wiki.mandriva.com/en/Docs/Basic_tasks/Installing_and_removing_software [mandriva.com]
it explains it all rather clearly.
Prob w/ QuickTime, not Firefox per se... (Score:2, Informative)
It should be noted that a careful reading of the advisory does not make any mention of the vulnerability being related to the use of Firefox per se, but rather to the use of QuickTime in conjunction with Firefox.
The vulnerability allows an attacker to use a specially crafted QuickTime object to launch the default browser within Windows. This implies that the initial vulnerability resides within QuickTime, and is supported by the following:
It is very likely that the code to execute said scrips exists in most, if not all, Firefox 2.0.0.6/operating system combinations.
It's the hole in QuickTime that makes the hole in Firefox more easily exploitable. On Linux this point is moot, since Apple has not yet released an official version of QuickTime for Linux.
Re:Ubuntu (Score:2, Informative)
Or you can go for the smaller sized packages listings, but then you get pretty much no information as to what one package is.
I wish they'd do something about it. It does make me look longingly the debian-based distros way each and every time I want to install something I mostly can't use the CLI for.
Re:transitionary distro? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:And now we present... (Score:2, Informative)