Granular Linux Distro Preview is Worth a Look

Linux.com has an interesting look at Granular Linux, a desktop-oriented distribution that's primary goal is to be easy to use. "With a single CD's worth of included programs, Granular Linux manages to cover a significant portion of normal end user needs, and those applications not already installed can be easily added through Synaptic. The slight problem with video and more serious problem with sound of my machine suggest that Granular is not without its issues, especially when most other distributions work properly on this hardware, but as this is a preview release of version 1.0 I think it can be more or less forgiven. I'd definitely recommend Granular to anyone with an interest in trying out a new distribution. "

Nothing to see here

[geek]

Another "easy to use" distro. We have enough of those. Focus your resources on stuff that matters.

I'm forced to agree.

[Zombie Ryushu]

Easy to use has nothing to do with it. Focus on Application and Hardware support. Easy to use doesn't help you if your applications won't install or some chipset goes unsupported. These people need to work on building the needed applications for the Linux that exists now.

KDE

[Psychotria]

Its a KDE-oriented distro. I am not sure that releasing a new distro based on KDE in the current climate is a good idea. Don't get me wrong, KDE-4 is shaping up to be great (and backports and development on KDE-3 are still occurring), but what separates this distribution from any other KDE-3*-based distro?

Re:I hate the phrase "easy to use".

[wizardforce]

I agree with you, "easy to use" is relative. Grandma's idea of "easy to use" isn't necessarily the same as any of ours. she may only need to browse the internet or play simple games, we O.T.O.H may require Bash to be handy for shell scripts to automate different tasks, to refine things etc. Then if you're reasonably familar with *nix commands it's much simpler to communicate fixes for problems, installing software etc. a single command rather than click* click* click** click more....

Re:It's just PClinuxOS

[Pc_Madness]

Because thats what linux needs, MORE distros. *sigh*

Re:It's just PClinuxOS

[hcmtnbiker]

just PCLinuxOS with a different name and a different wallpaper. Yep. The only interesting thing about this is how it was made.

The LiveCD project is dedicated to providing you with tools to create your own LiveCD from a currently installed Linux distribution. It can be used to create your own distribution, specialised CD, or to put together a demo disk to show off the power of our favourite OS. http://livecd.berlios.de/ [berlios.de]

It dramatically lowers the barrier to producing and distributing your own Linux distro. I suspect we'll be seeing a flood of special-interest Linux distros very shortly. It could be a breeding ground for some interesting innovations.

Fedora, Ubuntu, and most other distributions, and one of my personal favorites ZenWalk, have their own set of tools for easily creating your own liveCD. This is nothing new.

From my experience "easy to use" means: features that get in your way when you try to do real work. Most distributions go down this road and it drives me fucking nuts. If you really want a distro to be easy, focus your attention on getting all the hardware you can to work out of box. Put ndiswrapper on it(I cannot believe how many distros leave this out be default), maybe(ndisGTK too), and just make sure the manual explains how to use it for the people not familiar.

Re:I'm forced to agree.

[Captain DaFt]

"Easy to use has nothing to do with it. Focus on Application and Hardware support. Easy to use doesn't help you if your applications won't install or some chipset goes unsupported. These people need to work on building the needed applications for the Linux that exists now."

Applications and hardware support that "just work" are exactly how I define "ease of use".

The OS is just the part that makes the applications work on the hardware. Ideally, an OS that "just works" means I shouldn't even notice it.

News for nerds?

[iamacat]

Maybe an announcement of the first version of Slackware was. Perhaps radically different distributions like Gentoo. But for the life of me I can't understand why another ordinary desktop disto is on the front page.

Re:It's just PClinuxOS

[Spy der Mann]

I suspect we'll be seeing a flood of special-interest Linux distros very shortly.

Sometimes I've fantasized about making my own mini-distro based on anonymity, hacking and privacy tools . Maybe I'll load it with I2P, Freenet and all that.

This tool to remaster your distribution is a very nice thing to have. It's like having a RAD but for distros.

Also, having read Stallman's book, I consider this tool to be effectively supporting the spirit of software freedom. It's no use if you're *allowed* to make changes to a software and distribute it to others, if the technological barriers are impossible to cross.

Ridiculous

[jw3]

"Its primary goals are to be easy to use and user-friendly (...) Upon booting the Granular live CD ISO with the default settings my test PC, which uses an old ATI Rage 128 video card, the system froze at the loading screen. A quick reboot and selection of safe VESA settings solved this problem with no fuss."

Come on. Am I the only one to think that the above is funny?

January

Easy to use

[Iamthecheese]

Doesn't support hardware=hard to use.

Easy to use is nothing new

[Lavene]

I can't remember the last time I saw a mainstream distro that was actually hard to *use*. Some have been hard to set up, or hard to get working properly... but hard to *use*?

Click on some menu button, find your program, run your program. Where the menu button is located, how it's shaped and what it looks like does not matter.

As a self proclaimed nerd I would like to see a linux distro that actually did something revolutionary. Anyone can take a base distro, dress it up and make it into a LiveCD. It's nothing new in that, it's nothing exciting in that and it's nothing remotely interesting in that.

Give me a few hours and I'll make "Lavenix". An easy to use LiveCD with a package selection perfect for everyone that's... well... just like me :P

Re:Easy to use is nothing new

[thefekete]

Second that.

I can't say I tried this distro (or read TFA for that matter), but I've been on ubuntu for the last 3 years and I don't see any reason to switch. The main reason is the documentation. At this point I could probably be compiling custom kernels and installing all my software from source with every configuration tweaked out, but I need to get some work done. Ubuntu is my choice because of it's large user base, period.

With that comes a lot of people trying to do a lot of things. And chances are that someone already tried to do what I am, and they wrote about it to boot.

The more documentation and fewer hardware issues there are, combined with alternative or ports to those high demand apps, the faster people will be dropping winturd in the circular filing cabinet.

Classic

[JamesRose]

I read the article and gave up when he couldn't install his audio hardware and was switching between OSS and ALSA (neither acronym did he explain). Normal basic user guy would never get passed that point, never. Easy to use? Maybe, but as shown in the article only for the people who always used to think a few tens of lines into the command line were easy.

Re:I hate the phrase "easy to use".

[BountyX]

I concur, a similar instance would be the word "authentic" in the food industry. Most people use the word "authentic' to indicate that a meal is prepared similarly to where it would be prepared where the recipe originated. I just don't see how food in a box can be labeled authentic. Any alternate interpretations of the words seem to be redundant in describing the item...
 
Just like the phrase "easy to use", "authentic" seems to be so ambiguous in actual application that it only endures use for sensationalism (unless research backs it up).

I no longer know what "easy to use" means

[srobert]

In 1996, I picked up as Slackware distro and started playing around with it. Since then, I've installed or used Red Hat, Suse, Debian, Ubuntu, etc., and built Linux from Scratch systems several times. Now I'd have to work closely with a novice to get any insight into what "easy to use" means. If I worked with novices accustomed to Macs, PC's, or who were completely unfamiliar with computers, I'd bet they'd all have different ideas about what it means.

Re:Ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

The entire quote FTFA:

"Upon booting the Granular live CD ISO with the default settings my test PC, which uses an old ATI Rage 128 video card, the system froze at the loading screen. A quick reboot and selection of safe VESA settings solved this problem with no fuss. Considering I can no longer get this card to work properly under Windows, I count it as a blessing when it runs under Linux. This is another example of how Linux breathes life into old hardware."

Nice cherry picking.