Mandrake 7.0-Beta Ready for Download 314
December 22, 1999 - MandrakeSoft is very pleased to announce that its new Linux distribution is available, only for geeks and testers who can't wait to discover all the new killer features that have been introduced. This beta version (NOT FOR PRODUCTION USE) includes:
- New perl/gtk based graphical installer Drakx, including support for many languages and the DiskDrake partitioner (lets one change the size of Ext2, FAT... disk partitions).
- Use of supermount (integrated in kernel 2.2.14) in order to suppress the need to mount and unmount for most removable medias (cdrom, floppy, zip): Mandrake easier to use than ever!
- Several security levels are available. They let you use your Linux box like a jail (extremely high security, restricted use), or like certain very common proprietary OSes (very poor security, no constraint in use). The default security level, medium, is the security level found in most standard Linux distributions.
- Improved desktop integration with new tools like DrakConf and rpmdrake that let the user manage its Linux-Mandrake box like a charm.
- New hardware configuration tools like lothar and XFdrake
The new distribution has to be tested by many people to detect any problem that would not have been found internally.
Hackers, Geeks, Nerds or simply curious users, just download Mandrake 7.0beta, have fun with it and report all the bugs! For this, just see http://www.linux-mandrake.com/en/oxygenbeta.php3 and read the instructions!
The Mandrake Team.
Re:Graphical Installer is a must... (Score:2)
If Linux is ever going to be accepted by the masses as an alternative to Windows, it must have a graphical installer, and must, on the surface, appear to be as user friendly as a Mac.
Woah!! Wasn't Windows 95 accepted by the masses before it had a graphical installer?Isn't it true that W2K still doesn't have a fully graphical installer?
However, a graphical installer is something that's beneficial to Linux, no denying that. But that claim that Linux *needs* a graphical install to be "accepted" is largely without merit.
-BrentRe:Not everything bleeding edge is good (Score:1)
Did I say anything about this release? Obviously I realised it was a beta release. Only fool would expect it to be stable.
I was making a point about Mandrake distros in general. There are a large number of vocal Mandrake users that claim it's the bees knees. I was trying to point out that that isn't necessarily the case.
Finally, I didn't say "don't use the 7.0 beta distro". I just expressed an opinion. Whether you use it or not is your prerogative.
Re:Cool! (Score:1)
Have fun :)
Re:Graphical Installer is a must... (Score:2)
Nonsense. There's nothing forcing us to use Linux till the end of days. It's like the early American settlers. They explored new areas, and as others followed them and it got crowded, they moved on. We to will move on as the purpose of Linux changes.
FreeBSD is starting to look nice... And there is always the Hurd. Or maybe there'll even be a new kernel to hack with. Never look back.
-BrentRe:Nifty (Score:2)
Re:Rage Fury? (Score:1)
Re:Why Mandrake? (Score:1)
Re:Graphical Installers - A Step Backwards? (Score:1)
Funiest thing Ive read today... (Score:1)
Re:LCD != GCF (Score:1)
mcrandello@my-deja.com
rschaar{at}pegasus.cc.ucf.edu if it's important.
Re:It should be sold pre-installed ... (Score:1)
Re:First time Linux user... (Score:1)
It's a little slow this week in tech support land. E-mail me some more details on what you're trying to do with this. I set up little single purpose linux servers all over the office using computers we were going to throw away anyway...
Jpowers
Re:Why Mandrake? (Score:1)
Re:Graphical installers.. (Score:4)
Hardware (Score:1)
P!!!@500 with 128Mb and 16Mb Nvidia TNT - it rocks, 'nuff said
P166 with 88Mb and 2Mb S3 - firewall, adequate in all ways except video, which is unnecessary for the box's function
K6II@400 with 128Mb and 1 Mb S3 - Apache 1.3 web server - also runs great except the gui, which again is unecessary for the box's function.
One thought - video cards - check for drivers before you buy the latest and greatest card. Matrox is supported. Have fun!
Re:kissing up to noobeys (Score:1)
Cool! (Score:1)
Thanks Mandrake!
Re:Graphical Installers - A Step Backwards? (Score:1)
;-P
Re:Graphical Installers - A Step Backwards? (Score:1)
I've installed Caldera and Mandrake on my machine with less problems then my Windows (tm) install. I think that Linux should be an option for those seeking alternative, and if it's easier for people to get set up so they can use it as they please, so be it.
Without a doubt I agree that if there is going to be a GUI install program that there should be a text based install with the distribution as well. I want options and I want to be able to configure every aspect of it to my hearts content...
I realize that though Linux has gone far in the way of user friendlyness, it is still primarily a geek interface. Perhaps it always will be, but I want people to have options. There is freedom in Linux. I can make my Linux install anything I want it to be. It takes a lot of work, but for everything I do, I learn something new.
I do realize that Linux is sort of a "trend" these days, it has made the stockmarket explode and the evil empire think twice. If it lasts, it lasts, if the trend dies away and people go back to their limited windows desktop, so be it. I just want people to feel like they can switch, instead of intimidated by it. Ultimately a gui interface all the way makes them feel comfortable.
Graphical installers.. (Score:2)
Re:Waiting... (Score:1)
On the other hand, it is Mandrake. So they might actually be shipping all that stuff now. We've all suspected that they have a time machine in their shop someplace...
Re:Graphical Installer is a must... (Score:2)
--
Re:Waiting... (Score:2)
Development will never "stablize". There'll always be a new and improved version coming up. It has been the tradition (I think) for distributions to be updated every 6 months. This gives you a reasonably up to date distribution. Distributions are supposed to be collections of the last 6 months progress, not the next six months.
In 6 months if the newest versions of the software are out, and have been fully tested, then they will be included, else there'll soon be a new version. If distributions wait for a fully developed Linux suite, we'll be waiting for Linux, just like we've waited 4 years for W2K. And no one wants that.
-BrentRe:Graphical Installer is a must... (Score:2)
example: make menuconfig is *far* more navigable and easy to use than make xconfig. hands stay on keyboard - tab, space, enter, and the up/down arrows are all you need to *quickly* get around (and F1 is close for descriptions). xconfig doesn't allow you to scroll through choices with the arrow keys - you *need* to use the mouse. That alone slows things up considerably...
If graphical installers tend to follow the same methods, it makes it more difficult for people to install - especially is you have a new mouse that doesn't have direct BIOS support... what will you do then?! Hmm, I can't seem to navigate this install... graphical installs tend to take longer if you actually want to change anything than simple, text menus... in almost every example I can think of...
"Out, Out! Demons of Stupidity!" - Dogbert
Re:Kernel 2.2.14? (Score:1)
Waiting... (Score:3)
I welcome the new ease of setting things like security levels during the install...I don't mind using command line tools and text files for configuration, but those howto files would be wonderful documents if only they worked on my computer
Re:Waiting for Godot (Score:2)
Oh, come on. The development cycle of Mozilla is open. You can go to mozilla.org and see how the project is progress. Certainly it won't be another year even to have a distributable copy of Mozilla.
I think we may even see Mozilla bundled in distributions early next year. Before July-like.
-BrentPOSTING DOESN'T SAY WHAT MANDRAKE *IS* (Score:1)
"NEW VERSION OF FOOBAR - 7.0.2! DOWNLOAD HERE [127.0.0.1]"
and the web page doesn't say what FOOBAR IS - it only says that it's better than FOOBAR 6.3.7 because the frobulatror is now tweakable and the incompatibility with ZORGLOB 2.1 or FooBSD has been fixed, along with that annoying memory leak.
So we know that MANDRAKE has a new Graphical Installer. That's Nice (or Not Nice, as some respondents prefer), but there's no mention in the lead story about WHAT MANDRAKE IS. It's possible that it IS a graphical installer, but it's pretty tough to tell from the download page.
So, folks, remember that your new version announcements will not only be read by people who are intimately following your cool developments, but by people who've never heard of your project. A good sentence or two of background and maybe a home page pointer can work wonders.
Notice... (Score:1)
Re:Graphical Installer is a must... (Score:2)
Another aspect most people ignore. Especially a certain journalist on USA Today.
-BrentRe:Graphical Installers (Score:1)
Re:I prefer "make xconfig" myself (Score:2)
I don't *hate* xconfig... it's just (IMHO) harder to move around in - the improper options don't dissapear (a really nice feature of menuconfig), and my biggest gripe is still the scrollbar issue. I don't need to use them in Netscape, IE, or any number of other X/Windows apps that have them. Using a UI as intended is not a valid goal, unless you have designed / altered the UI yourself. Ever used Lotus Notes (MUST DIE!!!)? I can't even *imagine* how that was inteded to be used from a UI standpoint.
I love graphical manipulation and mice and all that stuff, but I have gone against people who use on xconfig, and head-to-head ounavigated them using menuconfig. It is a cleaner, easier, more appropriate interface.
If xconfig was modified to be properly keyboard navigable, I wouldn't switch to a console to configure the kernel... It may be easier for those who have never done a kernel before, but trying to view the explanations takes longer, making choices takes longer - if you make the y/n selection with the mouse, you then need to move the mouse to scroll the window (see comment about choices not dissapearing), and in text mode you'd have several other choices made already...
The point is - if you know what you want in your kernel, it *is* quicker to navigate via the keyboard - hands don't move - no wasted time. That's all.
Re:First time Linux user... (Score:1)
Star Office is a memory hog. P-200MMX w/32MB RAM running the RH5.1 version of AfterStep was "go get a beer and drink it while opening your resume" slow. Doubling the memory helped, but it is big. I'd hazard a not-to-experienced guess that you should look at a machine that'll run MS Office 2000 w/Assistant fast to run Star Office on.
Re:Why Mandrake? (Score:1)
Compared to Slackware, it's sexier, much easier, and better engineered (esp. if you don't know exactly what you're doing, which covers just about everyone).
Compared to Red Hat, see all of the above, then add faster. Slackware can be much more optimized than Red Hat by several other measures. Of course, it doesn't work at all on Athlons, and the boost is not especially noticeable.
Love? Depends on who you ask, and how you feel about Linux in general. If I could only use Linux on my desktop, but had a choice in distros, Mandrake would be it. Then again, if I could pick anything, it would be NT -- it works for me, and I know its ins and outs.
IMO, Mandrake is fantastic, if only because it fixes a lot of what's wrong with Red Hat, including KDE, but much more these days. The only problem is that Red Hat generally stinks, and Mandrake can't/won't fix it for compatibility reasons. I'm especially irritated with the verbose (and usually redundant) use of ".bash_profile", and its mucking around with ISSUE files at startup with rc.local, which leads to my own question:
I've worked on BIND and Apache servers, but haven't had any interest in Linux for my desktop until recently. Are there any distros based on Debian or Slackware that do KDE as nicely as Mandrake, or would I have to spend HOURS doing it manually, and DAYS figuring out new concepts and config files?
--
Re:Graphical Installers - A Step Backwards? (Score:3)
OTOH, it is certainly possible to get too comitted to gui-ness. It seems stupid to cripple the text installer just because you've added a graphic installer. I never set things to boot directly into X Window, because I've sometimes had trouble getting X Window set up correctly.
Still, there's no sense in trying to deny that when the gui's are working well they normally save a lot of time and effort. And there's always the terminal window available for those commands that aren't cleanly implemented.
The real problem is not that graphical installers are available, but that sometimes text-based installers aren't (or at least appear to have been crippled). I'm all in favor of making things shiney, smooth, and easy to use. I'd like it if my wife could use Linux. But be sure not to cripple it in the process of making it shinier!
Re:Graphical Installer is a must... (Score:1)
Re:Supermount? (Score:2)
It's a thingie by Stephen C Tweedie (ext3
ftp://ftp.linux.org.uk/pub/linux/sct/supermount
I quote:
"Supermount is a pseudo-filesystem which manages filesystems on removable media like floppy disks and CD-ROMs. It aims to make management of removable media as easy as it is under DOS."
Re:Why Not? (Score:1)
We needed to catch up to Solaris! (Score:1)
It's basically just a form of marketing. Gotta keep up with the other guys, or try to exceed them for a little while.
Given this news, I bet Redhat will go to version 7 too.
I'm just happy to have a new cutting edge distribution about every 3 months
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Graphical Installers - A Step Backwards? (Score:1)
It's a lost cause, pal. People are always going to be morons. But that doesn't mean you should deny them access to certain tools. In fact the goal should be to make computer systems more accesible to the morons (without dumbing them down for the non-morons).
Look at this way: From an engineering standpoint, developing a complex, hard and expensive to administer Unix system is boring. It's been done a hundred times, and will be done a hundred more times.
The Linux vendors, on the other hand, are attempting something that's never successfully been done before in the history of consumer computing -- they are trying to build a system which meets the needs of both the Dumb User population and the Unix Wizard User population. If they pull it off, it will be one of the greatest engineering feats of all time.
--
good security practice (Score:1)
Sure, you can design a safe to be more secure to thieves than the next safe, but if you leave the keys (or the combination) nearby or rattle it off to people
Security needs to be taught, not put into a slidebar.
Yes, selectable security levels a good idea! (Score:1)
I think a selectable security level is a great idea. The trade off is decreased usability for increased security. I can see tons of uses for this setting. For example, setting which services are running. (The default Redhat installations have a lot of things running and it is really scary.) Also setting whether or not to create a non root user account, and setting who can mount drives and access devices.
A really secure installation might not even have telnet, and instead go with ssh. It could have tripwire setup for use too! And it could have tcp/ip syn cookies on. It could log all odd port connections (somehow?) The posibilities are endless! I know how paranoid I am. And I'm not the only one!
The only possible problem I see with it is that it adds another variable to examine with bug reports. Certain problems may only happen with certain security levels, and this adds some complexity to things. But maybe I don't know what I'm talking about and it will all be manageable. (I hope so!)
Re:Graphical Installers - A Step Backwards? (Score:2)
Actually, yes they can. Pop-up windows, better text layout, organization of the screen. You have much more flexibility with graphical, then with an 80x25 text screen.
I'm the first to admit that I have never extensively used a GUI installer - but for those of you who have - what did you think? Does moving to (g)tk really improve the installation experience? Does it make it easier to install? Does the install ever fail? Or am I just paranoid?Yes, yes, yes, and yes.
A graphical layout does improve the process. As a mentioned above, you can do a lot more on-screen with a graphical interface, then a text interface. In doing so, it makes it easier to install. Consider for instance having help in a window along side the options, whereas you have to hit to see the help in a text interface because there's not room to have both.
The install fails, not only do to things like trying to run X on a monochrome screen, but regular failures that happen with a text-based interface. ie user-error. But hopefully a graphical interface will provide the extra hand-holding to help prevent some of these errors.
-BrentRe:Graphical Installers - A Step Backwards? (Score:1)
Which ones don't?
-BrentRe:mandrake 7 (Score:1)
For the most part, the version numbers uniquely identify each release of the software, with some form of ordering on the numbers so that you know that one version is newer than another.
However, the orderings are a little arbitrary, (e.g. Linux 2.3.0 is in some sense older than 2.2.13...)
John
Re:Security. (Score:1)
Yeah, I ordered it on a whim when I got RH 6.1 this November (?). I joked with somebody that RH 6.2 must be coming out shortly, as I had finally ordered 6.1 (it's pretty traditional around here that as soon as someone orders a CD of something a new release comes out - sometimes new releases come out before the old CDs even arrive). But no, instead OpenBSD 2.6 came out and foiled all my plans!
Re:Graphical Installers - A Step Backwards? (Score:1)
A GUI installer means I now have to find a mouse when I install another server... Plus, as no intellingent person would desire to run X on a server (especially running headless), it is even more of an inconvenience to install Oracle 8i (needs X *and* java).
D'oh!
So I have three different servers here that I have to put X and java on just to install a database. It has become so bad that I keep a laptop around running X just so I can ssh to the headless server for the java-based install. Icky.
Naw, I'll just use MySQL -;^>=
Re:Graphical Installers - A Step Backwards? (Score:1)
One complaint about installers. (Score:1)
Moderate this down (-1, Stupid)
--
This is exactly why they think we're arrogant (Score:2)
Second, don't you have any non-technical friends? Relatives? Listen to any music made by non-geeks? All of these people benefit from easier-to-use computers. If they spent all their time learning computers they wouldn't have any left to make music, etc. The price of admission to technology should not be understanding the format of makefiles. I would like everyone I know to reap the benefits of Linux and not be trapped in Windows.
If the only people you know and care about are geeks, I highly encourage you to get out more. There are more worlds out there than you can imagine, and a lot of those people are really great. And smart enough to teach you a few things, too.
Re:Graphical Installer is a must... (Score:1)
An added bonus, Linus reviews can come up with a little difficulty slider on the side, like the hotness indicators on jars of salsa. After the newbie thinks he's doing pretty good with Slug-Linux, then it's time for Caterpillar-Linux, that allows him a little more access and provides a few of the more esoteric/text based programs, all the way up to "Hurt-Me-Plenty-Linux," for power users, server admins, and people who feel the need to outgeek everyone else. If done right, it not only allows the different Linux companies to co-exist, but encourages it.
mcrandello@my-deja.com
rschaar{at}pegasus.cc.ucf.edu if it's important.
What about upgrading over the network? (Score:1)
I could just copy all of the RPM's to the computer, install them, then call that installed. What would work better is if the installer ran without booting into single user mode or being at the console.
_ _ _
Re:Not everything bleeding edge is good (Score:1)
Sorry I might have over-reacted a >bit, your original post just sounded a bit more whiney.
I tried RH (forget the version) once, and found Mandrake to be orders of magnitude better. BUT, I also use TurboLinux, Debian and Solaris/Intel on other machines. They all have their plusses and minuses.
Re:I love Mandrake! (Score:1)
I wonder if it is a good move to fall out of sync with Redhat version numbers though. One of the things I like about Mandrake is that it was built on top of Redhat. Although that doesn't appear to have changed, the version numbers make things a little harder to remember.
Oh well... it's not a big deal anyway. And it does appear to merit the increase.
Re:POSTING DOESN'T SAY WHAT MANDRAKE *IS* (Score:1)
Huh? So one would have to follow development of Mandrake "intimately" to know it's a distribution of Linux? Should they perhaps also explain what Linux is, in case someone isn't following Linux development intimately? Hello? Even if you'd never heard of Mandrake, it would have taken you no more than a minute to find out the basics, even from the link provided.
Mandrake and Redhat (Score:2)
Perhaps you meant it as a joke, perhaps not. I certainly support the idea of a new, small, energetic group striking out on their own. But I do not support the concept of plagiarism. Please tell me I'm wrong about this, but many of the Mandrake docs appear to be Red Hat docs with no changes other than every occurance of Red Hat being replaced by Mandrake. If this is true then it's very wrong. If it's not, then I apologize for even suggesting the idea.
Quake3 + Mandrake (Score:1)
Re:Why Not? (Score:2)
Installers use base configurations. Linux has no more problem in this area then Windows does. I don't think anyone is claiming that the installer is failing to load in graphics mode. Okay, there are a few bugs. But the problem is not that it "can't" be done.
There are 2 problems people point to with graphical installs right now. One, they are mostly new development projects, so aren't really that stable yet. More time, and usage should take care of that. And second, there are times that graphical installers are useless. Can't use a graphical install on a headless box.
-BrentRe:Graphical installers.. (Score:2)
Re:Graphical Installers - A Step Backwards? (Score:2)
There will always be options for Open source users. There will be options as far as operating systems (Linux, FreeBSD/NetBSD/OpenBSD collection, etc.)... and distributions... Redhat, Caldera, Corel, etc for the User friendly atmosphere. And Debian, Slackware, etc. for the geeks/power users, etc. Right now Linux is being marketed as the "new" alternative to Windows (tm), when in reality Linux isn't new at all.
Windows (tm) converts want gui installs, they want things to be as easy as they are in Windows (tm). Some Windows (tm) converts I'm sure are also willing to learn the depths of Linux, others are not and simply want to do their word processing and check their e-mail (if they even know that much).
Old school Linux users will be skeptical, that's a fact, as it is with any issue of this nature.
I am not a Linux guru, I would never claim to be, but I am a participant and an open minded observer and I think that the Linux community shouldn't completely shun the inevitable, otherwise they are alienating themselves and people who are open to learning more about the power of Linux. Be a teacher instead of keeping your knowledge to yourself and not accepting those who aren't as well learned as yourself.
The reason I use linux is that I'm very inquisitive, I like to try new things, gain as much knowledge as possible, experiment, learn. So for me Linux is something to experience. I am a newbie, but a newbie who is learning more and more each day and digging into the foundation.
Alright, I'm finished rambling. Say what you will.
Re:Graphical Installer is a must... (Score:2)
Keyboard Zen, huh? 8^D
I like it - though I was (and still am) better with half keyboard / half flightstick pro in Descent (I/II)... but a couple'a extra hat switches are good like that...
And I think most of the commands in emacs are intuitive... sheesh... *^)
Re:Graphical installers.. (Score:4)
Hmm, is it really such a good idea to have graphical installers? At least IMHO there should be a text-based fallback. I've seen graphical Linux installers fail (Corel being one, on newer video cards), which is really a shameful turn-off for people who are switching to Linux for the first time. Now, if only there was a text-based fallback, everything would be OK -- so even if the installer encounters some strange video card released just a day ago, it won't barf but simply fall back to a text-mode installer that at least gets the base system installed, then the user can worry about configuring Linux to work with his video hardware.
(No, using VGA16 does NOT guarantee anything... at least in Corel's case, the X server simply segfaults on the ATI Rage 128 even in VGA16 modes. Text-mode is virtually a 100% guarantee: why not be prepared for the worst when it doesn't cost that much?)
Mandrake is cool (Score:2)
Re:Kernel 2.2.14? (Score:4)
Mother Nature Released Under GPL (Score:2)
ID Software released it's controversial Quake mod hours after God released Weather, and the script kiddies have been causing widespread mayhem in California. Due to a programming bug, California slid into the ocean. Munge, of l0pht industries, has been calling for "ethical hacking" of the weather infrastructure.
Even slashdot, a nerds for news site has not gone unaffected. It's servers were attacked by a huge distributed Abundance of Service attack (ASS) causing torrential downpours which have flooded out a three county area surrounding the "Geek Compound".
Additional news to follow...
mandrake 7 (Score:3)
I could understand Mandrake 6, new kernel 2.2.. Mandrake should really wait until kernel 2.4, XFree 4 come out at least, which isn't too far in to the future - as well as new drivers, such as those from Creative... OK, you get obtain them anyway, but its much nicer being able to install new drivers with a new version of Linux instead of hunting around on internet.
Do the new features really justify a new version number? It implies a major release, but to be honest, I can't see that it does...
the difference between kernel, OS, etc (Score:2)
Kernel, OS and shell I'm OK with --
But I have trouble picturing the diff., for instance, between a window manager and a desktop manager. I've had it explained, but like many things (like the rules of baseball), I'd have real trouble clearly distinguishing them to someone else. Can anyone recommend a site where these things are really well spelt out? ("Dummy" book level is just fine, thanks.)
And I'm mostly a Mac victim rather than PC, but your point is still valid
timothy
Re:Graphical installers.. (Score:2)
Prefessor Xavior needs to recruit Mandrake! (Score:2)
Gee RedHat thet's a great product you've got there. Let's see here... I'll take it, revamp and improve it and then I'll outsell you using your own product.
But seriously, I absolutely love Mandrake. I have Mandrake 6.0 and RedHat 6.0 and there is no comparison. I've got RedHat 4.2, 5.0, 5.1, 5.2, 6.0, and 6.1 and as much as I like it, Mandrake is just more taylored to my liking.
LK
Graphical Installers - A Step Backwards? (Score:5)
Am I the only person who doesn't like them? Obviously, they are prettier than the standard text / ncurses based installer. But do they really offer any additional functionality?
By switching to a graphical installer, you introduce the signficant possibility that, for whatever reason, X won't load. I have heard tales of GUI installers refusing to start, and rebooting the machine without any explanation. Graphical installers are inherently more complex than text-based ones, and thus more likely to have bugs.
I'm the first to admit that I have never extensively used a GUI installer - but for those of you who have - what did you think? Does moving to (g)tk really improve the installation experience? Does it make it easier to install? Does the install ever fail? Or am I just paranoid?
Re:The easiest installation I ever had... (Score:2)
The worst installation I ever had was Caldera 2.2. It was the only graphical installer I ever used. I didn't like my video card, so I had to revert to Lisa. Next up was Debian (why are you installing nonfree packages by default!?!?).
But the real key to Linux is not ease of installation. If we succeed in the marketplace, then everyone will be getting it preinstalled anyway. The real key is setup and maintenance. In this area, Slackware really shines. It's because there's no broken linuxconfs or single-minded Yast's in the way.
Now, understand that I'm not recommending Slackware for the absolute newbie. Certainly not. But once you've got a certain modicum of knowledge under your belt, Slackware is a breath of fresh air.
What'd the morons ever do to you? (Score:2)
In windoze land, morons can be malicious by releasing viruses and blindly financing MS's efforts to prop up it stock at the expense of humanity.
In linux land, however, all morons can do is provide a greater installed linux base that will get the attention of companies porting their hardware and software. The dominant culture of releasing quality software rather than crap is inherent in the open-source model and is not going anywhere. There is not a finite amount of development out there that we shouldn't squander on the point-and-drool crowd -- they can be incorporated into society with full suffrage and few complications. Even if such accomadations become the default, there will always be the underlying tools and flags for those with the power to wield them. If you don't want to run their software, then go ahead and don't. There'll always be slackware or something like it for people like you.
And if you won't even let them install the thing, how are they supposed to be converted and turn from their luser ways? How many of today's electrical engineers got their start assembling redboxes from schematics they downloaded off the local phreaking bbs? You will some day reap the benefits of others' charity, and you won't be any the better off for being an elitist fool.
What supermount's all about (Score:3)
It was originally written by Steven C. Tweedie for 2.0.x, but he abandonded it a while ago. This new version was ported up to 2.2.x and cleaned up a bit by a Russian programmer in response to a request on CoSource. As one of the "sponsors" of that development I'm thrilled with SuperMount, and I think it's great that Mandrake's picked it up (hopefully they'll maintain it and/or port to 2.3/2.4). It's much nicer than Redhat's autofs hack, and it enables games with redbook audio tracks to work in Wine amongst other things. (you can't play audio on a mounted drive under Linux, which is a severe limitation for games).
Re:Graphical Installers - A Step Backwards? (Score:2)
Text based installation systems usually give the impression of an outdated, user unfriendly program / operating system.
Remember, linux needs to aim towards non geeks.. therefore if such users see an attractive installation, they'll think its easy to install and use, based on their usage of Windows.
OK, it may not add towards better installation functionality, but its the presentation that counts.
Missing Link (Score:2)
Nifty (Score:4)
Re:Waiting... (Score:2)
Rupert
Re:Graphical Installers - A Step Backwards? (Score:2)
In addition, they actually crippled their text-based install when they added the graphical one. I decided to reinstall RH6.1, to change my paritioning scheme, and figured I'd use the text install and save time. I found that while you can use the keyboard to navigate the RPM tree, you now can't hit F1 and get a package description - you've gotta go graphical for that.
Blech.
Personally, I'd like a text-based install that lets me use 80x50 mode. Much easier to select packages that way.
Re:Prefessor Xavior needs to recruit Mandrake! (Score:2)
LK
Waiting for Godot (Score:3)
On another note, I'm pretty interested in this "security" settings system they have. Moreover, I'd like to see how they've set it up for minimal security. Does it run in single-user mode?
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Re:Graphical Installers - A Step Backwards? (Score:2)
It would be nice, however, if more distros supported GUI install AND text install for 'expert' users.
Re:Why Mandrake? (Score:3)
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Re:Where does one obtain the supermount patch? (Score:3)
Re:Graphical installers.. (Score:2)
Had to install Linux on a dozen headless boxen. Drop in a videocard for install? No way! Just recompiled the bootdisk kernel so I could use a serial console. Took me an hour to make bootdisk mods and recompile. It would have taken an extra fifteen-per-machine it would have taken to swap in/out a videocard, (or the HD for 'cloning') not to mention the broken 'warranty' seals.
I wonder if you can bind the graphical installer to another Xserver? Hmmm.. . .
Re:mandrake 7 (Score:2)
I guess what I'm saying is: Does it really matter? How much information do version numbers convey to the Linux-world anyway?
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Graphical Installer is a must... (Score:3)
In my experience, I have found that Mac users are the most open minded when it comes to Linux (probably the reason they tried something different in the first place) but are initially turned off by its complexity. If you make it seem simple enough to use at first, but keep all the power of Linux accessible to them, they will slowly explore and realize what a wonderful thing it is, but this is a slow process for many people who are not geeks.
Re:Why Mandrake? (Score:2)
Also MacMillian(sp?) sells retail boxed versions of Mandrake that come with a decent set of books for the Newbie.
LK
Graphical Installers (Score:2)
It wouldn't set the correct LILO default partition. If I picked the DOS partition as default, it would still default to the Linux boot partition.
The X setup simply wouldn't work. I had to run Xconfigurator or restore my old XF86Config file.
When choosing packages to install, many of the packages that should've been checked by default weren't checked... but they installed anyway. This made it difficult to tell which packages were truly selected to be installed.
I hope Mandrake's installer doesn't suffer from similar problems. I never had any problems with Red Hat until 6.1.
+++
Re:mandrake 7 (Score:2)
Re:Graphical installers.. (Score:3)
Red Hat 6.1:
The graphical installer doesn't list all of the available packages. It also failed to correctly configure X on my computer. The fallback text-installer in 6.1 does configure X properly, but it is missing the F1 package descriptions! Ouch!
Mandrake 6.1:
Text install only. Descriptions are there, and everything works as advertised - until you get it running. For some odd reason, that distro doesn't install kdelibs! I always need to install it by hand. This is my favorite distro.
Corel Linux:
Just tried to install 1.0 last night on a spare machine. The GUI installer doesn't work with my mouse. I have a Logitech FirstMouse+. That shouldn't be a problem, but it is.
Supermount? (Score:2)
Re:Not everything bleeding edge is good (Score:2)
Great, so you refuse to use 6.1. I'll alert the media. Meanwhile, what's the point? Why shouldn't I be able to use it?
Re:Graphical Installers - A Step Backwards? (Score:3)
Re:First time Linux user... (Score:2)
As you already know, just about anything you'd probably have will suit. It just won't suit for everything :)
It depends on what you want to do. Compile Mozilla? Pentium !!! 500, 256 meg ram, 10 gig HD. Run StarOffice? Celeron 300, 128 meg ram, 6.4gig HD. Run an apache server over your DSL line? Pentium 133, 32 meg ram, 4 gig HD.
I'd generally pick something up in the AMD K6-3 400, 128meg ram 10gig HD range. But what am I saying. I run Linux on a Pentium 233, with 128meg ram, and 20 gig HD space. And I still compile Mozilla and run StarOffice. And Enlightenment.
-BrentMarketing numbers vs. real life ... (Score:3)
For Microsoft, the name of the product is an important selling point. The naming structure of MS products with the ProductName (Year) format is part of their marketing scheme, and they will work toward deadlines to make things come out in the appropriate year, or at least aim for it. (Remember the release of Windows 95?). I'm not bashing this approach - it actually makes some things slightly more intuitive. It's a lot easier to know "Well, I need to have Money 2000 to exchange data with my software at work." than "Well, I need to have kernel 2.1.5 and a certain c library installed
With Linux distribs, they're not limited by the marketing need for a certain number, though, or at least they needn't be. Mandrake certainly isn't!
They can release a major version (with what sounds like quite a few new features) as 7 quite legitimately. I'd also like to see the things you'd like to in an upcoming version, but there's no point in saying that Mandrake should wait until perfection is arrived at on all fronts before releasing. In fact, all those nice GPL'd things released by Mandrake will help everyone (including Mandrake) toward this goal faster than if Mandrake were to wait till it had independently solved all of the Unsolved Problems.
XFree 4 - what, early / mid 2000? It sounds great! (And I'm lucky enough to have no graphical needs unmet as yet with 3.6)
KDE 2 - still a while 'til it's really there, though it, too, sounds great.
the new Kernel - soonish, ditto.
mozilla - well, it keeps getting better, and is quite nice at present, if it meets your needs. But waiting for the "finished" product before releasing a new Mandrake
All that said, I must again praise the Mandrake (and underlying Red Hat (and underlying distro makers(and Alan Cox and other kernel developers (including Linus, as the colonel of the kernel's kernel)))) team for the greatness of Mandrake 6.1.
A friend of mine (brilliant but not into computers much) was amazed at how well put together Mandrake 6.1 was when she saw it at my place this week. "What are you running on your computer?" she asked. "That's Linux, with KDE."
"Whoah! I didn't think Linux was so slick!"
(Heavy paraphrase, but the spirit is correct.)
timothy
Re:Graphical Installers - A Step Backwards? (Score:5)
Is that right?
Doesn't bother me one bit if it doesn't aim towards non-geeks. Geek all the way, IMHO. RedHat/Corel/Mandrake/etc. may need to market to non-geeks. I could give two.
Linux in and of itself gets along just fine without having GUI installers and "looks just like Windows(tm)!" crap interfaces. If someone wants them, however they will be written and people can use them.
The mistake people seem to make is to think that somehow if Linux becomes the prevalent operating system -- since it has been more stable, more secure, more robust, etc., than the crapware M$ alternative -- that the World Will Be A Better Place. But to do that everyone seems to believe that Linux has to offer the same eye candy, bloat, and useless processor drag that made M$ so popular to get it into the hands of the common man.
If Linux provides all these features it will undoubtedly (IMHO) become just like windows. O.k., maybe it will be more stable, and the code will be available, but the average friggin' moron will have a drop-in windows replacement. The average friggin' moron will be just as friggin' moronic as he is today. For the bulk of the populace (the non-geeks) the world will not be a better place. What did a person like me (who is happy to have the source code, happy with Linux not being a Windows drop-in replacement) gain from all of this? A graphical installer that crashes? A desktop that looks like Windows(tm)?
So, you say, I don't have to use those "improvements" -- which puts me at making my own distro from tarballs and CVS pulls, fine. But, if there is any benefit of a "distribution" it is first the elimination of hand compilation. If I (a self-proclaimed geek from way back) have lost that benefit then everything else is no advantage to the rest of the geek community -- in fact we are worse off for having Big Business in our once-quiet community.
So, "Linux needs to aim towards non geeks"? Bullshit.
Re:Graphical Installers-The mainstreaming of Linux (Score:2)
I like the fact that Linux, *BSD, and BeOS are "geeky". Why? Because that alone keeps the no-nothing, keeping up with the Joneses, first 'puter losers away.
These people will take the emphasis off of flexibility, and stability and put it on ease of use.
If I wanted to exclusively us an "easy" OS, I have a few others to choose from. I want to POWER and STABILITY of linux to remain it's primary features.
LK
I prefer "make xconfig" myself (Score:2)
That's funny. I always use "make xconfig" because "make menuconfig" is so hard to move around in. You have to use the arrows for everything, and text screen redraws are so slow. In X, a simple point and click opens any category instantly, and you can scroll very quickly by dragging the scroll bar's elevator.
you *need* to use the mouse.
You also need a running X server. Go figure.
That alone slows things up considerably...
Only if you insist on imposing an inappropriate usage pattern on it.
You can break any UI by treating it like some other UI. Use it as it was intended, and things almost always get better. I use xconfig because I like it better. You are free to use menuconfig if you like it better. But don't say xconfig is inferior simply because you don't like it.
Re:Graphical Installers - A Step Backwards? (Score:2)
- Insert CD-ROM, boot computer.
- Installer searches for hard drives/partitions.
- Installer prompts user as to where they want to install it (automatically shrink the fat32 partitoins if you have to here... I think we're finally getting reliable Linux solutions to this... but can we defrag a FAT partition from Linux yet?)
- Ask them their networking information (DNS, hostname, dhcp server, etc if they are on a LAN/Cable Modem type situation)
- Ask them for a username, and password
- Ask for root password
- Install every darned thing on that CD to keep them from screwing themselves over.
What's a big install run these days of a full working Linux system? Slack 7.0 was a hair under a gig... and you've got more things at your fingertips than any newbie could imagine for a installing just their operating system.The only thing a GUI would do to help here it give them a smoother looking progress bar.