
Libranet GNU/Linux 2.0 Coming Soon 189
tal256 writes: "As a proud employee of Libranet, I'm pleased to announce that Libranet has started taking pre-orders for Libranet GNU/Linux 2.0. I feel I should note, of all the vaunted Debian based commercial distributions (Stormix, Corel, Progeny) Libranet is the only one left. We got started before they did and here we still are. Libranet has proven that to stay in the race what you need is a good product rather than millions of dollars behind you; but that's what the world of Free/Open software is all about, isn't it? - Tal" I love Debian, but have never tried Libranet. (The machine I'm typing on was installed with a Stormix CD; my laptop started as a Progeny machine...) Since we seem to be running out of other Debian-based distros, looks like Libranet is my next choice. :)
Jeez, michael.... (Score:5, Funny)
What's wrong with the installer? (Score:1)
Re:Jeez, michael.... (Score:2)
After having Debian on my PC for more than 2 years, I sure wish the installer was better.
I guess having a nice installer in Red Hat is a good thing, since after all the dependency hell, broken compilers, etc, people often "upgrade" via a reinstall from a RH CD.
I'll take apt for upgrades anyday. Debian installer? I barely remember it.
Re:Jeez, michael.... (Score:2)
The initial install, and the pain it invokes, matters to some because some people never get past the install. Duh.
Personally, my only peeve with Debian (Sid) is that nobody can seem to maintain KDE properly, but the harder-to-maintain GNOME base seems to work peachy. The excuse I've been given is that GNOME is easier to maintain. Hrm.
And that's a constant problem.
Re:Jeez, michael.... (Score:2)
What are those people doing playing with linux then? At some stage, no matter how cute Red Hat or Mandrakes installer is or the in-GUI user friendliness, you'll have to do something in linux that'll be a whole lot hairier than the Debian installer.
Personally, my only peeve with Debian (Sid) is that nobody can seem to maintain KDE properly,
Not a problem for me, I prefer Gnome. Seems to be more stable than KDE, though I have'nt bothered to use it in a long while.
Re:Jeez, michael.... (Score:2)
Duh, that was my point. Of course GNOME is more stable; more attention is paid to GNOME than to KDE, hence my peeve. In other distributions, it's Gnome, not KDE, that gives such fits, because GNOME is harder to maintain. Of course, nothing is impossible when you've got a grudge to keep.
Erm, no, actually, the probem is more likely due to the inability of Debian's maintenance tools to do recursive rebuilds i.e. if libpng gets rebuilt, rebuild everything that is dependent upon libpng. If something like that existed, it'd be far simpler for package maintainers, IMHO. Oh wait, FreeBSD already has that. Hrm.
Re:Jeez, michael.... (Score:2)
I was under the impression that much of the KDE instability was due to most of KDE being done in C++, something that the gcc folks themselves state, is not yet anywhere near as stable in their compiler as C is.
Why does Red Hat and Sun prefer Gnome? And what's with all the erm and duh? Another
I like cheese I'm lactose intolerant.
Re:Jeez, michael.... (Score:2)
Well, whatever; I just know I have great luck with KDE, and terrible luck with GNOME, in other distributions. FYI, GNOME isn't just C based. It's also based on C++, Objective C, and whatever language is popular this year.
Why does Red Hat and Sun prefer Gnome?
They're afraid that, if they write something non-Free, they'll have to pay for a Qt license.
And what's with all the erm and duh? Another
You, perhaps. I was being what is known as condescending. I'm actually quite young (28) but doggone it, I feel like saying "I'm right, you're wrong."
Maybe they came to the same conclusion many do, KDE is less configurable and less stable
Nope, it's not less stable, and I'm not sure what you mean by "less configurable." I find KDE to be quite configurable.
and if KDE were'nt so braindead in some of their licence decisions in the past,
Yes, and you've said the important phrase: in the past. As in, it's over, dead, gone.
more would have embraced it to the point where it is on top. KDE can die for all I care.
That's you're decision, if you want to be so immature as to hold a grudge. Which pretty much gives me more grist for my "GNUbies holding an anti-KDE grudge."
BTW, how does it work for one to be a GNUbie AND a GNOME enthusiast when people like Miguel (and dammit, I don't care what people say; it used to be his baby exclusively) whore the project around to proprietary vendors?
Marketing speak :) (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Marketing speak :) (Score:1)
Re:Marketing speak :) (Score:2)
Was'nt it Elvish on the ring that should not be uttered?
Re:Marketing speak :) (Score:2)
Then, I've never read the book and the flick was pretty long for me to remember.
I was thinking, "is this never going to end?" and then..... it did'nt. ; )
Loved it though.
Running out? (Score:2, Informative)
And then there's Lindows, but I dont really consider that a linux distro.
Just for your infomation.
Re:Running out? (Score:1)
So it is in fact a linux distribution.
The thing I don't get. (Score:3, Insightful)
apt-get update
apt-get install foo_software
How hard is that? I don't mind paying to support linux, but why am I going to pay for a distribution based on debian, when debian already kicks butt?
And with the work being done on the debian install process it is getting easier all the time.
- I'll bash you in the forhead.
Re:The thing I don't get. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The thing I don't get. (Score:2, Funny)
How did such a thing get past the damn executives in charge?!
I would have loved to work there, if only for the name tag/badge with my name, right above the acronym.
Re:The thing I don't get. (Score:2)
One suggestion for the Network Services group at one of my old jobs was Centralized Ubiquitous Network and Telephony Services.
--saint
Re:The thing I don't get. (Score:1)
Re:The thing I don't get. (Score:2)
There is no download of the Corel Office suites and never was. There was a download version of Wordperfect 8 (don't know if you can still find it) and a download version of PhotoPaint (was it 9). As for Corel Updater, you can just point your boxes to Debian and grab stuff from there BUT BE WARNED you may blast out some of the Corel customisation, particularly the samba integration. You can just dist-upgrade a Corel Linux box to Debian or you can pick your packages but I wouldn't (I have no knowledge, just guesses) expect Corel Updater to do you too many favours again in the near future (if ever) if you use the Corel sites.
The far more interesting question is can you still order the Linux WordPerfect Office 2000 or Draw 9 from Corel? If not I suspect that MS squeezed the out of it with their non-voting stock deal (do a grep of microsoft on the dll's supplied for a clue as to how Corel shot themselves in the foot and probably blew this).
A different view (Score:3, Insightful)
This is where I disagree. Yes, Corel made certain things like installation easier but Corel gave up quickly after the distro was released. Users wanting security upgrades were up the creek. So even if users knew about security it was by no means easy to get updates from Corel.
For the parent, I will have to agree. I think that Debian-based distros have an uphill battle to fight when competing against normal Debian, but in all fairness, thats not who they compete against. The Debian developers just make a solid distro regardless of deadlines and marketing. Thats great for us knowledgeable folk, but newer users need a little more help.
Re:A different view (Score:3, Insightful)
More like Microsoft told them to get out of the Linux market or they wouldnt invest in them (or hire their services).
Corel isnt in the Linux business because MS didnt want Corel Office / Corel Draw etc to start targetting Linux because their was no room for them on Windows. It would have helped prove that MS stiffles the PC software world && help GNU/Linux bust onto the desktop.
Should I mention that MS owns (still?) a big chunk of Apple stock...
MS controls Apple and MS put the screws to Corel.
I enjoy a good conspiracy as much as the next guy, but please, think about what Ive said here and
*
Via Office && Explorer: Imagine Wall Street's panick over AAPL if MS announced a discontinuation of these apps. Moderate Apple users would also flee.
Via their 'Non-voting shares': Wouldnt dumping the shares also cause a decrease in AAPLE, and a further decrease due to Wall Street jitters about Apple becoming a target for MS.
Apple && MS are quite cozy. Without Apple, who would MS prop up as their competition. And Corel, well they were sinking anyway -- MS made them an offer ($$$) they were in no position to refuse.
Re:A different view (Score:2, Insightful)
Dumping Linux was all about Corel "focusing on key areas", meaning as a business, they couldn't justify continuing development on it. I doubt Microsoft gave two shits about Corel doing development on Linux. I mean, they wanted them to do
And if anyone is curious about the (former) Corel distribution, check out Xandros [xandros.com]
Re:A different view (Score:3, Interesting)
Hmm, Corel Updater pointing to Corel and Debian Security is a good big step along the way (you might have to decide whether to break Corel's work and take a debian security update or to risk ploughing on without it). You suggest that all Corel did was make an easier installer, but that's just ignorant! Did you ever install and use Corel Linux? It had samba filemanager integration, a "control panel" which actually did more than tweak your window manager (like control aspects of X or setup printers), Corel Updater which is a KDE apt frontend and the most ridiculously easy installer IF your hardware was supported (each version expanded the installers supported hardware significantly).
Why do you think a Debian based distro has a fight versus Debian? I would forsee/hope that in 5 years only 5% of "Debian" users would actually be using debian.org's version and the rest would be using a repackaged version that does what you need, how you need and is supported the way you want. A company could even sell debian.orgs version but with their own ftp servers for packages and their own support system (i.e. phone and email support for debian). Why should people break their back tweaking and configuring Debian to their task when there are 5% of Debian users (or would be debian users) who need the same! Why should Debian set their base configuration to suit any section of the users instead of providing a sane default setup for everyone to work from? The question is will commercial or non-commercial distros win? My money is on demudi to show the world just how good debian is and for more to follow.
Re:The thing I don't get. (Score:2)
That's the nice thing about such a system: it gets the benefits of a well-tested core, so they don't have to concentrate on that (just on making an easier install, and I just installed it, and it's hella sweet) and more recent packages . . . all on this well-tested core. It doesn't get much better than this.
Re:The thing I don't get. (Score:1)
No, thought not.
Help wanted [Re:The thing I don't get.] (Score:1)
If anyone would like to give something back and get involved - by maintaining a package, fixing bugs, translating something into a nother language or whatever, please do.
Get on the appropriate mailing list [debian.org] and join in
- Derwen
Re:The thing I don't get. (Score:1, Insightful)
There are exactly two different reasons:
It would be VERY nice is Debian was able to run 2 Debian versions at the same time (or at least, as a boot choice) with basic Debian, and to automate that also "apt-get co-install new-unstable"). Dist-upgrade is not really practical for now (I now, I've been using all version since 1.3, man, those broken dependancies drove me crazy).
APT's available onother Linux distributions too (Score:2)
Anyway, APT has been available for Red Hat for some time now and its how I update most o my boxes. There's a few good publically avaliable repositories and more on the way - namely all the Red Hat CDs, all the updates as they come out, FreshRPMs, and Gnomehide. I have around 2.8GB of (binary) software from 9 different sources on an APT repository I maintain at my workplace, all of which are tested against 7.2. Sure, 2.8 is less than 6GB (the amount on Debian repositories), but its got everythign we need - acroread, postfix, enhydra, kylix open edition, just about everything else.
There's also the fact that the ability to install RPM packages is part of the LSB, and alien doesn't seem to handle this reliably.
If you're interested, download apt packages from Freshrpms [freshrpms.net]
Nice Additude.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Is Linux really as good as I have heard?
It's better.
Almost as good as... (Score:2)
Simply put, this is the best desktop system available.
Bold Statement...
"Libranet is user friendly for new users" (Score:2, Insightful)
So that anyone can try and Install Debian with little fuss...
AND get a stable system.
Maybe is my local lan ftp / Web server + Domain Controller is on it's way...
Would it run on a P133/24Mo ?
Re:"Libranet is user friendly for new users" (Score:1)
Last time I check, "trying and installing" -the "new version," nonetheless - of Debian GNU/Linux was as easy as this [debian.org]:
If you are using APT, you can use the following lines in your
deb http://http.us.debian.org/debian testing main contrib non-free
deb http://non-us.debian.org/debian-non-US testing/non-US main contrib non-free
Read the apt-get(8) and the sources.list(5) manual pages for more information.
#apt-get update && apt-get dist-upgrade
OK, but fresh Debian Install ? (Score:2, Interesting)
editing the network config to manually remove the 47 NICs it installed ?
Moving a small (1k) file to the proper directory to make it work ?
...
I speak about all those "small" problems that always made a Debian install a 3 days - 5 kilos printed paper affair...
At least for me 8)
Re:OK, but fresh Debian Install ? (Score:1)
Admittedly, it's not patched or anything as it's only routing between 2 hubs sat on my desk unconnected from any real network but pointing it at the local mirror and typing "apt-get update && apt-get dist-upgrade" wouldn't have taken much longer..
But then I don't run X or anything like that
Nice 8) (Score:1)
For the routing job i was quite used to FreesSco (www.freesco.org)
VERY nice one floppy router / DSL / Cable acces.
And some sort of NAT.
I just love this one, one floppy, 5', and running 8)
I'll try Woody next week. I was trying to get my 98 box to connect to a 2kPro server without a PDC and the only way I found yet is to open the server to Anybody...
Maybe this Samba-PDC thing will be worth it 8)
BTW, FTP is still slugging it's way to answering. I download a Woopping 9 bytes
Re:"Libranet is user friendly for new users" (Score:2)
Uh, the emphasis there was on the "anyone," methinks. As opposed to, "people who already have Debian installed."
Re:"Libranet is user friendly for new users" (Score:2)
Re:"Libranet is user friendly for new users" (Score:2)
The issue is ram. I don't know about 24 megs, but I know that on 16 megs of ram, dselect is slooooow (I left it for an hour and it still didn't even show me the package list), and don't even bother with X (which is probably what Libra's admin tools run under).
I would say try and scrounge up some more ram to at least get yourself to 32, to give yourself a nice margin. Apache takes up a fair chunk of mem even idling, and you don't want to spend hours just adding packages. Unpacking/installing from the command-line was almost as bad as dselect, because it was so heavy into swap, and my drive doesn't get on well with that kind of use.
You could use aptitude or console-apt, but I don't know how well those would've ran because I gave up and threw another 32 megs of ram in the box.
Anyway, if you learn the apt command-line tools, I can't forsee you having -too- much trouble, but pick up some extra ram if you can. You'll be glad you did.
--Dan
Still there? (Score:1)
Dirk
Libranet ... yeah! (Score:5, Interesting)
I tried Libranet and went 'wow'. It's userfriendly enough (not like Mandrake, but hey, you get Debian!) to introduce new users to Debian and stable enough to not make those newbies regret it.
It's not bleeding edge (it's mostly the stable debian release with updated packages like recent kernel, X, KDE, Gnome), but more desktop minded than the regular Debian Stable release. I enjoyed when I used it (I wanted more bleeding edge, so I'm running Testing and Sid on my desktops. Yep. Add some lines into the sources.list and apt-get dist-upgrade into it!).
I really want Libranet to succeed (now that progeny is gone).
C.
Re:Libranet ... yeah! (Score:1)
I love running Debian, I've got it on my desktop and two laptops, but it is sometimes hard to install.
Good Luck Libranet, I would like a little easier install.
Re:Libranet ... yeah! (Score:2)
pretty good (Score:2, Interesting)
I recently installed the last verion of Libranet (1.91 or something) on my laptop and it's pretty good. It is more up to date than standard Debian and came with Ximian GNOME already set up. It also has this weird control panel thing that has a few config tools and even a button that will run "make menuconfig" for you so you can recompile your kernel which was kinda neat (but also kinda stupid since its not exactly difficult to type make menuconfig anyway.)
OK, Where are the download ? (Score:1)
Anyone got the ftp ?
I could do with some FREE download...
ftp.libranet.com (Score:1)
My ping on server is 150, so not too slow.
But connecting to it...
Slashdotted FTP 8)
Hey you lousy hackers, let me grab some bytes 8)
xandros (Score:2, Informative)
Not quite, Xandros - formel Corel Linux, is coming with a new version within a few weeks, and a beta within a few days.
not the last one left (Score:1)
and the lindows distubution is being based on that distro.
Why I pay for open source (Score:2, Interesting)
Second: Big distributions like Red Hat, Suse and others have really great people working there. That is why I buy both Red Hat and Suse, not because I run them, but because they make GPL licensed software. Which means in the end that I can run them on my debian system.
Third: I know that my money put in distributions is well spent because the software is open source. Opposed to buying propietary software, where it feels like they are only after the money. They can also charge unreasanable high prices because they _own_ the right for the software.
Re:Why I pay for open source (Score:3, Insightful)
I just hope Libranet donates part of their profits to the OSI - it would only be fair. Debian makes the packages, the software, the formats, gets the servers, the maintainers, the bugfixes, the scripts and so on, and Libranet sells them. This is, of course, legal, but I think Libranet has a moral obligation to give some of their profits (even just a few bucks per copy sold) to make sure that this free ride stays free for everyone.
--Dan
Why would I install it? (Score:2, Interesting)
Choice of distro's is great but I can't honestly see what good this will do. No offence to the Libranet employees.
Why can't people start creating new (even commercial) applications on top of Linux istead of just releasing distro's?
Re:Why would I install it? (Score:2)
Libranet makes it ten times easier. Finally the best, most advanced, most convenient, best thought-out, most 'Free', and more widely accepted distro out there is usable by end users.
Sure, this post is incredibly subjective, but there are a LOT of people out there who agree - Debian is the epitome of what Linux should be. It's free, it's a community effort, making no money and giving everything they do away for Free.
Libranet is a chance to support that very effort, and indeed, an attempt (and, apparantly, success) at improving upon it.
This is why I think you should. There are likely other, more technical reasons, but I'm very emotionally invested in Debian's philosophy. Maybe someone else will tell you why it's objectively better, but not I, not today anyway.
--Dan
Re:Why would I install it? (Score:2)
The 'testing' branch uses software that was in the 'unstable' branch for two weeks without having any bug reports (not including feature requests) filed against it. This is the best way to go if you're not a masochist.
The 'unstable' branch is the 'god only knows' branch. Going with unstable can mean that after a dist-upgrade, five core packages change in some unforseeable (by you) way, and 90% of your programs break (this has happened). Their philosophy is 'it's unstable. If you don't like it, don't use it, 'cause we don't know what'll happen any more than you do.'
In that sense, it's better than other distros, in giving you three options. You can stick with what's worked for a while, you can go with the cutting-edge but tested software, or you can go with bleeding edge and hope you can find a bandage before you pass out.
--Dan
Why Libranet? (Score:5, Informative)
I have been a Linux user for about 4 and a half years now. In this time I've run the gamut, bouncing from distribution to distribution. For the last year and a half I've stuck with Debian. Why? It's stable, fast, light, well integrated and, if you use Testing, Sid or Ximian with Potato, very up to date. After getting used to Debian's quirks there's no going back for me. I played with RH7.2 lately, but I miss being able to decide that I need a new compiler and then being able to apt-get it.
Great, so that's why to bother with Debian. If you want more reasons please see the links below.
Okay, so why a commercial Debian? For convenience. Libranet adds a really nice adminmenu that consolidates pretty much every aspect of system management, from kernel compilation to X setup, to adding new users, changing your clock or setting up a DSL connection. It's all there in one spot. In addition, the setup is a little simpler than Debian's. Personally, I don't have a huge problem With the Debian installer. What it lacks in looks and polish it more than makes up for in flexibility. It's a great base installer. What Libranet has done is slightly massage it, rather than completely replacing it. This makes the parts that normally trip up new users go away, but still retains much of the underlying flexibility.
Another reason for Libranet is the initial package selection. If you're new to Linux, Debian can be a little... stark. Libranet bundles packages into sections and asks you easy questions like: Do you need a web server? Or, Should I install Office Suites. It's a little thing, but it's nice.
Then there's their support. The small knowledge base succinctly answers 90% of all new questions. Things like "How do I set up ADSL?" or "How do I share my internet connection?" are there, with very simple step-by-step guides on how to accomplish each task. If you need to ask them a question they will get back to you pretty much within a day. It's a small operation (about 6 people, I think.) and they have a nice personal touch.
Finally, at least with 1.9.1, they have kept a solid base (Potato) and added to it. They added reiserfs support, Kernel 2.4, XFree86 4.x, KDE 2.1, and Ximian Gnome. All of this can be done with pure Debian Potato, but it means understanding apt, searching out unofficial apt lines, manually configuring or even compiling packages. Libranet took this all away.
In short, Libranet is important because it takes away the annoying details.
Pure Debian most definitely has it's place. I use it on a laptop with an old video card and no CD-ROM, and have used it for an Alpha and NetWinder that I own. However, for end users who either don't want to learn what each package does or who want to save a bunch of time by letting someone else make some pretty safe assumptions, a commercial Debian distro such as Libranet is the way to go.
Okay, here are some links:
A bunch of testimonials from Libranet customers:
http://www.libranet.com/testimonials.html
Here's a review of 1.9.0:
http://www.thedukeofurl.org/reviews/misc/libran
Debian for BeOS users:
http://tinyplanet.ca/pubs/debian/html/book1.htm
Reasons I like Debian: (Shameless self-promotion)
http://www.moses.cx/reviews/debian/debian.php
Re:Why Libranet? (Score:1)
I played with RH7.2 lately, but I miss being able to decide that I need a new compiler and then being able to apt-get it.
Excuse my ignorance, but I see messages like this all the times, and I really don't understand. Can't you just rpm -Uvh gcc-*.rpm ?
Best,
GFK's
Re:Why Libranet? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Why Libranet? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Why Libranet? (Score:1)
Re:Why Libranet? (Score:1)
However, overall Debian has a lot of good points and I enjoyed using it, and I will probably give it another try sometime in the future, or even Libranet, it sounds interesting.
Re:but why not apt-get (Score:2)
Actually, apt will tell you everything it is going to do, before it does it. If anything it's going to do is more than you asked for (e.g. adding or upgrading an extra package to satisfy a dependency or removing one to satisfy a conflict), it will ask you for confirmation before it starts.
It leaves behind all the packages it downloads, until you tell it to get rid of them (all of them, or only those that aren't currently installed), so, if need be, you can go back to previous versions.
There's a difference between automating tedious tasks and hiding them. But, hey, if you wanna playing the "rpm -i"/find dependencies/download dependencies/reapeat game, be my guest. Just don't pretend that it's an informed decision, okay?
Re:Why Libranet? (Score:2)
Is Debian, commercial or otherwise, at an installation stage when it can do that? I played with an installation on a server one time and was impressed by its content (if not graphical) installation polish (kind of reminded me of FreeBSD). But on a dual-boot machine will it kill my other OS? (Also, do they have the latest PCMCIA and other hardware drivers?)
Re:Why Libranet? (Score:2)
I've always installed Debian dual-boot and never had a problem. Even on the install, Debian is not a automatically-screw-everything-up system. It drops you right into cfdisk and you can even edit the lilo.conf before lilo runs, IIRC.
What do I get? (Score:2)
Took a quick look at the website, but I couldn't find any information about what software the new version includes?
Does it include the latest Xfree - what version of KDE? Gnome? Whatever?
Is it KDE or GNOME centric?
Re:What do I get? (Score:2, Informative)
Other commercial Debian distributions (Score:3, Informative)
I do believe trustix [trustix.net] is based on Debian. And it is a commercial distribution.
Re:Other commercial Debian distributions (Score:1, Informative)
Butt-ugly interfaces (Score:2, Interesting)
I wonder why there aren't any good graphic designers addicted to linux, so that eventually, we'll get some kick ass graphics too..
Re:Butt-ugly interfaces (Score:2)
My Desktop [mindspring.com]
Re:Butt-ugly interfaces (Score:1)
Dirk
Re:Butt-ugly interfaces (Score:2)
Install Ximian Gnome.
Next time you log in Doorman app will ask about setting your layout.
When the Doorman app asks you about what kind of layout choose CDE.
To get the menu bar up top you right click on the panel and choose a menu panel.
The background is in the KDE wallpaper dir
The GTK theme is SuSE theme and the sawfish theme is DarkrmCalamari.
The file manager is obviously Nautilus and I got the emblems most of them from the Ximian-South theme but I made others myself. Emblems are those icons over my folders on the desktop.
I used the Teal Nautilus theme (every app in the universe has to be themable don't you know?).
Oh yes, I used the advanced Nautilus setting to have my home dir as my desktop
Since this is my work box I have LinNeighborhood set up on my Desktop that is what the Net directory is on my desktop.
I choose to have the mixer on my panel (it is one of the many applets you can have running on your panel and yes it does look ugly but its functional I wish there was a gamix connected mixer applet with a better default look) and the print applet because it is nice to just drag a text file over and have it print instead of having to open it up or go back to the command line and lpr the thing.
Finally I just choose a different icon for the terminal and the Suse menu. No special magic the SuSE menu icons is in the SuSE default
_______________________________________________
Re:Butt-ugly interfaces (Score:2)
It is ugly and it is the default mixer applet for Gnome. As you move the slider the color you refer to changes to in some way indicate volume.
>Also what's with that printer and the misaligned word Print"?
It is actually a kind of neat applet. If I am browsing my filesystem with the Filemanager I can drag a text file onto the Printer applet and it prints. It is easier than opening the thing up in an app to print.
>What's that turd thing in the upper right corner?
It is the running terminal app. The screenshot is kind of small for that sort of detail but the task list can be gotten from the upper right hand corner.
>"Why are their rivets on the menubar? Is that a grabber?
Yes it is. Detachable menus and such.
>Also the window controls (minimize etc) are just little blotches and are far too small and close together.
I like small titlebars. Trust me I can see some of your other points but that one is preference thing there are a zillion sawfish themes with various size title bars to choose from.
_______________________________________________
Re:Butt-ugly interfaces (Score:1)
Re:Butt-ugly interfaces (Score:1)
I wonder why there aren't any good graphic designers addicted to linux, so that eventually, we'll get some kick ass graphics too ??
Re:Butt-ugly interfaces (Score:2, Informative)
Some great gaphic designers there. Oh yea and some of the Eazel/Nautilus/Ximian guys were Mac designers.
"Libranet" ? (Score:1, Offtopic)
"...here we still are?" (Score:3, Funny)
Thanks for the update, Yoda.
Any test/trail versions ? (Score:1)
But i seem to have to buy it, i dont see why I would buy a Linux distribution when i can download others, i can see why others would buy it. Maybe i will buy it when its good, but i want to test it first.. Anyone got a nice idea ?
Quazion.
Re:Any test/trail versions ? (Score:2, Informative)
Brandon Tallent.
Re:Any test/trail versions ? (Score:1)
Can someone clear up something for me? (Score:2)
if it was a serious question (Score:1)
Debian is not for profit, and denotes all non-free or non-open source software that comes with the distribution as such. It is volunteer-run and also not particularly newbie friendly. Red Hat, Mandrake, Suse, etc... are run by for profit companies. Because they're out to make profit, it's in their vested interest to be newbie friendly. I've installed Debian potato and Suse 7.2, and the Suse install was much easier. Other than ease of install, commercial vs. non-commercial makes no difference to me, but it is important to some people.
The real distinction is in the packaging system. Red Hat started the R(edhat)P(ackage)M(anagement) system, and a big chunk of the commercial distributions use it. So if you want to install a new package, you obtain the
Debian uses A(nother)P(ackaging)T(ool). You can configure apt to read from hard drive, CD-ROM, and/or the internet. Apt takes rpm two steps further, by fetching the package for you and also grabbing and also installing all necessary dependent packages. You can easily automate massive installs this way, including updating every package on your machine to the latest release (as far as I know).
That WOULD give a tremendous advantage to Debian, except for the nature of open source... some creative programmers wrote an apt for rpm files. So now you can do everything a Debian user can do with an rpm-based distribution.
Re:Can someone clear up something for me? (Score:3, Insightful)
RedHat wanted to use said package format, but the Debian folks did not want to go with a half-baked product. (This paragraph is heresay)
RedHat invented its own package format, RPM, which was apparantly designed to suck. It does this very well. It is buggy, often incompatible, and goes through version changes quite often, which makes each distro incompatible with the last, and each new package incompatible with the previous distros.
(One time, I was attempting to install OpenSSH on a RH box I was adminning. to put on OpenSSH, I needed OpenSSL. To install OpenSSL, I needed to get RPM v.5 (4 was installed). To install RPM V.5, I needed to replace half my packages. Another time, I tried to install a package on a RH box, and it said that it required '/usr/bin/perl'. I did an 'ls
Debian's package format, combined with the apt suite of tools, allows it to download new (to you) or updated software from a server on the internet, from a LAN, from a CD-ROM, or from a local drive, over HTTP, FTP, or mounted filesystems (the CD-ROM voodoo is pretty neat). If you try to install a package (for example, the xchat IRC client) and you do not have the libraries needed to run it (libgdk, libgtk+1.2, etc.) it will automatically add these to the list of packages to be installed, and will then prompt you to continue.
All software packaged for Debian and included on the official Debian mirrors follows rather stricy guidelines about where things go - important binaries in
Also, it feels very modular, thanks to brilliantly executed install scripts and lots of testing time. For example, if you do not have logrotate installed, your logs are in
My last comment for the day, Debian is Free in every sense of the word. They do not charge you. They do not hold anything back from you. In fact, it was, until recently, rather impossible to buy anything from Debian, as Debian is not even an official organization. Lately, there have been boxed versions of Debian (of which I have everything but the CD), which included a cool-ass bumper sticker and a 360+ page special-edition book on learning Debian from O'Reilly Press. I don't know if they still sell these. I hope so.
If you wish to give money, you can give to the Open Source Initiative (OSI), if you wish to buy a CD you can buy them from someone online. If you wish to sell a CD, just make sure you're using the official ISOs (there is more information about this at Debian's cd image [debian.org] website) and go nuts.
Oh, one more thing - software. Last time I ran Debian, I had a pretty tricked-out list of software sources from around the internet, totalling something like 9600 packages. Yes, nine thousand, six hundred individual pieces of software. You want choice, you got it.
There are hundreds more reasons to choose Debian, and there are dozens of reasons not to use RedHat. I'm going to avoid RedHat bashing though, because I think Debian's merits speak well enough without hilighting RedHat's faults.
Visit their webpage, read the social contract, and the free software guidelines. It's very interesting, even from a philosophical point of view.
--Dan
Re:Can someone clear up something for me? (Score:2)
Funny, "./configure && make && make install" works fine for me on a RH box. Go figure.
To install RPM V.5, I needed to replace half my packages.
See above. If upgrading via RPM is too dependency-ridden, compile from source. You're an admin. Be an admin, not somebody who insists on having everything prepackaged in a format a deaf-blind rhesus monkey with a drinking problem could use.
To install OpenSSL, I needed to get RPM v.5 (4 was installed)
You know, I'd take this anecdote of yours more seriously if RPM 5.x even existed (which it doesn't).
[rjhansen@numbers rjhansen]$ rpm --version
RPM version 4.0.3
That's on a RH 7.2 box. If you've got RPM 5.x, I'd love to know where you picked it up.
Re:Can someone clear up something for me? (Score:2)
source. You're an admin. Be an admin, not somebody who insists on
having everything prepackaged in a format a deaf-blind rhesus monkey
with a drinking problem could use.
In fact, I did this, but considering that the last sysadmin had the box so fucked over (there was various crap - files, dirs, installation, sourcecode, etc. in
Turns out I had to anyway. *shrug*
As for the RPM version thing, as you can tell from the anecode, I didn't pay too much attention to the state of affairs of RPM, and I am wel aware that I don't know what version were out. Bump everything down by enough version numbers to make things make sense, and there you go.
--Dan
Why is Libranet going to outlast the others? (Score:1)
Not free? (Score:1)
http://www.libranet.com/download.html
"Version 2.0 is available on CD only"
No try before you buy?
Ports. (Score:2)
Any chance of this getting ported to other architectures? I'd love to try it out, but my only Linux box (currently running Debian) is a m68k machine.
(Come to think of it, Debian is the _only_ native English m68k Linux distro. Possible market?)
--saint
Try it without a reinstall. (Score:2)
I dare say you can do similar things with this.
How about Debian? (Score:2)
See subject
Only available on CD? (Score:2, Insightful)
No, it doesn't... (Score:2)
You can charge for that source code, but only a fee that would cover the cost of distribution, etc (so, in theory, they could print it all out and give it to you that way, then charge you for paper, ink, electricity, management fees, and shipping and handling - and be legit according to the license - I think the wording is there to prevent "gouging").
Typically, the GPL wants the code to be "with" the binary - ie, distributed at the same time, preferable on the same media as the binary - and that is what we typically see.
But if a company only releases a CD of the binary, they have to give the end user a 3 year term, minimum, to request the source code if they so want it. What is interesting about this clause is that you could distribute a binary only system, and given the proper docs (ie, including copies of the GPL, etc), leave it up to the users, those who care, to ask for the source - instead of just handing it to them whether they want it or not. I am not sure, but I think there is a grain of a valid business method in that...
Easy configuration.. (Score:2)
Big bucks behind Progeny? (Score:2)
Re:rootprompt review (Score:1, Offtopic)
Looks like icewm.themes.org moved, its http://www.themes.org/themes/icewm/
Re:The distro I would like to see.. (Score:1)
Re:The distro I would like to see.. (Score:1)
It sounds like it's just what you want.
Re:The distro I would like to see.. (Score:2)
I would start with that, and install it on a harddrive, and gradually start adding things until you had all the necessary tools to compile and built a copy of it yourself. Trim down and consolidate the start scripts until you have something you like.
However, I suspect that you will find that the runlevel style initialization scripts are there for a reason. One does need some way to organize all that stuff. You can easily (well, a few weekends and evenings of piddling around) build what you describe. However, you will find that you are re-doing too much of the distro each time you add a package. If other people start using it, and adding packages that you never heard of (like some random database server or something) and start them up automatically, you will swiftly get pissed at the whole situation (especially when they send you email accusing you writing a broken linux or whatever) and decide that the init.d scripts weren't so bad after all.
And about the hundredth time you install something just to find out some arcane library needs and updated version, or the hundreth time you tell some other user that he can't install LyX without having xforms, you will also see the goodness of package system.
Check out a linux based on the BSD ports system, Gentoo I think is the most common one. Maybe that will give you enough to satisfy.
Another route is to stick with DOS, and get the Free Software Foundation's book and CD "GNU Tools for MS-Windows and MS-DOS." This is a set of all the standard GNU tools (emacs, perl, bash, gcc, sed, awk, latex, etc) compiled for DOS and put in a nice package with an installation program. I have purchased several copies of this from the FSF by mail order. If you want a copy of the CD, I may be able to get you the
Oh and one last thing -- whoever modded the parent comment as a troll should be $rbtl'd or whatever it is, or have their account set to put all page-widening posts at +5 Insightful.
Re:Where can i download it from ? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:pre-orders? (Score:1)
Re:Cool (Score:1)