Review of Corel Linux 1.1.2

With all of the recent hoopla over Corel Linux, it's going to be interesting to see the reviews of the download and retail versions of Corel Linux. And while we're on the subject of distributions, it should also be mentioned that Stormix has released Stormix Linux 2000. Note that both are based on Debian - what do people think about the new distros?

Comments

Re:What's the big deal with distros?

[joey]

Of course this poster is flaming without many facts. Debian's init system is sysv, and is in the place you'll find it on most other sysv unices, _except_ redhat.
--

It fills a niche...

[Ami Ganguli]

Before Corel there was no distribution (as far as I know - I haven't tried all of them) that focused on desktop users. Narrowing the scope allowed them to serve this market better.

Since Corel software is aimed at the desktop, Corel would find it critically important that the desktop market is well served.

I think this is a great thing - especially since it's based on Debian. I'd like to see more virtical market distributions for specific applications. Perhaps aimed at the music industry, graphics, point-of-sale, whatever. Basing your specialized distro. on Debian gives the user ultimate flexibility. Limiting your scope allows you to serve a specific market really well. I don't see any down side.

Debian Tools Attain Interest?

[Christopher B. Brown]

There are many possible perpectives from which to view this.

• "Naive" home users that aren't quite sure what a distribution is are the group that people tend to think of first.
• "Corporate" users that are trying to build centralized systems are probably the second group people think of.
• Developers/experienced Linux folk are usually not the ones thought of, except from the perspective of being curmudgeons that say, ``Here's a nickel - buy yourself a real OS.''

Everyone else will probably take the "Naive home user" perspective; I'll take the "experienced developer" perspective just to provide more perspective.

I find it greatly interesting that these Debian-based distributions are now attaining wide-spread acceptance. And I suggest that the perspective I'm taking is relevant to this.

Debian has had the merit, over the RPM-based systems, of providing a full-fledged tool set directed at integrating together a distribution. It's not just the dpkg package manager; Debian's tool set sweeps much wider, including:

• dselect, a package selector that knows how to look up packages from a multiplicity of locations, and do something about making sure that a suitable set of packages (Plural!) are selected in order to satisfy dependancies.

  Yes, it's pretty klunky, and something newer and prettier would be nice. That's part of what Stormix provides...

• apt-get, which manages multiplexing of where packages come from.
• dpkg-create and various related tools.

  These are the components that are even more important than the previous ones.

  The many RPM-based distributions suffer, and suffer badly, from the fact that RPM itself can only go so far in validating that packages are well-constructed.

  Distribution makers like RHAT, SUSE, Caldera, and TurboLinux should have some significant automated tools to help them maintain correctness, although that is not known for sure, and I am skeptical that this is actually the case.

  The Debian Maintainer Tools provides considerable assistance to the developer doing package maintenance work. As do the Debian Developers Manuals.

  And that is of critical value when you're trying to avoid the "Oh, it's a .0 release from Red Hat, so watch out for big problems! " situation. That has been a significant problem for Red Hat; I'm quite sure that the presence of things like lintian, debhelper, and others has helped Corel and Stormix substantially, much as it helps maintainers of "plain Debian" packages.

My comments

[jd]

I've not actually used either of these, so I can't comment on the contents, but I -can- comment on the presentation. I was in the local CompUSA, and there were HUGE stacks of Corel Linux by the entrance. They were -very- visible, and CompUSA clearly weren't messing around when it came to trying to sell them.

This tells me a lot. It tells me that sales of Linux are doing well, or CompUSA wouldn't be bothering. There's plenty of money in other products. To be worth that kind of dramatic showing, Corel Linux, and Linux in general, must be making a significant impression.

Please remember, where I am is -not- "tech-land". This is the middle of nowhere, where the most advanced tech gurus use Access as the corporate intranet database, and the AS/400 is the only high-power machine ever seen. For Linux to be selling like hot-cakes around here is about equivalent to aliens giving the entire population a brain transplant in the night.

Re:What's the big deal with distros?

[Tim C]

The only real difference is either i386 or i5/686 optimization (and as far as I can see, Mandrake's the only one with those optimizations... which is why I choose it religiously)

Stampede Linux also is optimised for i5/686 chips; there's another distro that produces versions for Pentiums, P2s, P3s, K6s and Athlons, but I forget the name :o(

Cheers,
Tim

Corel

[Threads]

Over all, I think that Corel did a wonderful job.
On any modern machine, the install is quick, easy on the eyes, and any idiot can install it.

And since, its still Debian underneath, nothing is sacrificed to make things pretty. dpkg and apt are still there. I ditched kde and went back to using the Debian mirrors for upgrades, which worked fine.

I am going to start suggesting Corel for newbies in the local LUG. Its a nice gently way to introduce them to Linux. As they become more experienced, they can still enjoy the full power of Debian. Its about as close as anyone has gotten to the best of both worlds.

Re:Corel and Linux.. why?

[twit]

It does give them a reference distribution, which they control, on which to base their porting efforts. There's nothing wrong with that; in fact, it's quite shrewd of them. They'll probably lose buckets of money on the distribution proper, but they're probably planning to make it back and more on applications software.

As for basing it on Debian, that the core of Debian is 100% free software means that they won't have to worry about licensing issues looming overhead in the future. Dpkg/apt is arguably the best package management tool presently avaliable and Debian has an excellent QA process to boot. They could put together their own distribution and their own package management format, but there's no advantage in doing that.

Consider it as a business case and it becomes quite clear. There's no advantage in reinventing the wheel merely to get into the linux market, but you still have to have some control over where the wheel goes.

--