Slashdot Mirror
Mandrake 8.1 Beta1 (Raklet) Released
keegnotrub writes: "Mandrake just dumped 8.1 Beta on their servers. Along with updated software (KDE 2.2, kernel 2.4.8, etc) they have reworked their control center to include many new features." Word to the wise: there are some reactions to this beta -- as well as a list of known bugs and fixes -- at mandrakeforum.com. What I'd like to know is if a Wacom Intuos USB tablet will work out-of-the-box on 8.1, since I just bought a refurbed one ;)
ARGH!!!...if you check out the Mandrake site they have a link of their homepage showing how 8.1 is alot like windows XP. Is it a good thing that a Microsoft OS and a Linux OS have so much in common?
Oh, all the Linux zealots really want to use Windows, but they can't without losing their face. So they do want a Linux that looks like Windows.
Best of all, Mandrake truly does have a great setup procedure. For example, name one other distro in which you can easily setup ReiserFS, JFS, ext3, and ext2 filesystems during the installation. And afterwards, you have such tools as the Software Update utility, which is a decent way to keep up with security updates. And don't forget the custom user, printer, and other management utilities.
I know many people call Mandrake a newbie distro, but who said that having an easy to use distro is a bad thing? Plus, even though it's "easy to use", I can still setup and configure it however I want. Mandrake seems to be getting better and better, and I wouldn't be suprised to see it take over as the Desktop distro for both newbies and experts alike.
No, that's what I got with a Beta 1 install using ReiserFS, I wasn't trying to convert anything. Ext2 worked fine, but I don't use ext2.
Why hasn't Mandrake yet provided KDE versions of the Drake tools? Am I the only one who strongly feels the need for this? As a paying customer I feel it frustrating that I am not being heard. Mandrake, are you listening? Please port those tools to KDE and give your users a choice!
(Please browse at -1 to read this comment.)
Hey, I thought Mandrake was based on Red Hat.
Great post, too bad so many people didn't get the joke.
um. First, if RMS (Richard Stallman) heard you saying Debian "adheres to his definition of open source", you'd be in for the argument of your life. RMS has nothing to do with open source, he will tell you so if you ask him about open source, instead letting you know that he crafted the definition of "free software" and it applies to all GNU software. Debian, which could be called the "FSF-sponsored Linux distribution", uses exclusively free software. A program could qualify as "open source", but not as "free software", in which case it won't be in Debian (well, it might be found under the non-free section).
Second, who told you Red Hat is based on Mandrake? its completely the other way around, and actually, Mandrake has been the target of many comments stating how they are just a Red Hat ripoff adding nothing except a lot of cutting-edge but unproven software.
Finally, the BSD license might not be of RMS's liking, but it's a free software license (at least the version without the advertising clause), and altough it's not recommended by free software advocates, because it gives up some of the GPL's protection against appropriation of your work, it's certainly more free (freer?) than a lot of licenses that are OSI-approved, but which won't qualify as free under the FSF's definition.
Perhaps you were thinking ESR (Eric Raymond) when you wrote RMS (Richard Stallman)??
What do the packages have to do with anything? In Postgres the number of connections is controlled by a config file. What this really means is that they didn't tune their database server. (Or at least didn't tune it for the slashdot-effect.)
I can't believe this got modded-up, it's an out and out troll, but I feel the obligation to respond.
>Well, the BSD licence forces you to release your
>code to the likes of microsoft who can take it,
>and use it for whatever they like, without
>merging the changes back.
Umm, no. The BSD license doesn't force you to do much of anything. You take the code, do whatever the hell you like with it - modify, sell, relicense to your heart's content, etc. and release whatever you please. If that means making changes, forking, and re-releasing under the GPL, so be it. Or taking and releasing in binary format. Whatever, so long as you maintain the copyright notice.
It gets me off to see GPL bigots talk about the GPL being more free than than the BSD license. Nope, it ain't - and I release my code under the GPL. Things start out in a state of freedom - one that allows total freedom of action or motion and by applying restrictions, suprise suprise, you move into a state of less freedom.
Whether that freedom is viewed in a positive or negative context, is irrelevant. By your argument, by making drugs illegal, we end up with a society that has "freedom from drugs" (ignore your stand on the War on Drugs here) or some such tripe. It may be a more desirable societal condition, but when you apply rules, you don't have 'more' freedom. It's just a moniker used by politicians to remove opposition by it look like rights are being expanded when in reality absolute freedom is being impinged on.
FWIW, most people who release code under the BSD license are quite aware what the freedom of the license implies. It may suprise a bigot like you, but sometimes people want to allow others to take and modify code without restriction. Some of them are even pleased if their code is useful to a corporation like Microsoft. The BSD license tends to maximize code use, the GPL code return.
For some reason FSF people seem to feel a need to make everything free and force it on everyone, willing or not. I don't agree with this, code is the property of the author, and it's up to him/her to decide what sorts of use and license should be allowed - BSD, GPL, or proprietary. Personally, I hate proprietary software and use vary little of it. I don't support proprietary software (outside of games) with my dollars, but I sure as hell don't campaign to put commercial software houses out of business. The right to my discretion as to how I license my code is a far more important right than how I choose to exercise it. Now respect the damn software authors choice.
I have learned over the years that quality components make ALL the difference in the Wintel hardware world.
This is EXACTLY correct, and very important. Often cheaper components are being sold cheaply because they are somehow incompatible.
Save yourself grief. Buy the best hardware. Buy Intel motherboards with Intel processors, for example. The easy install with Mandrake 8.0 (two comments above) was with an Iwill motherboard and a Pentium 200 processor. At the time the system was bought, these were conservative choices for hardware.
I own a small computer dealership, and could have chosen any hardware on which to test Mandrake, but I wanted to see if the reports were correct. Is Linux fast on less powerful machines? It is.
The big hardware manufacturers want new software to be slow, because that causes customers to buy more expensive machines. Linux doesn't have this conflict of interest. It runs fast everywhere.
Good-quality hardware helps you avoid problems caused by a BIOS or OS programmer not coding for your particular hardware.
Once a friend bought a sound card for $12 from Fry's, back when sound cards were expensive. After several hours, we decided we would never be able to get it to work. That was the most expensive sound card I've ever touched.
Bush's education improvements were