Slashdot Mirror


Libranet GNU/Linux 2.0 Coming Soon

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. :)

11 of 188 comments (clear)

  1. The thing I don't get. by jchawk · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What is the point of a debian based commercial linux os? Debian is by far my favorite choice. Getting it setup takes a little bit of time, but once it's running it is really super easy to update and install new software.

    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.

    1. Re:The thing I don't get. by bfree · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ok for the sake of full disclosure I run Debian everywhere and have done for about 2-3 years and I used to work in Corel Linux International Technical Support (check THAT acronym hehe). There is a serious justification for debian based meta-distributions because while Debian will always be a horse for nearly all courses it's flexibility means that it is not targetted to most users. Corel Linux was/is a desktop OS and by making that choice Corel could configure a Debian box for an intended use. For 90% of computer users Corel Linux kicked Debian's ass simply because they would never have been able to work on a Debian system (what do you mean "edit /etc/samba/smb.conf to suit my windows network", "what do you mean man 5 smb.conf"?). Similarly we now have demudi which is another targetted Debian distro, but this time for an entirely different market (multimedia production). Debian could never really try to catch niches, all it does is produce a stably packaged distribution which can be configured and adapted easily. Corel and demudi could never really try to produce a quality OS from scratch nor keep it up to date. Instead of both sides giving up, the work, aims and ideas of Free software which Debian embodies so well (they want meta-distros) leads to a two tiered system where Debian brings the pieces together and the distros tweak it. Both sides push their knowledge at each other (though either side can ignore the other) and the base system which all are using is strengthened. The alternative is just Debian, and while I would continue to use it, I think it's "market share" would be much lower that way. Never forget that everyone using a non-Debian Debian-based distro is that much closer to just changing their apt sources and leaving the commercial (or redistributor) behind and becoming a member of the Debian community.

      --

      Never underestimate the dark side of the Source

    2. Re:The thing I don't get. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      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?

      There are exactly two different reasons:

      • Ease of use, installation and configuration. Installing, editing /etc/sources, configuring manually the machine (ppp, ...), is already too much for the use. For instance my TV ISA card was automatically recognized by Suse install ; I tried, but I stopped loosing time trying to get it running under Debian. Worse was trying to get XFree 4.0 running just was it was out. And now getting OpenGL on my NVidia, is still a significant work, no average user would do.
      • The opposite reason for super-sysadmin : automatic management of say 100+ machines. Debian is just a big problem. Last time, I upgraded one machine it took about 1 day (yeah re-installing is faster). Not to mention there is nothing for the NFS server: storage redundancy, heart-beat, automated backup. As a result, since there is no hard-availability features other than special hardware or patches available elsewhere in "experimentation" or 0.02 versions and the like, I don't use a Debian file server - each user kind of auto-administrate his Debian (with apt-get), and has backups.

      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).

  2. Nice Additude.. by joonasl · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I love this Q&A they had in their FAQ..

    Is Linux really as good as I have heard?
    It's better.

    --
    "There is a terrorist behind every bush"
  3. "Libranet is user friendly for new users" by da5idnetlimit.com · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Maybe this is why we need the new Debian.

    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 ?

    --
    It takes 40+ muscles to frown, but only four to extend your arm and bitchslap the motherfucker
  4. A different view by clump · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Corel Linux was/is a desktop OS and by making that choice Corel could configure a Debian box for an intended use.
    I have no qualms there. Debian is *ultra* flexible, to the point where some people think it is... gasp... difficult to install! But then most users don't feel it necessary to install via CD then be asked later where to get the packages to install. That is good, in my opinion, because you can mix all kinds of installs and media types during installation. Normal users, however, may think it is a redundant step.

    For 90% of computer users Corel Linux kicked Debian's ass simply because they would never have been able to work on a Debian system (what do you mean "edit /etc/samba/smb.conf to suit my windows network", "what do you mean man 5 smb.conf"?)

    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.
    1. Re:A different view by SubtleNuance · · Score: 3, Insightful
      ...but Corel gave up quickly after the distro was released...

      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.

    2. Re:A different view by Adversary · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm not sure MS' investment was the reason Corel dumped Linux. As I see it, it's more likely that both were caused by the same factor: Corel was in bad shape.

      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 .NET for Linux! Check the old press releases!

      And if anyone is curious about the (former) Corel distribution, check out Xandros

  5. Re:Why I pay for open source by Sentry21 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I hope you donate to Debian too, or the Open Source Initiative at any rate. They do what you -actually- use, but no one gets paid for using it.

    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

  6. Only available on CD? by Nermal · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The 'download' link only lets you get ISOs for the previous version and says that version 2 is available on CD only. Doesn't the GPL say that they have to make it available for download?

  7. Re:Can someone clear up something for me? by Sentry21 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Well, the first thing people notice is the package format. Debian, way back in the olden days of yore, when men were real men, and so forth, decided to invent a format for binary packages on Linux. Wtihout getting into technical detail, they were doing very well and their ideas were very well thought out.

    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 /usr/bin/perl' and there it was. From that moment on, I have never touched an RPM.)

    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 /bin, /lib, etc., everything else in /usr/bin, /usr/lib, etc. Various files in /var, logs in /var/log, and so on. Everything has a place, and it all makes sense.

    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 /var/log and get rather large. As soon as you install logrotate, however, all your /var/log logs are automatically rotated, and after two rotations the logfiles are gzipped. It's all automatic. You don't have to compile logrotate and install it, you don't have to edit example scripts and put them in, and you don't have to edit cron scripts to make it work, and then wonder why your logs get deleted every 5 hours because you missed a semicolon. Debian is the distro for people who install Linux to use it, instead of admin it.

    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 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