Slashdot Mirror
Mandrake Linux 9.0 Beta 1
leviramsey writes "MandrakeSoft has released the first beta of the next version of its distribution. It features XFree86 4.2, KDE 3.0, GNOME 2.0, and is compiled with gcc-3.1, which (alas) makes it incompatible with a fair amount of commercial software."
I once installed mandrake (about 3 months ago)... it was sooo coool, it even had this program where you click on it and the computer went "blah" and died (kinda like how windows does with 90% of its software!). It was called "the Gimp". Now, I had never installed a linux distro before, so I figured this was the "kill" switch. Later I discovered that its an actual program akin to PS. Never will I use Mandrake for anything other than a frisbee
This is my sig. Its pathetic.
Who cares if all the apps are broken now, it costs $0! "Linux is free only if your time has no value."
Should I go with Japanese or Italian today? What do you guys think?
Don't feel bad about being stupid. After all, you're a Slashbot. It's what's expected. And it's not as if you could actually afford a Mac.
(Moron.)
-- The_Messenger
suck my dick
mandrake does
Big Billy Gates Don't give a Shizzle fo my nizzle
-- The_Messenger
Bingo.
I have enough problems with Windows and all the system/DLL issues. I was hoping Linux would be a tad easier - WRONG. Until Linux can emulate the ease of install that Windows has it is doomed to the techies.
Remember your heros
"If you are on fire you can just stop, drop, and roll. If you fall into Lava you are just dead." - my 5yr old daughter
Apple Running Out Of Macintosh Users For "Switch" Commercials(Reuters)
In a surprise announcement, Apple CEO Steve Jobs said Friday that Kansas resident Carmen Inez is the only Macintosh user that hasn't starred in one of the new Mac "switch" commercials.
The "switch" commercials were designed to encourage Windows users to abandon Microsoft's proprietary operating systems in favor of Apple's proprietary operating system by showing actual Macintosh users talking about how easy "the switch" was.
Despite the high cuteness factor of the iMac and the opensource appeal of OS-X's Darwin, Macintosh's userbase has steadily declined over the years, and recently fell to a total of 10 users, a fact which wasn't discovered until the commercials were already underway.
"It's really quite embarrassing," says Apple CEO Steve Jobs, "we started the new ad campaign thinking it'd be nice to showcase our diverse userbase, but we ran out of users in very short order."
Macintosh user Carmen Inez declined to be in the commercials, saying "I've just got a bunch of old Mac Word Perfect files that I keep on there. It's really nothing to get excited about."
The fate of Apple's next line of commercials, which were to feature programmers pretending to like Macintosh's FreeBSD spin-off, Darwin, instead of actually getting FreeBSD, has not been decided.
Do you think Microsoft does any differently?
No, I know that they do things differently.
I have Win2k apps that won't run on WinNT, WinNT apps that won't run on Win2k, nothing worked on WinXP, and don't get me going about all the applications I bought for Win95 (mostly games) where WINE is my only hope of ever using them again.
I have, literally, hundreds of apps and am constantly amazed by the way that Microsoft gets them to work as they move from OS to OS. Sure, if you have an app from 1995 that defrags a FAT16 disk, yes, it won't work on an NTFS disk under Windows XP. But if you have a "normal" application, more often than not, it will run.
If applications support Win95, WinNT, Win2k, WinME and WinXP out of the box it's only because the vendors went through trials that would have made Heracles cringe.
Complete bunk. I have apps that were written for Windows 95 that still work fine in XP. How would a vendor that went out of business in 1997 have made hurculean efforts to make the app run in OSs that weren't even released yet? Why is it that Office 97 still works fine for people that now run 98, 98SE, Me, 2000, and XP?
If anything, I'm more impressed by the Linux camp
That's obvious. You are such an apologist for Linux that you wouldn't complain if Redhat included a fresh dog turd in every box.
Maybe you are just using the wrong Linux?
Great. Now we add different distros into the mix. The average consumer will never have Linux as a desktop OS until he can go into a store, buy a program on CD, put the CD into the tray, and have an automated install walk him through putting it on his system. When he upgrades his OS, the application needs to keep running, not be recompiled, scrapped, or replaced. Vendors need to be able to direct the user to click things and type things to provide support. They can't deal with every distro being different. It drives support costs, and consumer frustration, through the roof.
If having only one distribution is the only way to make Linux 'succeed', then it's never going to be anything but a failure.
Having multiple compatible distributions is fine, but I should be able to download a program for "Linux" without worrying about what kernel I'm running, what windows manager, what distribution, etc.
or (2) the "average consumer" is capable of learning to use something that's different (not harder; different)
Linux is "harder". That point was driven home to me as I tried to find where Mandrake 8.2 hid the app to change the IP address of the network card (please, oh holier-than-thou Linux geeks, don't try to impress me with your arcane memorization of command line utilities and switches to do same). Take a look at Microsoft's "Control Panel." Nicely thought out. It may not be perfect, but it's a lot better than the seemingly random arrangement of system setup stuff under popular Linux distros.