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."

Comments

Compiled with gcc-3.1

[rnturn]

Well, someone had to be first to ship with this compiler. I wouldn't worry. Vendors will catch up.

Re:Compiled with gcc-3.1

[fmaxwell]

Well, someone had to be first to ship with this compiler. I wouldn't worry. Vendors will catch up.

I'm not worried about vendors catching up. I'm more concerned about users. Until Linux gets out of the habit of breaking huge numbers of apps with releases, Microsoft will continue to own the OS market. Recompiling and distributing apps costs money. Users don't expect to have to pay for new apps just because they upgraded from Mandrake 8.2 to Mandrake 9.0. So vendors either eat the costs or piss off the customer base.

Microsoft has a much better understanding of "the real world" than does the Linux community. Microsoft, love it or hate it, understands that you can't expect vendors to support your product and customers to buy it if you regularly break their software with OS upgrades. And this is coming from someone who really wants to see Linux succeed. I find the security bugs, Product Activation, constantly tightening EULA, Gestapo-like software audits, and Digital Rights Management to be a threat to the entire computer industry.

Re:Compiled with gcc-3.1

[fcrozat]

Mandrake 9.0 will be shipped with gcc 3.2..

We are currently using gcc 3.1.1 branch + backport from 3.2 branch and we will switch to gcc 3.2 as soon as it is released (either this week or next week)..

If you are interested in purchasing this CD-r set:

[pheph]

A company I do work for is selling (3) CD-r sets of this distribution for $2.49. $0.50 is donated to misc. Open Source and $0.50 is donated directly to Mandrake for their hardwork in creating this distribution.

If you are interested, please see Open Soars Mandrake Linux 9.0 Beta 1 Product Page.

Re:java

[Garion911]

Yep, I have compiled Java with 3.1 (using the 2.95 comipiled one first of course.)

You will need a patch to compile Java too, read here for directions:

http://hints.linuxfromscratch.org/hints/javafrom sc ratch.txt

Also, you CAN get flash to work, there's a post in gentoo's message boards on how to do this:

http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic.php?t=4753

Hope this helps.

Re:This is good stuff

[disappear]

So I don't own, or use, Linux. But I've resolved to make Mandrake my distro when and if I decide to give it a try.

Translation: I don't have the slightest idea what I'm talking about. But I've made some decisions.

they're packed with features, lots of options, both GNOME and K desktops, and an easy installation

Translation: I can read the website, and this is what it says.

The fact is, any mainstream general-purpose Linux distribution has both GNOME and KDE, tons of features, and tons of options. While Mandrake's installer is nice, it's not worlds ahead of anybody else's anymore. (OK, it's ahead of Debian's in terms of user-friendliness, but what isn't?) Heck, even the Red Hat's installer is friendly these days.

Nice. I know that you can't do everything with Linux that you can with a current Mac or PC; everyone knows that.

Translation: I'm a troll. Don't take me seriously.

Proprietary, not Commercial

[Cyclops]

To the article poster and to all who can't distinguish, here is a rule that you should learn:

Proprietary Software != Commercial Software

It's proprietary software (regardless of being commercial or not -- realplayer is proprietary but free of charge) that will not work. This is due to the usual bad support that proprietary software vendors inflict upon the consumers.

With Free Software (regardless of being commercial or not -- Mandrake cd's can be bought), you can recompile (if someone's not done that for you already) in order to have it work on this new environment, regardless of the wish for profit of the vendor. If you don't have the expertise, you can ask someone else to do it for you (either gratis or for some amount of money).

So remember kids:
There is Proprietary Software which is not commercial
There is Free Software that is commercial
Proprietary has nothing to do with Commercial

Re:Two options

[Arandir]

Incidentally, could someone who understands the issues a bit better explain why every upgrade of GCC breaks binary compatibility?

Short answer: the gcc crew is lazy, inconsiderate, or both.

Long answer: they keep changing the way they do C++ name mangling, keep changing the GNU-specific extensions, and keep changing the API for their "standard" C++ library. Once the ISO Standard for C++ was released a few years ago, the g++ ABI should have been finalized and set in stone. Yet g++-3.2 is not going to be backwardly compatible with g++-3.1. Aaargh!

why does GCC 3.1 break stuff?

[Ender Ryan]

Hmmm... I don't understand why compiling things with GCC 3.1 breaks commercial programs. Is it due to incorrect versions of the libstdc++.* libs? If that is the case why not ship the distribution with both compilers installed?

Currently I have about half the stuff on my system compiled with gcc 3.1 and have not had a problem.

Someone who knows more about this please explain.