LinuxOrbit Looks At Libranet GNU/Linux 2.7

GonzoJohn writes "Linux Orbit has reviewed Libranet GNU/Linux 2.7: Other Linux distribution companies have tried to create commercial Linux products based on Debian GNU/Linux, but few have achieved long term success. Progeny Linux comes to mind as a commercial Linux distribution company whose Linux product met with good reviews, but couldn't remain in business. Libranet is a rare exception to this rule. Libranet GNU/Linux has been around quite a while and continues to build a devoted Linux user base on a commercial product based on Debian GNU/Linux. With their most recent release of Libranet GNU/Linux 2.7, Libranet continues to improve on an already solid Linux distribution."

Comments

New Users, Huh?

[Mandi Walls]

(I'll try to leave my usual Debian-disparaging comments out of here. You can check my past comments for some of those)

But I will say the Libranet GNU/Linux 2.7 does NOT use X Windows for the graphic installation routine. Instead, Libranet uses easy to follow ncurses-based text menus for its install method is disturbing. After having walked 17 new-to-UNIX students through an ncurses-based ftp install of Red Hat, I will tell you that ncurses is not the way to go for new users.

Why? Because there is NO work-alike in the Windows world. What do I mean by that? Well, occasionally, you'll end up with a new-to-UNIX user who remembers DOS, or has used a terminal-based app before at work. What have they probably never seen before? ncurses. You are throwing them right into the fire, and giving them nothing that looks familiar to work with.

Talk about pain. And misunderstanding. And confusion about what the icons really represent and the cursor-flow mechanisms.

GUI install is where it's at. It's the best way to get a new-to-UNIX person onto a UNIX-alike system from install on, because you're building on something they are already familiar with - clicky clicky buttons and menus.

But you can ignore me. I just teach this stuff. :)

--mandi

How is it better than plain Debian?

[Ian Bicking]

I read the review, and it wasn't clear to me how this was significantly better than plain Debian. It seems to have a better installer -- and that's nice, but it's just not enough to make another distro worth it. They mentioned an admin tool, but again... that's just one tool (but if it was all-encompassing, that would be cool, but I didn't get that impression).

Sure, there's lots of apps -- but that's because it's Debian. Why is it really better?

My Libranet Experiences

[greenskyx]

I've been using Libranet since the 1.x days. I've found it to be a very good distrobution. I found the Libranet install to be very easy and I love apt-get. Libranet reminds me of what Mandrake used to be in it's earlier days. It is a lot like Debian but with a lot of extra value added in. My favorite feature is their kernel compiling setup. They have a very easy to use process that lets you recompile your kernel. After you recompile the kernel it adds the newly recompiled kernel to lilo and keeps the old kernel as a lilo option so you can switch back if you have any problems.

Bad business model & big whiners

[dh003i]

A few comments.

(1) Giving away a ISO for download is all good and fine for non-profit Linux distributions like Debian. It makes sense. It doesn't make sense, however, for a corporation trying to make money off of it to do that. The Linux community is not going to chastise the company because they don't offer ISO downloads. Think the path of least resistance. If you want to sell a product, you shouldn't also make it available for free.

(2) I stand by my earlier assertion that this isn't worth the extra $60 as opposed to downloading Debian. Almost all the additional software apps it has can be downloaded. And there's a reason why Debian doesn't always include the latest greatest software -- because it usually has problems. Debian prefers to let other distros walk through that minefield and benefit from the knowledge gained.

(3) For those of you talking about how much more "resource hungry" one distro is as opposed to another (i.e., many saying Debian more resource hungry than Slackware), do try to remember that they're all based around the same thing. You can remove anything you don't like, and if you remove enough stuff, Debian eventually looks like Slackware.

(4) For those of you whining about having to say all those extra syllables in GNU/Linux. Get over it. Its three extra letters to write, and if your giving a speech you don't have to say it every time. Distributions can simply be referred to by their distribution name (i.e., Debian) for short. But when something is written formally or said for the first time, it should be "Debian GNU/Linux" or "Redhat GNU/Linux" or whatever it is. Because that's what it is. Most of the tools and utilities and programs you use in a distribution are GNU stuff. Its only appropriate to say Debian GNU/Linux when speaking (at least upon any introduction; it need not be said more than once upon entering a new topic, after which simply Debian suffice's). It is not that hard to type in Debian GNU/Linux at the beginning of a paragraph.

Credit should be given where it is due. If your going to mention the kernel of an OS like Debian, you should also mention all the software around it. Hence, formally, Debian GNU/Linux.

I get sick of hearing how the FSF and Stallman are so greedy and unreasonable by expecting us to (at least formally) call a distribution like Debian "Debian GNU/Linux". Asking for due credit is not greedy or unreasonable. And, quite frankly, the reason they're asking isn't because of vanity, but because few new Linux users have any idea about Free Software and what it means to them.

Stallman was right when he said that he was being written out of history. GNU/Linux supporters don't want to bother telling new users about that wierd, long-haird, hippie guy who's always talking about this silly notion called Freedom. People afraid to talk about Freedom in the context of software because they think it makes them seem weak and foolish.