Slashdot Mirror
Libranet 2.8 Released
Jon Danzig writes "Hi, Libranet 2.8 has been released and I hope you will inform your readers. Libranet is our implementation of Debian to which we have added our installer, up-to-date software e.g. KDE, Gnome, kernel, etc., and generally packaged GNU/Linux into a super smart fast and stable system. The installer has sophisticated hardware detection and setup with flexable installation of software packages. We keep hearing that the Linux Desktop is on the horizon and while the horizon never gets any closer Libranet is steadily making its way in that direction."
Quit improving so fast. Wipe machine, install new RedHat. Wipe machine, install new FreeBSD. Wipe machine, install new OpenBSD 3.3. Wipe machine, install new Libranet.
Can we all just get along?
Trolling is a art,
Now, admittedly I'm not a KDE user so this might be something that KDE imposes rather than Libranet, but even so is it really necessary to have three submenus for this?
Cheers,
Ian
Site worked fine for me. Kernel 2.4.20, XFree 4.3, KDE 3.1, Gnome 2.2.1 and all the other goodies that every other distro throws in. Have not seen anything that makes this a compelling distribution to buy.
To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
Looks kinda cool, but can we cool down news of such Linux releases back-to-back. First it was Redhat 9, then Redhat 64-bit, SuSE 8.2, now Libranet.
Look, where is Windows man? I mean Windows 2003, reviews, ads, interviews by Steve Ballmer about how his coders worked 46 hours a day, ads for Win 64 bit???
Slashdot must be neutral.
-------- Cluster bombing from B-52s is very, very accurate -- the bombs always hit the ground.
for a distribution that is based on Debian and apparently only differs in its installer, I see no screenshots of the installer in action.
I would never have the desire for a GUI install, it's just not necessary for me, but I would like to see what makes this particular distribution so special that I would have to pay for it...
The screenshots of the desktops look like any other KDE/Gnome desktop screenshot I have seen.
Where's the beef?
(Insert smileys where appropriate - it's a joke, son.)
-- "Other than that, how was the play Mrs. Lincoln?"
I run Redhat for clients and on a couple of boxes at home but IMHO Libranet can't be beat. Using 2.7 and apt-get is a relief sometimes after putting up w/ Mandrake's and Redhat's rpm dependencies. The Adminmenu tool works great, even comes w/ a built in firewall. The installer is ncurses based and not as pretty as other distros but it works and works well. Hell, Libranet is the first distribution that I got Return to Castle Wolfenstein running on. Some problem or the other always crops up w/ Redhat. Also, the mailing list is well populated w/ helpful people. Not much RTFM comments on there.
This guy is way out there
Yet another failure. There's so many "desktop distros" out there that completely miss the point. This appears to be, like in most cases, a simple packing of sources straight from KDE, GNOME, etc. That's not how you create a good desktop distribution.
Desktop environments such as GNOME and KDE are like reference implimentations. They demonstrate the technology they've created. They show one way it could be used to create a usable environment. I argue that they are not necessarily meant to fall directly into the hands of end users. The reason for this is that the coders are not user interface specialists, they're technologists. They have little talent for creating a system grandma can use. Case in point: look at the default GNOME 2 environment from the project and look at how RedHat reworked it. Out of the box, GNOME 2 is almost completely unusable in my opinion whereas on RedHat 9, it's excellent.
RedHat, in my opinion, have got it right. I recently tried installing RedHat 9 on my mom's new system and I will never look back at other distros for desktop purposes. They took technologies provided by KDE and GNOME and put them together in such a way that serious consideration was given to usability! They didn't just package up the source trees and say: "Here! Linux for the desktop!" They created a tightly integrated environment with simplified menus, a good theme, powerful but understandable tools for configuration, and all that. Once again: it's not just a blind repackaging.
If we want Linux to move to the desktop, there needs to be more effort towards making these environments really usable. They are currently designed by techies for techies and that just does not cut it. So in this respect, Libranet is not much better (save installation tools) than default Debian or any other distro that gives no thought to the big picture.
Join Tor today!
Why do they need a NEW distrobution for this? Can't they just add their improvements to Debian? Now I need 10 distros based off Debian. One for installs, one for graphics, one for music, one for work, one for servers... I mean come on! Let's work together here!
Also do they maintain their own apt repository?
good question. In my opinion, to pay $70 for basically... well... knoppix, they better keep their own apt repository stocked with everything I could possibly want, and the latest builds. I want to apt-get the latest kernel within a day or two of release if I have to pay that much.
Otherwise, what possible motivation would I have to buy it? It doesn't really give me anything.
And don't think this is just the oss-won't-pay-for-anything mentality. Really... the screenshots look exactly like knoppix without the name. knoppix has the hardware detection, is based on debian, etc. So what logical reason would I have to pay for something that I can already get for free?
Yes, they have their own apt-repository.
This guy is way out there
Now, this is not to say there's anything wrong with trying to make money from Linux. However, it's truly unfortunate that there's no way to check out this distro without shelling out some money. RedHat lets you download for free, as do all the other major distros. However, they'll also take your money if you want the box version or if you want support. Libranet can't seriously hope people will shell out money to switch to this without being given a risk-free chance to experience it.
And, since they basically took Debian, modified it, and made it not-free as in beer, I'm wondering why they just got free publicity on Slashdot.
There is no sig, there is only Zuul.
Can someone please explain to me why they need to have a 'Preferences', a 'Tools', a 'System Settings', a 'Utilities', and a damn 'Control Center'!!! MAKE A CONTROL PANEL!! Put it all in the same place!! Every time I go to look for a dang program setting I have to wade through menu options forever! Is this some strange organizational system that makes sense to everyone else but me?!?? :)
No I didnt spell check this post...
You don't know what you're talking about. I run both Redhat 9 and Libranet so I think I'm a bit more qualified to comment. Aside from your gripes about the default Gnome install (I wouldn't know, I don't use Gnome), Libranet 2.7 (haven't bought 2.8 yet) is far and away better thatn Redhat 9. No more endless lib dependencies when installing a package, everything just works. In my opinion, usability also is a measure of how hard it is to install a package, recompile a kernel, etc. Not just the menus. Libranet's Adminmenu tool allows any newbie to setup a personal firewall, install packages, recompile a kernel, install Flash, install Microsoft Truetype Fonts, or even RealPlayer. You can install Java when doing th actual install. Last time I checked, Redhat had no tools that could do these things for a newbie w/ a GUI. Well, I guess Redhat's package manager is alright if you like RPM hell. I haven't even gotten into how much better apt-get is. I know ap4rpm is out there and I use it weekly but it doesn't compare to the speed, selection of packages, or the stability of Debians's apt-get
Bottom line: You haven't used it so you don't know what you're talking about.
This guy is way out there
So, what is the real diference between the Libranet "system" and everyone elses "package". They stress that they are different because their product is a system, but never really give solid examples of the way(s) their system is different than a package. There is almost too much variety available to make a decision on which system/package to use without going to the trouble of trying several of them. While that can be fun, sometimes you just need to get something installed and running without too much "buyers remorse" after the system is up and running. I have used various unixes (both BSD and AT&T style) and also linux (Redhat) in the past for a variety of situations, but trying to grok the advantages of the different systems/packages for linux can be frustrating.
_-=^=-_-=^=-_-=^=-_ Can you imagine a world without hypothetical situations?
Since we have to pay for it, they should really offer something worth $70 over other free distros. Firstly, if they can somehow offer the drivers with the package, nvidia, tokenring in default installs, they'd be QUITE different.
But I would personally pay for a distro that can completely strip down the binaries, even stripping off READMEs and man pages, and compiling it optimised for size. Knoppix is one awesome distro that can detect most hardware, and comes with so much command line utilities, but something that can beat that would be worth 70.
"Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
Businesses may want the a support contact that I don't think you can get from Debian.
As Debian is sooooo stable (and changes infrequently) I always wondered why more SW companies don't list Debian as a suported Linux platform. But it comes down to support, theyre not going to qualify a product on a platform they can't get business support for.
It's crap that SW companies will qualify a product on a RedHat or SuSE platform that becomes outdated in 6 months. Its to expensive to retest every Six months so technicaly don't support newer distributions (this why RH is shipping AS and AW versions).
Perhaps thats what Libranet's aiming for - bu then again they appear to be a little known disti so I'm talking crap.
"Things that you own end up owning you" - Tyler Durden (via Diogenes of Sinope).
Everyone who is trolling libranet has obviously never used it before *waits for more trolls on how it isnt free*... For those that want a preview on what they can expect can go to LinuxISO and download libranet's 2.0 essential version. I have tried it and it is absolutely fantastic--from the installation to the tools (adminmenu) everything worked great, better than any linux distro I have ever used.
Libranet is also well known for having superior technical support and has a very friendly userbase that offers to help the newbies rather than tell them to RTFM.
Try before you Troll, thanks
I was a happy Libranet user for a while; they do maintain a repository of updates. Most of the updates come from the "official" Debian distribution, though.
Basically what you're paying for is, as far as I can tell, a raftload of up-to-date apps, an up-to-date kernel, some convenience apps for setting things up nicely, all on top of a relatively stable release of Debian. If they've bumped their price up as one poster said, I don't see how it's worth it. When I bought a copy, it was on a set of CD-Rs and came with a manual--on letter-size paper stapled together, no less.
It's nice, it's stable, it's relatively hassle-free (as hassle-free as Debian ever is, and then some) so decide whether or not that's worth your while. It wasn't to me, but then again, I'm foolish enough to use Gentoo Linux as my main distribution.
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
Someone can do with GPL-ed s/w whatever he or she wants, provided that if he or she distributes their derivative they _must_ include the sources.
So, the website does not have to have links to downloadable ISOs or something. But if you buy their product, the sources have to be available to you. And _you_ can do with these sources whatever you want to (under the GPL), even provide free downloads on the net.
Wenn ist das Nunstueck git und Slotermeyer? Ja! Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput.
You can sell GPL software for any price you like. The license places no restriction on the price you sell it for. Of course there is nothing to stop the customer from giving away free copies subsequently.
I don't think the web site has screenshots of 2.8 yet. I installed it last night and it's got antialiased fonts and the whole kaboodle - looks great.
Ummm, KDE 3.1 just came into Debian in it's entirety, finally, and now packages that depend on KDE are coming into unstable. (Cool stuff like K3B.) If you run unstable, you can build a NICE desktop system already. (KDE took forever to come in for a variety of reasons, but I'd say that the biggest holdup was the ever-changing g++ ABI, which is outside of Debian's control. Wanting to "do the right thing" and work out the technical problems of live updates within Debian took some time given the shifting ABI - it's a complex problem.)
Also, the debian-installer people are making big progress as we speak. Debian is improving daily. Desktop Debian is a reality for some, and will be a reality for more people soon.
My first ever Linux experience was installing 'Potato' on some semi-weird hardware. As a complete newbie, I managed to get X setup and everything else with very few problems.
Installing 'Woody' was far easier. There is now a really good mini-cd (unofficial) with some damn fine h/w detection stuff to install a very basic Debian. The rest can be retrieved via apt.
There is a team of people working on an official redesign of the Debian installer.