Libranet 2.8 Review

TheMadPenguin writes "When I heard about Libranet 2.8 containing KDE 3.1 and kernel 2.4.20 in our forums, I just about fell out of the chair I was sitting in. As you all probably already know, Libranet is a Debian-based distro aimed toward the desktop user. Until now, I had never heard of a Debian release with all the newest goodies, but my world was about to get turned upside down. Read the full review with screenshots at MadPenguin.org."

Comments

JPEGs for font rendering examples?

[PhilHibbs]

They're using JPEGs to show font rendering! LOL!

Re:JPEGs for font rendering examples?

[FyRE666]

Not only that, but the Anti-aliasing examples look a bit suspicious to me.

I recently installed KDE 3.1 onto my Gentoo machine (it's usually a headless box, but I was curious to see the improvements in KDE). The sans-serif fonts were all very nice, but bring up Slashdot with the "Times" font and it looked horrific! I'm not saying that /. is the last word in beautiful Web design, but the anti-aliasing actually made it look worse. I might try throwing some Windows fonts onto the box to see if it's better at some point...

Re:JPEGs for font rendering examples?

[marcello_dl]

i run Debian unstable with gnome 2, AA fonts look as good as the website examples. Some fonts look too thin on dark background. Bitstream Vera is very nice.

Re:JPEGs for font rendering examples?

[antiMStroll]

Looks fine on this Gentoo box. In fact, I recently compared a new XP Pro notebook from work, an Nvidia Go P4, side-by-side with this AA'd P2 w/ ATI 4 meg video card and the screen rendering on the Gentoo box looked leagues better to my eye. (Am I correct that XP doesn't anti-alias, relying instead on the quality of their fonts?) This was comparing IE to Phoenix. Compared to 'links' compiled with svga support, the gap was greater still.

No troll intended, in my experience an anti-aliased xfree desktop now renders fonts as far ahead of XP as Windows once was ahead of xfree.

Re:JPEGs for font rendering examples?

[the unbeliever]

You have to use ClearType to get decent antialiasing in WinXP.

Re:JPEGs for font rendering examples?

[TheNetAvenger]

Am I correct that XP doesn't anti-alias, relying instead on the quality of their fonts?)

To answer your question, yes and no. With standard 'font smoothing' turned on, most fonts in the 8-12 point font size are just using font hinting, instead of anti-aliasing.

It is the design of the font that specifies at what point size they do full smoothing and what point size they only do hinting, this is how fonts are designed and Windows conforms to the specification. (There are tricks or tools to alter the fonts hinting and smooth point size ranges that I used prior to WindowsXP to enable full anti-aliasing in Windows2K)

However, if you open up your display properties and click on the Effects button in the Appearance Tab, you will find a drop down box below the 'font smoothing' checkbox. In this box CHANGE IT TO ClearType.

With ClearType on, fonts are fully anti-aliased even at hinted point sizes. It uses a method of 'color' based anti-aliasing that also uses sub pixel shifting. The sub pixel shifting is the extra goodie for LCD users as their displays will be a bit crisper and smoother than a normal CRT.

Since ClearType does use color based anti-aliasing, it also works great on CRT (regular) monitors as well.

With ClearType, the fonts are smooth and consistent and even handle anti-aliasing with any color font on any color background.

So if you are using WindowsXP, for God's sake, turn on ClearType to make the fonts that much easier to read. (I'm typing this on a Laptop Screen where ClearType makes my fonts over 200dpi.)

BTW If you turn ClearType on and it looks a bit blurry or the fonts are slightly off color (hints of red, green, etc) then you need to adjust ClearType for your monitor. To do this go to:


http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/using/how to /customize/cleartype/tuner/default.asp

There you will find a utility to adjust the ClearType settings. (It does require you to install an ActiveX IE component.)

From a newish GNU/Linux user

[mike_c999]

To me this seems realy quite good.
It sets up many of the thing a new linux user wants by default. (AA fonts for one)This is somthing that realy is a must 'cus theres nothing worse than trying to read crappy fonts, and its a big put off when you try and change.

I know things like this are relativly simple, but there not when you're new.

Mike

Can we stop this Debian myth now please..

[Anonymous Coward]

If you wan't the latest and greatest (!) then you'd simply use the Sid branch of Debian. Sure probably lots of things don't work but oh you'd have the latest.

If you are more sane then you can simply track the Unstable branch. This is a good tradeoff for people who don't like the relatively old packages found in Stable.

In other words you have a choice. You can also use numerous unoffical apt-get sources for such stuff.

Stop thsi Debian myth now.

Re:Can we stop this Debian myth now please..

[rembo]

Well, talking about stopping myths...

SID is the same as unstable, the developement branch.

Testing which I think you confused with unstable is now sarge. It will be the next stable when it is finnished. Packages from unstable flow to testing when there are no dependency problems and critical bugs

Current stable is woody. Woody only gets security updates from debian. This is to ensure that a running system will not break because of an upgrade of software. But there are many backports available of newer software on www.apt-get.org

Re:Can we stop this Debian myth now please..

[pigeon]

I have tried al tree branches of Debian. I love Debian on my servers, and stable and testing work great on them. But for the workstation, I found Debian unacceptable. Testing was simply not actual enough, and unstable too often broke. So for my workstations I have switched to OS X wheneever possible, and on x86 I am experimenting with gentoo and even considering *gasp*.. redhat.. Libranet sounds great, but for 40 $ I think I'd rather look somewhere else.

Re:Can we stop this Debian myth now please..

[Anonymous Coward]

What's in a name?

Debian's myth of not being up to date, is partly the result of, well, not the best marketing: the distribution is divided into stable, testing and unstable. Stable is where most newcomers look, wouldn't you, for the current working distro. It sounds reassuring. However, unstable is a bit of a misnomer, because while we understand that it is not "guaranteed" in the same way to be stable, it is by no means unstable, it is rather where the new stuff is to be found, and what most newcommers to Linux are looking for, the latest and greatest, and yes you do run the occasional risk of running into mishaps.

Debian should seriously consider changing the name unstable, or providing an another alias that is a bit more reassuring - Sid is one, but Sid now maps to unstable.

I am not sure what would do the trick, I would suggest depreciating the name "unstable" for "development" or something more snazzy like "cutting-edge".

Whilst at it, Debian developers should get on with it and borrow more quickly from Knoppix, offer a re-mastered jigdo version of it as an alternative installer... Installation should be as quick and painless as possible. (i forget Debian is very concerned about catering for a multitude of processors that makes this difficult ... but still)

It is post installation Debian installation that is such a joy (and i don't care what i use so long as i get it!).

No other distro i have used comes close when it comes to ease of management, and keeping up to date; and i a factoring time as an important element here. I use Gnu/Linux to do things other than Gnu/Linux. (well for source based distros i am curious about Sourcerer, and its related branches Source Madge, and Lunar Linux)...

But post installation Debian gets the balance right between keeping up to date, and time spent.

Think Debian :-)

Re:Can we stop this Debian myth now please..

[psavo]

what are you talking about? Debian/Sid has been broken only 2 times so far (after woody came out), and I dist-upgrade every night at 23:45.

And what the hell is wrong with that 'article', is that one more of those 'paidrticles'? 'fell off my chair', now, there's someone in need to meet a woman (or a man, whatever).

Yeah.. Libranet is Great & wonderful

[Anonymous Coward]

But it crashed on him, serveral times, during a partition/installation. So, this "review" constitutes him praising Anti Aliasing and a bunch of useless crap you can find in any other distro.

I don't understand.

[termos]

What I really don't understand is why some distros supply screenshots on their webpage, or why there is screenshots in reviews. If this was redhat, with it's special kde & gnome mixture thing (correct me if i am wrong), it would be OK, but this is just plain KDE 3.x. I am running Debian myself, and I don't see any difference in this KDE and the KDE I am using, okey there is a few new icons, but that would be the only thing.
And what is the big deal with Libranet beeing shipped with KDE 3.1 anyway? It's not that new and debian unstable has had it for some time now. The same with Linux 2.4.20, it has been stable for some time now, and it's not new! Still it is looking nice for the desktop with it's GUI frontends for package management, and maybe it has some other nice tools as well.

Re:I don't understand.

[grahamlee]

What I really don't understand is why some distros supply screenshots on their webpage, or why there is screenshots in reviews.

Because not all desktop PC users have used KDE 3.1 before, perchance?

I recently helped a friend to install RedHat 8 on his laptop (no mean achievement...the PCMCIA hardware wouldn't play ball but that's a different thread), and the one thing he was most worried about was whether or not he'd be able to work out how to use the browser/mail client/office software/etc. As you could probably imagine, he wanted to know whether he could do normal stuff first, kernel hacking later.

So to him, the ability to see screenshots of the window manager in advance would have definitely been A Good Thing, and the distributors should supply such screen shots if they would like newbies to come to their distro. Imagine if he'd installed it, wanted to check his e-mail and found that it defaulted to twm, or even Window Maker.

If this was redhat, with it's special kde & gnome mixture thing (correct me if i am wrong)

RedHat doesn't mix GNOME and KDE, it supplies both but defaults to GNOME. What you're probably thinking of is BlueCurve, their custom home-grown skins for both window managers that are intended to nullify the difference between the two. Also in an abstract way it makes them look not dissimilar to Windows XP user interface, which is another bonus for switchers.

Re:I don't understand.

[Solosoft]

Windowmaker is a perfectly good Windowmanager ...

Re:I don't understand.

[grahamlee]

Windowmaker is a perfectly good Windowmanager ...

Oh I agree, I use it (version 0.80 I believe) as my default WM here. However, that's because I've a few years experience of using NeXTStep under my belt. My colleague had a number of years of Windows experience behind him, so Window Maker probably wouldn't have been very intuitive to him. KDE3, on the other hand, is pretty much designed to behave like Windows (especially XP), so it was a much better choice for a beginner.

After he's got comfortable with using the OS, I'll mention things like memory footprint and loading times and get him to try something else... :-)

This is sacrilege

[Zemran]

There will soon be no hiding place left for us Ludites :(

Re:This is sacrilege

[Wolfrider]

--Yes, we will hunt you down one by one and force you to see the wonders of the modern world...

--For Godsake, UPGRADE ALREADY from that TI-994/A you've been using for all these years!! :b

I wish I knew where I could find the MS fonts

[Billly Gates]

Microsoft took them off their website when it was discovered that Linux users were downloading them.

I use FreeBSD and fonts are one of the reasons why I still do development on Windows with my computer. The fonts look 10 times better and are more pleasing to the eyes.

I use true type and anti aliagned fonts in X but they do not look as good as Microsoft's or Apple's.

If anyone knows of a website where I can download them that would be greatly appreciated.

Re:I wish I knew where I could find the MS fonts

[mickwd]

http://corefonts.sourceforge.net/

Re:I wish I knew where I could find the MS fonts

[runderwo]

Get the MS TT Core Fonts Here

Re:I wish I knew where I could find the MS fonts

[markov_chain]

I've never encountered a font, on any platform (or at least linux, windows, dos, mac, atari st, amiga, sun), that looks better for text editing and writing code than the default fixed 6x9 font used by xterms. The characters are small enough not to be overly wasteful of space, but somehow appear very clear and unambiguous-- they are drawn really well.

Re:I wish I knew where I could find the MS fonts

[runderwo]

I'm confused. Does a post get modded as a troll if the link is labelled goatse, but points to the right place?

Re:I wish I knew where I could find the MS fonts

[(H)elix1]

Not that I would encourage anyone to violate the sanctity of an EULA, but if you happen by a windows box the fonts are pre-extracted and just sitting in the C:\WINNT\Fonts directory. Odds are you just have to copy them to your fonts directory on your linux box. All theoretical, mind you...

The legal way is using the extractor utilities (see sourceforge) to pull the fonts out of the setup package microsoft was offering. Take the newly extracted fonts - identical to the ones located on the windows box - and viola!

Re:I wish I knew where I could find the MS fonts

[ftobin]

I quite agree with you. The fixed font is my choice for terminals. However, in xemacs, I do prefer Courier.

What I would like to know.

[foolip]

Does anyone know if Libranet categorizes software into main, contrib and non-free so that one could easily avoid the non-free things the reviewer mentions:

* Opera 6.0
* RealPlayer
* Flash (could be a free version?)
* Java (perhaps not the non-free one either?)
* MS TrueType fonts
* NVidia 3d accelerated drivers for X

He says "Libranet is 100% compatible with Debian" so I guess one could remove the non-free sources from sources.list?

Re:What I would like to know.

[Dot.Com.CEO]

I'm really curious, why do you want to avoid all those things? I understand Opera, for example, you either pay or you get those hideous banners, but what is the problem with the rest? Assuming, of course, you want to build a workstation, not a server, for which case Libranet is a bit of a wrong solution imho.

Re:What I would like to know.

[foolip]

The reason is quite simple. As a Free Software follower, I don't want to use any software which doesn't give the freedoms/rights I want for myself and everyone else.

In less abstract terms: I don't want to agree to Reals license agreements or use their software, because it doesn't allow to do the things I should be allowed to do: study how it works, make changes to it and distribute derivative works (I would need the source code, and permission to use it for this to be possible). If you hang on a while I'll post another reply with some extracts from some of the EULAs.

I frequently get bashed here at slashdot for saying such things, but if don't have any control over the software (i.e. it's proprietary and/or non-free), then I don't want to use it -- no matter how good it is. If you want to know some of the reasons why non-free software is bad then go read up on GNU's philosophy section. Even if you find you don't agree with the GNU philosophy, you should know about it, because any GNU/Linux system (including Libranet) is build on and with GNU tools (and a lot of other of course, GNU should'nt be getting all the credit).

Re:What I would like to know.

[cathyy]

Yes, it is separated into the main, contrib, non-free areas, just as the Debian tree is.

Re:What I would like to know.

[foolip]

Here are a few examples:

• Opera 6.0
  I can't get my hands on a license without downloading the software :(
• RealPlayer
  The same thing. They obviously don't want us to read it unecessarily :)
• Flash
  You may not alter, merge, modify, adapt or translate the Software, or decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, or otherwise reduce the Software to a human-perceivable form. That's more clear cut, and straight out said than in most licenses :)
  ...
  You may not modify the Software or create derivative works based upon the Software.
  ...
  You may not export the Software into any country prohibited by the United States Export Administration Act and the regulations thereunder.
  Which I guess means that Cubans, Lybians, Iranians, North Koreans, Syrians and some others can't use the software, but I may well be wrong as for which nationalities this is.
• Java
  Except as specifically authorized in any Supplemental License Terms, you may not make copies of Software, other than a single copy of Software for archival purposes. Unless enforcement is prohibited by applicable law, you may not modify, decompile, or reverse engineer Software.
  ...
  You may not modify the Java Platform Interface ("JPI", identified as classes contained within the "java" package or any subpackages of the "java" package), by creating additional classes within the JPI or otherwise causing the addition to or modification of the classes in the JPI.
  ...
  You acknowledge that the Software may automatically download, install, and execute applets, applications, software extensions, and updated versions of the Software from Sun ("Software Updates")
• NVidia drivers
  ... SOFTWARE designed exclusively for use on the Linux operating system may be copied and redistributed, provided that the binary files thereof are not modified in any way (except for unzipping of compressed files).
  ...
  Customer may not reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble the SOFTWARE, nor attempt in any other manner to obtain the source code.

As you see, the licenses limit the terms of use , modification and redistribuation of the software in ways which are to me not acceptable.

Re:What I would like to know.

[FyRE666]

I understand your viewpoint for most of the examples there (Flash especially - as having the source would mean I could actually compile it for my Mac PPC running Gentoo). However, I'm very happy with Nvidia releasing their own drivers for their own hardware. They work great, and I doubt anyone could do a better job. I believe that about any low-level hardware drivers; if they work well for my distros, then I'm happy. If they don't then I return the hardware (luckily many manufacturers, when they mention "Linux" compatibility, don't specify a distro, so you have a leg to stand on when returning the product).

Re:What I would like to know.

[Dot.Com.CEO]

Fair enough... This is actually a fairly complete answer. I just use the software that does the job I want to do but I appreciate your viewpoint. I don't agree with RMS's view of the world and of software (and I don't think it is a subject that can be discussed in /. without flames and trolling), but I guess if it works for you it is ok with me... I haven't had much experience with using just Free software other than Redhat 8.0 which, as I understand, comes out of the box with only GPL software and, frankly, is unusable as a home PC (no mp3, no video player of any use etc. etc.) I find Mandrake with the Texstar and PLF sources to be the best Linux desktop myself.

Re:What I would like to know.

[nagora]

no mp3

MP3 is obsolete and has been for years, use Ogg. That's my tip!

TWW

Re:What good is this distro?

[fymidos]

In Plain English : A useless distro.

This is not from the article, you should really be more polite ....

Re:debian and gnome

[Anonymous Coward]

Registry / .not / mono !

What the hell is driving you to MS? Alot of people don't like the direction you seem to want gnome to head. Claiming KDE is sorta less than free while you are busy trying to clone a patent mined technology produced by one of the most virulant software companies in recent memory is absurd to say least.

Knoppix

[Effugas]

While LibraNet is certainly impressive, I must mention that Knoppix provides the "cutting edge" traits mentioned -- KDE 3.1, Linux-2.4.20-xfs, etc. -- with the bonus of the most mature automatic hardware detection algorithms in the x86 space.

And once you run knx-hdinstall, apt-get is more than happy to function normally.

Knoppix is very fun to see spread through schools; it's exponential growth at its finest :-)

Yours Truly,

Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com

Re:Knoppix

[Effugas]

I was just commenting how odd it was that the Prince track, once looking forward to an exciting future, now referred to a booming past...

You should try Knoppix. It's like one day, the instant-satisfaction of console systems hit the PC realm.

--Dan

Re:Knoppix

[JCCyC]

Man oh man. I'm in the first hour of my first Knoppix experience and I already decided to dump Red Hat 8! No one, I tells ya, no one does hardware detection like Knoppix does. My HP 3425 finally works! KLAUS KNOPPER KICKS ASS!

Re:Knoppix

[orkysoft]

He's on dialup. Around where he's from, local calls cost money, so cable/DSL is actually cheaper than dialup, if you can get it in your area.

At last, an up to date Debian

[pchown]

My biggest gripe with Debian has always been its reluctance to include new software. If reliability is important, you should be conservative, but it doesn't mean I have to like it. :-) I'm pleased that there is a new Debian-based distro that doesn't force me to take this approach.

(For example, I do a lot with IPv6 because it's easier than setting up VPNs and then dealing with numbering conflicts. If I was going to be conservative, and avoid IPv6 on the grounds that it is too new, it would make my job harder.)

Debian and RedHat are important because they are free (as in liberty) distributions. I want the freedom to tinker with, and give away, the distribution, not just the software that it contains.

Re:At last, an up to date Debian

[Munra]

Debian does not force you to take this approach; you choose to.

If you wan't bleeding edge, use unstable/testing.

Yes -- Debian stable has programs that are (in some cases) slightly out of date, and do not have the features of newest releases. The clue is in the name, though; they have been rigourously tested for stability. If you want to sacrifice stability (aimed more at servers) for features (aimed more at desktops), use unstable/testing. You don't even have to have all programs as unstable/testing -- you can choose which ones to pin where.

When will people stop criticising Debian for being conservative when it isn't; Debian does have bleeding edge versions of most of the packages available, in the unstable/testing repositories. You *just* have to tell it to use them.

Now I'll have my coffee and moan less ;)

Manta

Re:At last, an up to date Debian

[10Ghz]

If you wan't bleeding edge, use unstable/testing.

Sorry, unstable/testing isn't really cutting edge either. It took 9 frigging months for Xfree 4.2 to appear in Unstable, and it took even longer for KDE3!

Re:At last, an up to date Debian

[eloki]

Sorry, unstable/testing isn't really cutting edge either. It took 9 frigging months for Xfree 4.2 to appear in Unstable, and it took even longer for KDE3!

Yes, and that's where you lack the background context about why the above 2 things took a long time.

Incidentally, Debian is more unstable/cutting edge than you think. It has had gcc 3.2.3 pre-release versions for months, and the glibc maintainers seem to regularly do updates from CVS. The samba in unstable is 2.999alpha23. The new module utils for kernel 2.5 are already packaged for unstable as well... are you running 2.5?

The thing is that Debian is a de-facto portability test for XFree86, because Debian releases on over 10 architectures. The maintainer for the XFree86 packages doesn't package newer versions until he has them working on all architectures, and this takes time. I do find it annoying, but a laudable goal (it's not like new versions of XFree86 really give me that much anyway).

As for KDE, this was delayed further because of the transition to gcc 3.2, which had yet another different and incompatible ABI to gcc 3.0. It was felt it wasn't worth putting KDE in, only to have to go through a painful packaging transition for 3.2. Instead, the KDE maintainers just opted to wait for the transition to start before they entered Debian.

See, just because some things are slower than you expected doesn't mean the rest of unstable isn't in fact quite up-to-date, maybe more than you'd like :)

Re:At last, an up to date Debian

[dmaxwell]

Debian runs on more arches than any other Linux distro. It takes some doing to get something as large and as complex as XFree86 running acceptably on all of them. No, "Debian should only worry about x86 because everybody uses it." is not the answer. If it wasn't for Debian, many users of alternate arches would be out in the cold.

I'll grant that KDE3 took way too long. There was much wrangling over the GCC 3 and glibc 2.3 transistions. However, I survived on unofficial ports for much of that time.

Re:At last, an up to date Debian

[10Ghz]

Yes, and that's where you lack the background context about why the above 2 things took a long time.

I'm well aware of the reasons for the delay. And guess what? I don't care for their reasons! All I care is that is the software in there or isn't it. And in this case, it wasn't. Other distros had them, Debian did not. So the people who say that Unstable is cutting-edge, are simply wrong. Perhaps it would be closer to the truth is they said "Unstable is more or less current, unless some big and important packages are againg being held back indefinitely because they are implementing some changes".

Yes, they were migrating to GCC3 and that was the cause for the delay. So what? fact remains that the software was delayed and that means that Unstable is not bleeding edge. That is a FACT. And that means that one should not do the "Debian unstable is bleeding edge" party-line if it's not true.

Of course, every other distro were also migrating to GCC3 back then, yet they were running the new software alot sooner than Debian was...

Perhaps other parts of Unstable are more current, but again: I don't care! I don't care if Unstable has YetAnotherApp0.05 whereas other distros still have YetAnotherApp0.04, if big and important packages are delayed. And Xfree and KDE are pretty damn big and important in my book!

Re:At last, an up to date Debian

[diamondc]

If you don't care, don't use it. People above have given you the reasons why KDE and X were delayed. Even then, it was easy to find and add a deb line to apt-get them. I guess Debian wasn't meant for you.

Re:At last, an up to date Debian

[10Ghz]

I guess Debian wasn't meant for you.

It would seem so. And that's why I'm already migrating to Gentoo.

Re:At last, an up to date Debian

[swillden]

Sorry, unstable/testing isn't really cutting edge either. It took 9 frigging months for Xfree 4.2 to appear in Unstable, and it took even longer for KDE3!

Pish. If you want the latest on unstable, it's trivial to get it. You just have to add some non-official sources for apt-get to use. I ran KDE 3.0 on my unstable boxen all through most of the pre-releases. My experience is that unofficial Debian packages are about as buggy and problematic as official, released RedHat and Mandrake packages, whereas the official unstable packages are significantly more trustworthy. And the stable packages are, of course, superb.

For that matter, if you don't mind falling back to not-much-better-than-RedHat levels of stability, you can get backports of most of the latest software for stable. KDE 3.1 was available for Woody within a week or two after it was released.

And best of all, with Debian you can upgrade to the latest stuff without having to reinstall. The install on my laptop is almost three years old (it was originally installed on a different laptop; I just moved the drive when I got the new box), and it's running Linux 2.4.20, glibc 2.3, gcc 3.2.3, KDE 3.1, etc. I know people who have Debian installs that were originally built five years ago and have been seamlessly upgraded to all of the latest.

Source distros can probably also accomplish this, but they require more maintenance. That's fine when I want to fiddle, but for real work I prefer Debian.

Re:At last, an up to date Debian

[10Ghz]

If you want the latest on unstable, it's trivial to get it. You just have to add some non-official sources for apt-get to use.

Perhaps, but we are not talking about some semi-official sources, we are talking about the unstable-tree. First claim was was that "Unstable is bleeding edge". I disagreed. Now people say that "Oh, but you have to install them from this different location...". Well, we aren't talking about Unstable anymore. In my book, "Unstable" is the stuff you get when you have specified that you are using standard unstable-tree and do apt-get update and apt-get upgrade. If you add other sourced besides the unstable, then it is not the standard unstable anymore.

Re:At last, an up to date Debian

[eloki]

All I care is that is the software in there or isn't it. And in this case, it wasn't. Other distros had them, Debian did not

Sounds like distro envy... :)

So the people who say that Unstable is cutting-edge, are simply wrong. Perhaps it would be closer to the truth is they said "Unstable is more or less current, unless some big and important packages are againg being held back indefinitely because they are implementing some changes".

That's a pointlessly high standard you're asking though: every piece of software must be the absolute latest, not even a single package that's 0.0.1 versions behind, or it's not "bleeding edge". Regardless, I don't think unstable is actually meant to be "bleeding edge", except compared to stable.

Of course, every other distro were also migrating to GCC3 back then, yet they were running the new software alot sooner than Debian was...

And were these distros trying to smooth the transition over so that packages with a pre-3.2 ABI could be parallel-installable with ones that used the post-3.2 C++ ABI? No, they weren't.

RH and Mandrake just recompile everything, make ISOs, point the users at them and say, "ok piggies, eat!". But you have to install basically _everything_ to upgrade. You're out of luck if you want newer versions of just 1 or 2 packages that require the gcc 3.2 ABI but don't want to change everything else just because of that one package.

That's a great benefit, but also causes its own challenges, which distros like RH and Mandrake don't have to worry about because their target userbase just wants to reboot, pop in a CD, and click "Upgrade"... a strong subset of that userbase just wanting to feel like l33t power-users who run the latest and greatest open software, but nevermind the spirit of that open software which wants to run on lots of arches.

I don't care if Unstable has YetAnotherApp0.05 whereas other distros still have YetAnotherApp0.04, if big and important packages are delayed. And Xfree and KDE are pretty damn big and important in my book!

Has it occurred to you that the maintainers may partly be more wary about uploading precisely because they are big and important packages? ;)

Seriously though, it basically sounds as if you just don't care about Debian's goals. In which case, yes, Debian isn't the distro for you, just become a cool Gentoo user.

Re:At last, an up to date Debian

[swillden]

If you add other sourced besides the unstable, then it is not the standard unstable anymore.

So what? The point is that you can easily stay closer to current by using Debian than with any other distro, other than source distros. Your stability will suffer, but you can do it easily. If you prefer not to go that far, you can use unstable, which is always fairly close to the bleeding edge but is pretty reliable. And so on through testing (usually; testing is in bad shape at the moment) and stable.

Debian offers the whole range of choices, from old-but-rock-solid to bleeding edge, *and* allows continual upgradability. Contrast this with the other leading distros, in which you pretty much must reinstall to upgrade across major releases, and in which your stuff is pretty current at the point of release but then ages until the next release.

Debian has its disadvantages, but for the serious Linux user who needs to stay current but doesn't have time to mess with source distros, it's the best thing out there. It's also the best choice for those who need maximum reliability for minimum cost.

Re:At last, an up to date Debian

[Xabraxas]

"Seriously though, it basically sounds as if you just don't care about Debian's goals. In which case, yes, Debian isn't the distro for you, just become a cool Gentoo user."

Most people don't care about Debian's goals. They just want a system that works and in today's world many new feautures are being applied in every release in rapid succession. If you don't have updated packages then you don't get new features.

As for Gentoo...just leave it alone already. Every Debian user wants to think that people are switching from Debian to Gentoo because it's a fashion. Well I never knew anyone even used it when I found out about it. Portage is what attracted me to the system and that seems to be what most people say. Not everyone wants to compile from source and that's their decision. Some of us do though and we happen to like Gentoo. Let's stop this stupidity already. It used to be Windows vs Linux but now everybody wants to fight over different distros. It's nonsense.

Pay for downloading iso???

[tanveer1979]

I went to libranet site to see download options.
The Downloads are not free!!. This is certainly a first from a linux distro. I doubt i will pay to download isos!!

Re:Pay for downloading iso???

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a second, actually. SuSE has been doing that for ages.

Re:Pay for downloading iso???

[Anonymous Coward]

The Downloads [libranet.com] are not free!!. This is certainly a first from a linux distro. I doubt i will pay to download isos!!

Last time I checked, Suse wasn't available for free download either. Oh wait, they appear to have a mirror on ftp://leet.hax0rs.ru.br.cr.sk.pl/tmp ... :-)

Re:Pay for downloading iso???

[ctid]

No it has not. You cannot download SuSE ISOs. You can download a live CD (for nothing) and then use that to install your distribution via FTP. This has been the case basically forever.

Re:Pay for downloading iso???

[mattrix2k]

Well frankly that stinks of the whole "I want free as in speech, but only if it means it's free as in beer" attitude that is rampant on Slashdot.

When RedHat tried to make an honest buck from the product they worked on people just downloaded off BitTorrent. Here you are complaining that Libranet aren't hosting huge ISOs for free download at their expense (both in terms of bandwidth and the money spent creating the product).

Re:Pay for downloading iso???

[rmohr02]

Well, Red Hat was going to put the isos up in a week. The fact that I had them three days earlier doesn't make me feel bad. I'll try to find somewhere to download Libranet, and if I like it, I'll pay for a copy.

Re:Pay for downloading iso???

[reconn]

As long as there is economic inequality in the world, no speech that you must pay for is free.

Re:Pay for downloading iso???

[GlowStars]

Wrong! And whoever modded the parent up as informative could really use a brown paper bag ;o)

Re:Pay for downloading iso???

[GlowStars]

SuSE is available for download from SuSE servers since ages. Just because it may not come in your preferred form (downloadable ISOs) does not mean you should spread your lies here on slashdot.

Re:Pay for downloading iso???

[keirre23hu]

I agree... if a company is going to have a GNU/Linux distributions, seems to me they should abide by the GNU License. I dont see anything wrong with having a pay version, or even going the red hat way with "priority" ftp, but the ISO's should be available... Solo Mi Dos Centavos

Re:Pay for downloading iso???

[swillden]

I agree... if a company is going to have a GNU/Linux distributions, seems to me they should abide by the GNU License.

They are abiding by the terms of the GPL. There's nothing in the GPL that requires you to make your distribution available for free download. The GPL only requires that anyone you give the software to (whether gratis or for a fee) must also be able to get the source code -- possibly for another small fee to cover the cost of providing it. And the GPL requires that you inform the recipients that they have all the same rights to modify and/or distribute the software that you have.

Re:Pay for downloading iso???

[1u3hr]

The current version (as reviewed is 2.8); but you can download "Libranet Essential Edition 2.0", dated July 2002, from LinuxISO.org, Download.com, etc. Probably could aptget that to something close to the latest version.

Re:Pay for downloading iso???

[Wolfrider]

--I tried 2.0 on a P166 Compaq laptop and it was basically useless. Wouldn't enable the PCMCIA stuff, so no Ethernet, so no updates. :(

--I went back to Knoppix. Actually I'd like to support Libranet's efforts since it would be BAD if they went out of business, but I'm not going to pay $40 sight-unseen for a distro when I haven't had a JOB for TooFkgLong.

Let me start this first before they do it again...

[Anonymous Coward]

Is Windows ready for the server?
Is Windows ready for the shell?
Is Windows ready for the 99.999%?
Is Windows ready for open standarts?
Is Windows ready for taking the competition with the best OS in the world?

Re:Just wondering....

[The Analog Kid]

Well it has to be redistributable under the terms of the GPL, like with Red Hat 9 people were downloading it before they got to the mirrors from people that payed for it. People thought it was illegal but it isn't. So if you really want it you just have to look for a .torrent to download or something like that.

So - which Linux is actually better?

[youaredan]

I'm sure this has been asked and answered the world over - but, in light of this post - I'm left wondering what Linux distribution I should run... if I do at all. I run FreeBSD for all my server operations, and have used Windows for development, multimedia, etc for years. I run XP right now - with multiple monitors.. and as long as multiple monitors are supported, I want to move off windows completely. I really don't know whether to stay with FreeBSD across the board - or admit that Linux is a great "desktop Unix" at the absolute least. If there are any hard-core enthusiasts out there with some free time - could you sell me on an operating system so i can choose already? Thanks!

Re:So - which Linux is actually better?

[viperblades]

I've used red hat,mandrake,gentoo,freebad obsd (as a desktop), gentoo and windows 2000. If you want to try a linux distro i'd go with gentoo. It has portage as does Freebsd. The one thing I like about gentoo over Freebsd on the desktop is that it's more polished. For instance, want some xmms-skins or some mplayer skins? Just emerge mplayer-skins , emerge xmms-themes. I was suprised to find that fluxbox had come with extra themes when I emerged it. So try them both. As far dual monitors, Yes.

Re:So - which Linux is actually better?

[benjamindees]

Choosing a Linux distro as a desktop for an experienced user is more of a process than a decision. Of course you want the most features available, and you always want it to "just work". Balancing these needs with cost can be difficult. The most important difference between all of them is the means of package distribution. You need to ask yourself "Am I willing to:"

1) Pay for software updates? If so, choose an RPM based distro like RedHat or Mandrake. RPM's aren't available for lots of OSS projects because the developers want to spend their time writing software, not install routines. The advantage of paying for the service is that everything you get just works and installs quickly. The disadvantage is that RedHat still can't package some programs for legal reasons; you're stuck installing those by hand and they don't always play well with RPM-based distros.

2) Use older software in exchange for easy, free updates? This is why Debian Stable rules as a Linux server. It is also why many people are disappointed in Woody as a desktop. Hopefully the many Debian-based desktop distros (Xandros, Lindows, Liberix, Knoppix) and the Debian Desktop Project will help to fix this.

3) Fix problems or put up with instability in newer software in exchange for features and free (as in beer) updates? Gentoo or Debian Testing/Unstable.

The only other real options are SuSE and Slackware, neither of which I've used.

Re:Pathetic

[bazik]

I bet he had shit his pants when they had announced to ship it with AOL for Linux.

Distrowatch also just did a review

[sc00p18]

and you can find it here.

They dumped i486

[Pelam]

While debian is agonizing about leaving i386 behind.
For me the biggest plus of Libranet over Debian would be that binaries are optimized for current generation of pc:s.

49$ seems pretty steep for one version.
While the software is the latest crop today it may not be so after a few months.

Do I need to pay again then?

Re:What good is this distro?

[Looke]

It didn't fail because of 533 MHz and 128 MB RAM, it failed because of some incompatible hardware. Thats's a big difference, and claiming that Libranet draws too much resources is simply ridiculous.

Be careful with your quoting as well. Your mix of article quotes and personal comments is really misleading.

Re:Just wondering....

[mattrix2k]

No, there is NO obligation under the GPL for a distro maker to host ISOs at their expensive for the benefit of freeloaders like yourself. "Free software rulez yeah! Gimme the source! What, I have to pay for it? I'll stick to my pirate copy of Wind0ze thanks."

Install Knoppix

[RealBeanDip]

If you want an easy to install Debian distro with a boatload of software on one CD, install Knoppix.

Why anyone would pay for this libranet distro is beyond me.

Re:Install Knoppix

[Daengbo]

Or, if you're here in Thailand, you just buy a computer with it pre-installed from the goverment or any hypermarket.

Re:What good is this distro?

[jkrise]

The author of the referenced article himself claims that a Celeron 533 with 128MB RAM is a low-end system. Secondly, he doesn't appear to have the necessary skills to trouble-shoot the problem, yet his review is referenced here! (seems to me, something wrong with the mobo - probably would've failed an XP instln as well, who knows?)

My point is, do Slashdot folks need slick GUIs and features, or, a working distro that does good h/w detection and is more robust? I'd place my money on the latter criterion, however slick the 'Experience'. Hence my sharp comment.

Re:What good is this distro?

[jkrise]

"claiming that Libranet draws too much resources is simply ridiculous."

If you read the ref. article, you'll see that he calls it a low-end system. He's sort of implying the distro failed to install due to lack of resources. IMO, the review is neither professional, nor thorough.

"Be careful with your quoting as well."

Point taken... I'm still figuring out with Momzilla on RH7.3 - some problems if I post HTML formatting - it seems to ignore para breaks. Sorry.

Re:What good is this distro?

[Martigan80]

If a distro needs anything faster than a 533 Celeron and/or more than 128MB RAM, it's got to be ranked as useless. From a Linux standpoint, though.

Nope. This would not make it useless, with the cheap prices of hardware these days I don't think this complaint is enough. With the latest program offerings from this Distro it seems to offer more "candy" which takes more power. If you just want gnome and no 3D, little sound, and to be able to operate a few programs at once then a less bloated Distro is ideal, BUT just because the distro does not feed off of the lower-end computers does not make it worthless. That's like driving a Fiat 500 on the interstate and complaining that the speed limit is set too high because your car can't go that fast.

Re:What good is this distro?

[Anonymous Coward]

I tried installing on an Intel Celeron 533MHz/128MB system... I was initially curious to see how well this release would run on a lower end system.(128MB - lower end for installing a distro?)

In plain English: It didn't.

This is a trend in computing in general - software, especially operating systems require ever more resources to do exactly the same thing. Windows XP needs the abovestated as a minimum to run. Win98SE would run fine on a Pentium 90 with 16mb of ram. The next version of Windows will probably require 512mb of ram and a 1.5ghz CPU just to check your email. With Microsoft and Apple, OS bloat is a matter of intention and incompetence - they bloat the OS, thereby depreciating the value of hardware thereby causing people to buy more new computers thereby sending them more $$$. With Linux, it is that most programmer geeks intensely tie their personal worth to the MHZ of their computer. This massive turnover of hardware means they jolly well only make software with computers made in the last 18months in mind, and since 98% of them/us are totally selfish in their computing concerns, this "bin it and buy a new one" mentality towards making software usable on non-latest hardware isn't going to change for the sake of efficiency.
My computer is an Athlon 875mhz with 512mb of ram & 7200rpm hdd - this should be fine as a desktop computer for a long time in theory, but WinXP from 2001 would run slowly on it, and Linux distros run like a dog on it. I know there is custom compiling and the like, but I can't be bothered and it shouldn't be needed anyway. No computer I've seen has been faster to use from an end-user standpoint than my DX4-100 with Windows 3.11.

To need such a ghz computer to just boot up at a decent speed is nuts - there was a time a decade ago when Unix had different principals, when hackers were hackers and not just selfish fun-centric ultra ghz 20somethings, when many a Unix had a lighter footprint than Windows (and Windows was feather light back then compared with now).

Should I care about a new distro coming out? When I know it will run slowly on my computer and I will be forced to upgrade all the time because Linux is always needing security patches and the software turnover rate such that nobody without broadband can keep up. And if I used Linux fulltime, that even if I got a brand new computer, that I'd be forced to upgrade it every couple of years to run the thing at the same speed because Linux bloats so fast. If Linux's objective on the desktop is to do things 'right', then it is as bad at that objective as Windows is as a server OS, perhaps far worse. I used to think geeks were out of touch, but I now think most just don't even care.

Re:Domain name?

[FrostedWheat]

The Linux community aren't exactly top of the pops in the corporate world, much in fact due to their rather immature birdlike mascot.

Immature? Rubbish. It reflects what the linux developers are doing perfectly. Not trying to be corporate, not trying to be 'top of the pops'. Simply making cool stuff because they enjoy doing it. It's upto the various distros to present that processional 'corporate' face. And they are doing it just fine thank you very much. :)

Considering this, and the recent problems Linux have had with corporate penetration, I can't see why domain names like Mad Penguin are chosen.

Maybe because the owner of the domain liked the name? *shrug*

The only effect is to drive away potential serious customers.

Again, this is a distro specific thing. Redhat and Debian both are very well presented. Presentation is not the problem, not by a long shot.

Re:Domain name?

[LMCBoy]

You seem to be suffering from the misconception that Linux is some kind of business "product" which must be "marketed" to "customers". Please disabuse yourself of this notion. Linus chose the fat penguin logo because it was cute and funny. He doesn't give a dang if it makes the project seem less "professional", and neither do most of the rest of us penguinistas.

If some company (redhat, lindows, libranet, suse) wants to package and sell the work of the community to their customers, then the marketing of Linux is their problem; don't try to foist it off on us, because we could not care less.

In short, Linux is not a business! So don't expect us to behave like businesspeople.

Debian is many things, but

[joeflies]

I don't think that it's easy to say that it's a good desktop platform for those who don't know how to setup a desktop platform.

You have to take into consideration that many of the configurations take considerable knowledge, and even the most basic things require a lot of documentation reading to get working (such as choosing a print spooler among many, enabling true type fonts on your own when the HOWTOs talk about xfs, xft, etc which may or may not apply to your system, learning the Debian-way of doing things that are different from most any other distro, such as not editing modules.conf or configuring XF86Config in a way that dpkg-reconfigure doesn't blow it away). Even using EXT3 requires knowlege of using LILO to boot into 2.4 kernel, and for people that don't know that, it can be a frustrating experience to install Debian on their own for desktop use.

I think that this libranet is a good idea, and hopefully it will pick up some steam for the "other" people who want to come to Debian but need a middle ground.

Re:Debian is many things, but

[swillden]

You have to take into consideration that many of the configurations take considerable knowledge, and even the most basic things require a lot of documentation reading to get working

Not really. Pretty much everything you mentioned has been reduced to a few prompts during package installation. Configuring your hardware is still a pain, but the new installer that's under development should fix that (Knoppix already does a great job; don't know about Libranet). I run unstable on my desktops and I have anti-aliased fonts under KDE3.1 without doing anything other than installing the packages.

learning the Debian-way of doing things that are different from most any other distro, such as not editing modules.conf or configuring XF86Config in a way that dpkg-reconfigure doesn't blow it away

As far as learning not to edit modules.conf, (a) if you're editing modules.conf you're probably not the sort that minds reading documentation and (b) the Debian modules.conf file tells you right at the top that you shouldn't edit it, that instead you should look at the files in /etc/modutils.

Same with XF86Config-4. Comments at the top tell you what to do and not to do. Even better, unless you're doing something really tricky, you shouldn't even need to edit the file. Just run dpkg-reconfigure, which is a far easier interface for newbies.

Even using EXT3 requires knowlege of using LILO to boot into 2.4 kernel

No it doesn't. You just apt-get install the kernel and the installation script asks you if you want to update lilo. Actually, woody defaults to a 2.4 kernel with EXT3 support.

Please don't spread yet more disinformation.

Re:What good is this distro?

[GaveUp]

The lack of installing I can guarantee was due to some incompatible hardware. Up until a few weeks ago when the harddrive went out in my laptop I had been running Libranet on it for over a year and had no problems and this was a P266mmx laptop w/ 96ram. The only thing that Libranet may need more of than a standard debian install, out of the box anyway, is HD space as it installs a few more things by default.

Knoppix?

[Cthefuture]

Uh, Knoppix has had that latest stuff (KDE 3.1, new kernel, etc.) for some time now.

In case you didn't know, Knoppix is Debian based and has some awesome hardware auto-detection utilities.

Re:Knoppix?

[Cthefuture]

Oops, hit post too fast.

And another thing, KDE 3.1 and newer kernels have been in the regular Debian unstable for quite a while now. I'm running KDE 3.1 under unstable right now in fact.

Re:Knoppix?

[sewagemaster]

did you add any knoppix sources in your apt-sources? like you, i'm running debian unstable, but i'm interested to try those hardware autodetection utilities...

Re:Knoppix?

[Cthefuture]

I haven't tried using the Knoppix hardware stuff with regular Debian. Would be nice but I just haven't gotten around to trying it.

You might try running Knoppix since it can run right off the CD and see if it's any good at detecting your particular hardware. It has worked really well on all the machines I've tried, including my accessory laden laptop.

Re:Knoppix?

[Daengbo]

Some people may want to use a language that's not well supported under Knoppix, like Thai.

Re:Knoppix?

[westyvw]

Knoppix IS the greatest thing since sliced bread for sure....as a distro on a disk. And yes its an easy way to install debian...sort of.
I tried it (a install as opposed to running the cd) and frankly it wasnt what I wanted. It losses a lot of the congfiguration that was put into making knoppix great. Sure I could spend some time and get it back to being that good, but why bother? Redhat 9 on this laptop is more configured out of the box, and mandrake 9.1 on my home computer is even better.

I think knoppix has its place. I carry around a cd of it and give it awar to show off linux, but in the end, if you can really get someone interested, you are better off setting them on thier way with a mandrake or redhat distro. Or better still, setting up thier computer with Gentoo. Then tell them how to use emerge.

BTW nothing to do with this discussion at all, but I showed my four year old TuxPaint, and with just a little help from me made his mom a nice picture for Mothers Day. Linux ROCKS. Thanks to free software I just grabbed RPM and away we went....

LOL

[bogie]

And you thought people got pissed when others refered to linux as "Red Hat". Sorry but adopting the Debian symbol as the official symbol for linux is a horrible idea.

" At the same time, Debian is easily recognised by professionals to be the best distro of Linux. "

Funny but I'm a professional and have been using linux for like 5 years and I don't think Debian is the "best" distro.

"Considering this, and the recent problems Linux have had with corporate penetration, I can't see why domain names like Mad Penguin are chosen. The only effect is to drive away potential serious customers."

So your saying names like "Activewin.com" and "neowin.com" are the reason why serious customers go with Microsoft? Well that does it. Whoever owns Mad Penguin is going OFF the official linux payroll.

This would be a first...

[Qbertino]

...if that Font AA stuff he's telling about is true. I have never seen consitant/existing font-AA across the desktop (Motif/QT/GTK/whatever/etc.) on Linux.
If they managed to untangle the font config and renderlib mess that would be a good thing indeed.

Re:This would be a first...

[reallocate]

>> I have never seen consitant/existing font-AA across the desktop (Motif/QT/GTK/whatever/etc.) on Linux.


Neither have I, and that's why I bought a Mac when it was time to put my Intel box out to pasture.

Many posters here equate legible screen fonts to "candy" or "useless crap", but how many of them would spend hours every day watching a television that was just slightly out of focus? Or reading a newspaper that was just a tad blurry?

Re:Domain name?

[lars_stefan_axelsson]

The Linux community aren't exactly top of the pops in the corporate world, much in fact due to their rather immature birdlike mascot.

Yeah, that's it. When I installed Windows XP Pro, I got a cute little frog as my login icon, and my wife got at cute little yellow rubber duck. So that must be why Windows is losing ground in the corporate sphere. Not!

What is the debian release schedule?

[discogravy]

I know that debian is released "when it's ready" but does that seem like it's going to be anytime before 2004? If there's a release schedule, I've yet to find it on the debian.org website.

I love the security of running stable (I run it at work, and soon at home, probably,) but I do wish stable had a few more current packages (and I know I can hack /etc/apt/sources.list and add lines for specific packages, but I'd like a debian distro without as much work. I mean, I can't get the 2.4 series kernels in debian without doing everything myself (aparently something in the stock debian kernel breaks my ethernet connection....missing driver or something). I don't want to have to setup everything myself, all the time; that's why I like apt-get.

Re:What is the debian release schedule?

[Abcd1234]

I can't get the 2.4 series kernels in debian without doing everything myself

Umm... what? The stock Debian kernel is, AFAICT, 2.4.18.

Re:What is the debian release schedule?

[tres3]

Having just installed Debian last week on my girlfriends computer I can tell you that the default kernel is 2.2.20. I then upgraded to sid and it didn't change the kernel during the upgrade. Follow that with:
apt-get install kernel-source-2.4.20
and NOW it is running 2.4.20. Since her machine is an old Pentium 100MHz I'll probably leave it there since I don't have the patience to wait for it. It took hours to rebuild the kernel -- then I made a mistake in selecting the drivers -- I picked the SYM53C8XX instead of the NCR53C8XX for the origianl 810 chipset (not even the 810a). Another night of waiting for the machine!!! Yea! She's definitely going to have to stay where she is! :-)

Windows Mandrake???

[matty]

Mandrake's doing a version of Windows now? Wow, I can't believe that I hadn't heard about it! :)

(no, it's not a Troll, it's FUNNY, a joke, get it?)

Re:What good is this distro?

[Rhone]

The reviewer is making an assumption; he really has absolutely no idea why Libranet didn't work on that particular computer. It's likely that it had absolutely nothing to do with the processor speed and amount of RAM.

Re:Domain name?

[MyHair]

and neither do most of the rest of us penguinistas.

Now that's funny. I hadn't heard that one before.

Someone needs to rewrite "Cows with Guns" to be the Penguinistas new battle song.

VIVA LAS PENGUINISTAS!

Knoppix?

[MyHair]

Why doesn't everyone use Knoppix? Why do we ever mention other distros?

I use Knoppix and it's great. I gave it to all my friends and they think it's great. I gave it to school kids and they think it's great.

It autodetects all my hardware and mows my lawn. It never clogs the toilet. It doesn't hog the covers. It never needs you to listen to it rant about its day.

Redundant? Noooooooo....

SuSE 8.2 Yast is still the best package manager

[Anonymous Coward]

Say what you will. I recently picked up SuSE 8.2 pro and goddamn if the package system doesn't rock.

Checks dependancy, if there is an issue you can delete the offending apps, or install the needed bit. All with a click it calcualtes everything at once, or auto on the go.

The online updates are German precision.

The SuSE reptile is very cute.

All in all, the only desktop linux. The rest are for servers, period.

Debian on the desktop?

[cdemon6]

modify your /etc/apt/sources.list

and do a

apt-get dist-upgrade

Re:Knoppix -- note: we were talking about Knoppix

[snol]

no, it's not.

Re:What good is this distro?

[rakeswell]

Your thesis that most geeks tend to have hardware less than 18 months old doesn't ring true to me, and your statement that most Linux dostros "run like a dog" on a Athlon 875mhz with 512mb of ram & 7200rpm hdd system seems suspect to me.

In fact, most of the (non-gamer) "geeks" that I know are rather happy with 1-2 year old (or more) hardware. None of my boxes have specs that surpass yours, and Slackware just zips along. As a matter of fact, were it not for Linux, I would never have been able to continue wringing so much use out of all of my old boxen. Hell, one of my boxes is an old *P75 with 16MB RAM* -- it's great, as I've set it up as a thin client, you just log into a remote X session and you're off.

Right now, I happen to be prepping for a Gentoo install. Very nice ideas with that distro -- you tailor/optimize everything for your specific box.

...there was a time a decade ago when Unix had different principals, when hackers were hackers and not just selfish fun-centric ultra ghz 20somethings, when many a Unix had a lighter footprint than Windows (and Windows was feather light back then compared with now).

The great thing about Linux is that there'sa flavor for everyone. Don't want to run Gnome or KDE? Get a WM designed to be lean and fast (like icewm or blackbox). Want to cram Linux into an old system? Try Peanut Linux. You get my point.

Figure out what your needs and limitations are, look around, and I'm sure you'll find a solution, whether it's a WM, a specific distro, or a set of configuration options.

Re:What good is this distro?

[marcello_dl]

My computer is an Athlon 875mhz with 512mb of ram & 7200rpm hdd - this should be fine as a desktop computer for a long time in theory, but WinXP from 2001 would run slowly on it, and Linux distros run like a dog on it. I know there is custom compiling and the like, but I can't be bothered and it shouldn't be needed anyway.

Mine is a 166mhz ppc 604 with 96mb of ram, i never bothered to recompile the kernel yet (so i have drivers for PMU IDE USB and so on, which my machine doesn't need): the bloat hasn't prevented me to run debian unstable without big problems. As mac OSX is instructed not to boot on my machine, and OS9 has slower networking and limited multitasking capabilities, Linux seems a very good choice for low-end machines. If you want responsiveness, use the linux console :)

Re:What good is this distro?

[nmos]

I tried installing on an Intel Celeron 533MHz/128MB system... I was initially curious to see how well this release would run on a lower end system.(128MB - lower end for installing a distro?)

In plain English: It didn't. This is a trend in computing in general - software, especially operating systems require ever more resources to do exactly the same thing. Windows XP needs the abovestated as a minimum to run.

First, there is no way this install failed BECAUSE of the cpu/ram limitations. More likely he had some sort of compatability problem (maybe the jumper on his hard drive set incorrectly).

Win98SE would run fine on a Pentium 90 with 16mb of ram.

That's complete nonsense. Win98 will work fine on a P90 (as will pretty much any Linux distro) but it's completely useless with only 16MB of ram.

Try the Bitstream fonts

[nacs]

I found slashdot relatively ugly to look at with the default Mozilla fonts on my Gentoo box also.

But then I got the free Bitstream fonts and changed Mozilla to use those instead. They look excellent--very legible, and renders /. very nicely.

SuSE has been charging for a while now

[Mustang Matt]

It's not the first by far. Go check out Suse's prices.

You're right though it does suck to have to pay for something that is normally free.

Re:SuSE has been charging for a while now

[HiThere]

(Caution: IANAL...)

If you think their prices (i.e., not free) are unreasonable, you can put up your own download site. (I believe that the entire distribution is GPL.) But be warned, if you don't distribute the source together with the binary, you are obligating yourself to keep the site open for ... I think it's three years after the last binary is downloaded.

If someone else thinks the same thing, they can do the same thing. Most of it is already in the Debian mirrors.

The GPL was designed to stiffle unreasonable pricing, not reasonable pricing.

Re:What good is this distro?

[debiant_minded]

"If a distro needs anything faster than a 533 Celeron and/or more than 128MB RAM, it's got to be ranked as useless. From a Linux standpoint, though."

According to the Libranet System Requirements
page
http://www.libranet.com/system _requirements.html
It can run as meagre a setup as Pentium processor with 16 mb ram .( altho
they do recommend at least 32 mb ram.
That sound pretty low-end to me even when you round up a bit ( generally a good idea)

I have run it just fine on P 200.

The fact is that since they use Icewm as the
default Window Manager, Libranet is more likely
not less to install on older low resource hardware.

Re:THIS SOFTWARE IS NOT FREE

[iamkrinkle]

um, correct me if i'm wrong here, or if i'm just fanning a flame, but GNU software just needs to include the source code; not be free.

Outta curiosity...

[boola-boola]

...what's wrong with Debian Unstable? I'm using it on my laptop, and it has all the bleeding-edge packages you could want, and you could always throw in your own custom 2.4.20 kernel (or use one from the unstable tree). It has Gnome 2.2, KDE 3.1, XFree86 4.3 (iirc), AA'd fonts, etc. Check HERE for a _comprehensive_ list of packages (and deps). Why pay a bunch of money for Libranet (which mainly uses packages from the Debian tree, IIRC) when you could just use the unstable tree, which, in my experience, is stable _most_ of the time?

(shameless Gentoo plug): ...or you could just use Gentoo, which will solve all your problems and help you succeed in your quest for World Domina... er, Peace... at the same time being bleeding-edge AND _very_ stable. ;)

GPL Doesn't Prohbiti Selling

[reallocate]

There's nothing in the GPL that prohibits selling software. Stop whining. The free software movement does not exist to keep money from leaving your pockets.

Re:debian and gnome

[sirmikester]

Is there a debian based distro that does gnome right?

Re:What good is this distro?

[Solosoft]

>:( I run a Pentium 166MMX with 128mb of EDO SIMMS and a IBM 6.0gb HDD running Debian (not libracrap) and it runs plenty fast. I got my Windowmaker and my Opera and it does just fine. It also could be cause there is a 32mb GeForce2MX PCI on here. If a 533 is slow then the distro is oviously crap. Windows 2003 runs fine on my P2 350 ... surely some silly linux distro can too

Re:What good is this distro?

[Wolfrider]

> Win98SE would run fine on a Pentium 90 with 16mb of ram.

--I've successfully gotten Win98SE to run quite well on a 486-75 with 16Meg, no CDROM, and a permanent swap file.

> My computer is an Athlon 875mhz with 512mb of ram & 7200rpm hdd - this should be fine as a desktop computer for a long time in theory, but WinXP from 2001 would run slowly on it, and Linux distros run like a dog on it.

--If this is true, you're doing something wrong. Try Knoppix.

> No computer I've seen has been faster to use from an end-user standpoint than my DX4-100 with Windows 3.11.

--Sure, but the things you can actually DO with it these days are pretty limited.

Mod parent Insightful...

[Wolfrider]

N/T

Re:Domain name?

[gratefully dead]

Yeah, the pengiun does kinda suck as a mascot for an operating system though. I wish I knew why they chose a penguin over much cooler animals (of course the GNU is not so great, but he's a consequence of the acronym).

Just think of what they could have had instead of the pengiun: a tiger with a red bandana, a toucan with colored stripes on his beak, a captain wearing a blue uniform, a vampire, a white rabbit, and of course a paranoid leprechaun? Too bad linux was developed after all these great mascots were copyrighted!

Of course we can still switch to using a robot that bears a striking resemblence to Micheal Jackson without his plastic nose on! Check this out! AHHH!

Re:Let me start this first before they do it again

[glwtta]

Hell, what I want to know is when Windows will be ready for the desktop.

Re:What good is this distro?

[Enahs]

Y'know, I've got a K62-350 with 384MB of RAM, and when I was running Libranet on the machine, everything was nice and snappy.

What's keeping you from plunking down $35 for 256MB of RAM, anyway?

Knoppix: Worth buying a CD duplicator

[timothy]

So I did. $200 at Target for a standalone copying machine, works fine with 700MB disks (as I was afraid it might not).

Knoppix is a blast -- there is *some* hardware it chokes on (or vice versa, depends how you count), but for the most part on modern hardware it boots up, and BAM, there's a lovely KDE 3.1 desktop, mozilla, etc.

I keep meaning to (haven't yet) created a nice stock to keep in my car as random giveaways ...

timothy

Re:What good is this distro?

[TheNetAvenger]

If these OSes are running like a DOG on your system, then your system has problems.

We run WindowsXP on 200mhz, 80mb Laptops and the performance is outstanding.

Shoot even one of our test Windows 2003 Servers is only a 400mhz with 128mb of RAM, and it is a 'used' test server that we remote into as well as use it as a Web Server, File Server, Print Server, etc...

And doing a Remote Session logged into this machine 'over the internet even' is still fast. Running apps like Office and CorelDraw, etc.

We tend to do quite a bit of testing in our labs and put older hardware into production just to see what the true minimums of getting by.

So again, if you have at least 128mb of RAM and a 400mhz CPU, you should be able to run about any OS out there currently with good performance.

The only trick, buy a good video card. There are some onboard chipsets that are simply awful for performance, and finding drivers 4 years old is pretty good sign you need a new video card. ;)

BTW Windows(NT) was designed to be a SeverOS first and a desktop workstation second. This is why they eroded the Novell market in the 90s because it was designed as a Server first.

Additionally, as with WinNT4, the GUI only consumed about 2-4Mb of RAM, and it took no processing time away from the server portion of the OS. This is how it was designed.

Have you not seen any of the recent test reports of Transactions per second and Web Server performance? Windows 2003 is leaping ahead in terms of pure and raw Server performance. And the leaps it is making is mainly over Windows2k which also at its time was a performance leader for Web, File, and DB transactions. (I shall refer you to a Web Search if you question this)

(And yes, I have read the article where IBM regained the DB Transaction crown.)

Re:THIS SOFTWARE IS NOT FREE

[westyvw]

exactly. Many distros are based on this model, such as say...Yopper. In the case this distro, you are paying for the build, and the non free software included. Now if it included a full version of say UT2003, that would be even better!

Re:What good is this distro?

[Xabraxas]

"My computer is an Athlon 875mhz with 512mb of ram & 7200rpm hdd - this should be fine as a desktop computer for a long time in theory, but WinXP from 2001 would run slowly on it, and Linux distros run like a dog on it."

This is utterly false. I have a 600mhz P3 with 384M of RAM and a 7200 rpm HD. It is also a laptop. Obviously not even on par with your system yet I have no problem running linux. In fact it is significantly faster than Win2000, which was previously on this machine. I use Window Maker so that helps but my friend uses KDE on his 750mhz/256M/7200HD and it's still pretty quick.