Slashdot Mirror
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."
They're using JPEGs to show font rendering! LOL!
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
Ctrl-Z
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.
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.
Note to self: get smarter troll to guard door.
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.
http://saveie6.com/
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
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
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?
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
...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.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca