Slashdot Mirror
Review Mandrake Linux 9.1 Power Pack Edition
An anonymous reader sent us linkage to an
overview of the new Mandrake 9.1. Many screenshots, as well as compliments for the latest KDE revision. Worth a glance if you're not already running Debian.
I'm not already running Debian, I'm running RedHat... is it still worth my time?!?
--------
Free your mind.
Worth a glance if you're not already running Debian.
What if your running Slack?
/me ducks
What is the legal and financial status of Mandrake now? Are they recovering?
I mostly hyperlink my point of view. http://www.afroginthevalley.com/
Just gotta know is it easier enough for my parents to operate?
-- Karma Karma Karma Karma, Karma Chameleon - Boy George
I dunno if I would have made this review a story on slashdot... the review it self seems really thin, doesn't mention anywhere that I saw (and if I missed it, my bad) the specifics (kernel revision, glibc version). It doesn't talk much about X at all (but then it was only tested on ATI so we wouldn't know if the NVidia drivers were included).
Anyhow, in case anybody is wondering, Mandrake includes...
Kernel 2.4.21
XFree86 4.3.0
Glibc 2.3.1
GCC 3.2.2
The Kernel 2.4.21 is a neat trick. Last I checked 2.4.20 was the current stable version.
The Rant
Part I
My biggest gripe isn't so much with Mandrake as it is with Linux developers as a whole. First, can we PLEASE start naming things in a moderately descriptive way? Names like grip, alsa, chbg, gimp, mozilla, k3b. Huh? Great programs all, but do you have any idea what they do by their names? Second, installing apps is still far too complicated. Yes it's much easier with a RPM based distro and in particular with Mandrake 9.1 but...Lets see if we can't load EVERYTHING a program needs to operate into that RPM. I've only been at this 5 months and if I see one more "lib" file I think I may go postal. Just load it for crying out loud. Also, just once I would love to have an app install with every add-on available. If you're worried about bloat then have a "minimum" and "full" install. I'm absolutely convinced that this is the #1 reason for people leaving Linux before they even really get started.
I really wish we could do away with having to find various sites to download updates or additions. I would like to see Mandrake Update act more like Windows Update. I don't care where I download them from, just auto configure that by asking me where I am. Then download the files and skip listing the lib/perl/whatever. Just download it and install it with everything it needs.
Networking in a Windows environment still isn't easy although this go round Mandrake installs everything you need to do it by default. I would suggest some sort of "wizard" to walk someone through the set up. It would go something like: "Do you want to network this computer to Windows machines?", "What is your windows workgroup/domain name?", "Please enter the Windows user name and password." etc...
Part II
I have become a Linux fan and would dearly love people to switch to it but I'm a little tired of hearing the lies told by some in the Linux community. When someone who knows better hears those lies it tunes them out to the rest of their argument. Some points:
1 - I've built dozens and dozens of computers with custom installations of XP and I can count on one hand the number of times I've seen it crash.
2 - I've got an XP box in this room that's been running for several weeks, maybe months without a reboot (it's been so long I've lost track).
3 - I've seen no evidence that desktop Linux distros are more secure than Windows. Check the sites that cover Linux security, bugs, and updates a little more often. Sure, they don't get hit by viruses as much but I believe that's mainly due to the fact that the viruses are written for Windows. When Linux gets a 30% market share and people start writing viruses for them, then we'll talk. I think Linux developers are discovering that the more any OS can do, the larger the chance for security holes.
Windows XP is, at its core, a great OS. It's the garbage that MS has done to it that has turned me against it. Product activations, phoning home, and invasive EULA's have all taken their toll on me. For me, it all comes down to the fact that it's my computer and I'll do what I please with it. What I do with it and what I have in/on it is none of MS's, or anyone else's business. That, along with the fact that Linux is more "tweakable" and has a lower total cost of ownership is the Linux advantage.
Rant Off
My whining aside I really love using Mandrake Linux 9.1. Why else would I load it on 3 of my computers?. Mandrake Linux is easier to use, more powerful, and more compatible than ever. While offering a great computing experience now, it also portends of an exciting future for Linux and Mandrake Linux. I now feel comfortable recommending Mandrake Linux to anyone and everyone willing to put a little effort into learning a new OS.
--------
Free your mind.
Universal theme standard = Easier job for guys like me, and application developers who've been waiting for the dust to settle before moving their apps to the platform.
Bowie J. Poag
"...Worth a glance if you're not already running Debian"
Debian != Mandrake :)
I've been a gentoo guy for a while now, but at my last job I decided to try one of the "end user" distros and as the other guy was running it, I chose mandrake (the 9.1 beta at that time).
I have to admit, it was very nice to not have to do anything to get things set up. Things just worked, be it the mouse, the display, the printer setup (which autoprobed the network and presented me with a list of printers and other cups servers on the network), etc. Hardware autodetection was great, and the install was the "insert cd, click, click, click, wait for 20 min, reboot" type, which the only thing I did different by default was not install kde (I like gnome, and at the time I wanted to be up as quickly as possible, without having to wait for two full desktops to load from CD.
The included tools worked very well, but they didn't seem as "integrated" as in redhat 9 (which I'm using at the place I am now). They worked great, and all had the same look, but there is definately something to be said for bluecurve and it's ability to make everything look like it works together.
I didn't get the chance to try out the windows partition resizing or ability to install in a dual boot situation.
All in all something I'd definately try again, and will (and have) recommended to friends.
From the article:
I've seen no evidence that desktop Linux distros are more secure than Windows
Well then, here is some required reading: Why not microsoft
First entomology, then virology, and finally bioinformatics systems. Bugs follow me wherever I go.
"I'm not dead!"
"Oh, yes you are."
"I think I'll release another version..."
"Come on now, you're not fooling anyone"
"I feel...happy..."
Please help metamoderate.
Far too many compliments, far too few explanations.
Sounds like a CNet review to me.There's nothing there to see, move along citizen, get back to work, the computer is your friend.
If you're a home user, then this seems like a review you'll find useful.
.doc files sent to me by colleagues. And finally I'd want to know how easy it is to keep the system secure and updated with the latest fixes.
For serious users who use a computer to get work done, this review is fluff. Maybe I'm just getting more exacting with old age, but when I read a review of a new OS, I don't want to hear about the MP3 player and the neat program you found to change your desktop wallpaper. I want to know if it comes with good development tools, an interface that is uncluttered and easy to navigate without a mouse, documentation for everything installed, and easy tools to administer services I might need. If I'm going to be dealing with documents, I'm going to want to know not if KOffice is cool but whether it will handle serious
Didn't see a whole lot of that in this review, but I'm sure it helped someone decide to try Mandrake.
Curmudgeon Gamer: Not happy
i just *love* the guy's rant about packaging and downloading necessary files. sure i think you all know where this is going, but this shameless plug is no longer so shameless, especially with headline including you know what. yes, you need to go find RPMs on websites with various mirrors. yes, you need to install all the required libs, etc. i find it quite interesting that he says that mandrake comes with everything you will ever need. why is this a good thing? perhaps because getting new stuff (the largest interaction with the distribution you will have) might not be so terribly easy. i think the solution is obvious
i would sign this "The Debian Troll" but i don't think that is necessary
BSD is for people who love UNIX. Linux is for those who hate Microsoft.
Hello everybody, I don't understand what I am talking about. I bought Mandrake and the frontend was very shiny. The commands were hard to understand. I think Windows XP is better 'cos it is more secure and more reliable. It came in a box wiv a manual.
Next week I will be revoowing different types of hot oats.
How the hell did that review make slashdot?
I'd, instead, classify this article as a troll...Shy on information, chock full of opinion and politics. Too bad we can't moderate articles.
It seems that they are doing much better since their latest Mandrake 9.1 was very warmly welcomed by users. In addition, their new business model based on Club subscription is certainly the best idea a Free Software company ever had to make money with Linux! On the users' side, the Club is a great tool to get and install - with one click - all the neat stuff that isn't available for free or difficult to find (such as RealPlayer, Flash player, many hardware drivers...).
I installed Mandrake 9.1 on many different machines and it's clear that it's their best distribution so far: I had extremely few glitches, and everything installed and auto-configured very quickly. In addition, their new desktop is very slick, in particular under KDE, with anti-aliasing everywhere, new icons (created by Everaldo, the designer of the new KDE icons) and so on...
I'm warmly recommending Mandrake 9.1 to all my friend and at work, because I found it very much more stable (less bugs) than Red Hat, especially on the desktop side (I found the X Window provided with Red Hat to be particularly unstable). When compared to Debian, it's really the same Free Software world and spirit, with 2 years of advance and a great desktop by default (yes CmdrTaco!!!). And I won't annoy you with supermount and other dynamic desktop options that made my life (and some friends') Microsoft-free for two years now...
By the way (1): it seems that Mandrake is also doing well at Download.com (look in the Linux section for you dudes who aren't under Linux). Much more than Red Hat and Suse actually.
By the way (2): the MandrakeStore has deeply improved since Mandrake 9.0 and I received my Mandrake pack pre-order in time.
I remember the good old days when Linux was difficult to set up. You've changed maaan!
Screenshot.
My god. That's some terrible shit right there.
It's a snapshot of eighties cheesy metal.
And what is that Metallica doing there?
"Two of these things are not like the other...la la la la laaaa."
I've got a five year-old PC that is due for replacement around the time Half-Life 2 rolls around, and I'm pretty sure Mandrake will be the distro that's installed on the old box. Being a complete Linux newbie myself, it was nice to read a review of Mandrake by a (relatively) new Linux user.
The conclusions bring up some good points, echoing many of the frustrations that non-propellerheads have come across when using Linux as a desktop operating system. But I thought the enthusiastic praise for Windows XP was a bit overdone. WinXP has its strong points relative to Linux, but stability is not one of them. While the author may find XP stable enough, I've gotten it to spontaneously reboot itself more times than I care to count. With its bazillion lines of code, XP is butting up against one of the tenets of chaos theory (complex systems tend to break down easily), and it looks like it may get worse before it gets better.
I'm looking forward to installing Mandrake on the old machine so I can draw my own comparative conclusions, but I don't think I'll be missing XP much. Especially with the Mac OS X box nearby that is my primary system. =)
9.1 comes with XFree86 4.3 so those of you with Radeon cards who want to use the vendor drivers will have to downgrade. Oh and they don't provide the 4.2 packages on the CD's...
So you like your music? As I discovered with 9.0, music sounds much better in Mandrake than in Windows.
Sigh...this article is on slashdot? I'm reading this? Too bad I'm soooo damn unemployed...
And as a bonus, it looks like the moderators agree with you!
There are only 2 distros in Taco's eyes, I guess. Mandrake and Debian. Oh wait, he runs OSX...
This guy is way out there
I am using Mandrake since several versions and I think the 9.1 version is the best Linux distro today. But, where is the box? Can't find it in retail. Because I couldn't wait anymore I just bought RedHat 9.0.
Viruses are not written for Windows, ...)
:)
this is an imprecise statement.
Viruses are written for the default
Windows MUA. It (allegedly, I don't
use 'doze) tries to "make things easy"
and interprets (part of) the email
as programs. And it also (allegedly
runs external applications over
attachments wihout (much) notification.
I mean, come on, there are certainly
more basic mailers under Windows that
don't know about the scripts, html and
don't run extarnal apps automatically.
Trying to infect through such a mailer
would be an excercise in futility.
This may not be true *if* the recent
Windows'es have gotten so integrated
that emails are handled by the core
of the OS
In addition, many Windows users work as
administrators, or still use 97/ME which
don't offer protection, so the damage
is potentially unlimited.
So, the viruses/worms exploit weaknesses
in the system. When someone says "they
infect X because they are written for X",
there is an implication that anything
can be infected, if someone competent
enough wanted to. This is clearly wrong.
[quote] WAAAAH! There's no networking wizard! I don't want to manually set up connections between my three computers! (all of which I put on Mandrake because I heart Linux hehe)!!11@1!! [/end quote]
IAALS.
Still TMG (Too Much Geek) in the interface. Prime example: Mount point information in the drive names on the desktop. This information should be hidden in an info or properties dialog. It's only needed for power users and is intimidating to the mainstream user Linux is supposedly shooting for.
My gut feeling, though, is that this info is put in the drive description on the desktop because you'll still be required to drop to the command line too much and need to have it right there at your fingertips.
You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
It's more of a dig at how XP is superior to Linux at the end instead of a proper Linux Mandrake review.
My one and only gripe on Linux is the DirectX stranglehold Microsoft has on the desktop market.
Leaving your options to hope WineX or Wine will let you play the game or just Dual boot which you'll always end up using XP the most unless you was brought up on Linux (Rare)
Has anyone every really compared existing mp3 players (under Linux)? I've been using Splay for a couple of years now and it seems to have a much nicer sound. I think I read about it in the Linux journal. Any one else?
Quack, quack.
Put both my girls on it...they don't know windows
or Linux...could care less!!!
They browse
They p2p
They burn and copy cd's
They Gaim with all their buddies
They xmms
They love it!!!
While the author may find XP stable enough, I've gotten it to spontaneously reboot itself more times than I care to count.
I appreciate your frustration but I think the author is right. Your reboots could be caused by a number of problems, not necissarily the fault of Microsoft.
I think its important that we dont just blindly bash MS or we lose focus. XP does seem to be more stable and this is a good thing for those who are stuck (or happy) using it.
I've been using Linux for about 4 years now and I *do* experience crashes. Usually lockups associated with my graphics card (closed source NVidia drivers), but it could be my hardware.
A lot a variables in a working computer and its easy to blame Microsoft. But we don't really gain anything, especially if its unfounded.
Quack, quack.
Author: "I've seen no evidence that desktop Linux distros are more secure than Windows. Check the sites that cover Linux security, bugs, and updates a little more often. Sure, they don't get hit by viruses as much but I believe that's mainly due to the fact that the viruses are written for Windows. When Linux gets a 30% market share and people start writing viruses for them, then we'll talk." Security problems don't require virus writers and marketshare isn't the cause of problems either. For example, Apache web server has a greater marketshare than IIS but the number of vulnerabilities is SUBSTANTIALLY lower. Granted, we're not talking about a "desktop distro" but this illustrates the flawed logic behind his statement.
... and to everyone who is always talking about it i just say .. bah .. IT'S NOT THE DAMN LOOK IT MATTERS ... It's the damn consistent API ..
..
.. there are 5 year old aplications that still run in new windows versions .. talking about compatibility .. (and don't talk to me about dos because i can still run many dos games in my winXP box.. )
.. linux needs a stable and unified framework .. I know that this might lead to stupid "wars" between gnome and kde groupies .. but for linux to advance we have to choose .. advanced studies must be made to know wich one of the API is really the more stable, faster and 100% free (hi there QT !!), and not things like "Kde/Gnome is better because it is ... bla bla bla". 100% efforts should be directed towards a unique API!!!
Any linux programmer just keeps asking the same thing to itself
"Will i use GNOME/GTK? Will i use QT/KDE? What will prevail?"
I'm sick of having to recompile piles of diferent libs because aplication "A" uses QT 3.xx and then it's new version already uses QT 4.xx that completely deprecates it's previous version API..
Damnit
Linux doesn't need a consistent look
I fuse with Mercer every single day...
oh, how I love apt-get
It is ready for usage by anybody. However, I would recommend setting it up for them. Like installing the right libs. And setting up the network -- a lot of setup is still quite confusing for parents (I did this) but once they just need to use it, they're good to go. So go over there, set it up, and then let them play.
This is my digital signature. 10011011001
I don't think there is anything wrong with non-descriptive application names (Like flash, acrobat, quicktime, Mozilla, ...). Hell, as time goes by, all the really good names like vi and emacs will be taken, you have to pick strange names just to differentiate your self from the herd of other names. This guy just need to get over the fact that sometimes applications have strange names. As long as it works who cares what it's called just don't make me have to type "TheFreePhotoShopLikeApplicationThatWorksJustAsWel l" evertime I want to run it. Now who would want that when you could just type gimp?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
...actually read the article!
Some comments showed a basic lack of Linux knowledge. For instance:
"Lets see if we can't load EVERYTHING a program needs to operate into that RPM"
Seems like a very "Windows-like" statement that shows a total lack of understanding the rpm dependency system.
James Bray
http://www.reeb.freeserve.co.uk
Every time I use Linux, I find it frustrating. It seems to have no consistency other than the 'let's imitate MS and then say that they're crap' attitude.
Having recently started using FreeBSD I am seriously considering ditching Win2k in favour of BSD. One of the main differences (apart from the more logical layout) is the attitude of FreeBSD users / developers. FreeBSD comes with a hell of a lot of documentation, and beyond that support in the forums is polite and helpful. Oh, and you don't have to choose a 'distribution', so you know they your system will function as a cohesive whole, instead of a load of separate bits bolted together, and new software will work with your system, instead of saying 'Oh, you're using that distro? Only lusers use that one. We don't support it'. Oh, and it can run Linux binaries.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
I'm getting tired of reading through poorly done reviews written by some person who has too little experience with the product/os/whatever to even be taken seriously. Sure, I guess there is some weight to the argument that it provides an outside perspective, but it doesn't really hold any value beyond the individual's reaction. If people look to reviews to help base their decisions, maybe it would be more helpful to post some sort of useful information in the review instead of someone's initial reaction.
As far as linux reviews go, the same applications are still going to look the same in different window managers with a few schemed differences. It would be more helpful to hear if they load faster/slower than other distros.
I'd like to see some reviews that point out the differences in the reviewed version with respect to the former version, and possibly why the product was considered for review and maybe even why the product is better/worse than other similar products of that field.
I hate to sound like a troll but I want more meat in the article... Aren't there standards for this sort of thing or a baseline of content that a review should contain?
urpmi, urpmi, urpmi
Why should I explain urpmi, when 6 months from now, some Debian Troll will post another uninformed post like this and get modded up?
I actually think Mandrake is better with installing new packages because they have the cute urpmi gui, which is essential for newbies. Not to mention the club RPM voting system (which IS different than the deb voting system . . . but why do I bother?).
I would sign this as "The Mandrake Troll", but I really do feel justified in feeling frustrated with the inability of such a large community to retain new information.
Maybe Mandrake should just rename urmpi "getrpm," and maybe, finally, some people at slashdot will "get it."
Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
Some unusable crap can still be gotten around the old way. /sbin ifup, and execute ifup from a console. All the fancy button crap can be gotten around still, just remember to set up your user mode in ifup, make sure your modem is detected and setup though, that could be the problem!
Hack out your own PPP and set up
OH THE SHAME I fell off the wagon and use sigs again!
"My biggest gripe isn't so much with Mandrake as it is with Linux developers as a whole. First, can we PLEASE start naming things in a moderately descriptive way? Names like grip, alsa, chbg, gimp, mozilla, k3b. Huh? Great programs all, but do you have any idea what they do by their names?"
Oh, and I suppose 'Nero', 'Kazaa', and 'Napster' are phonetically intuitive and descriptive titles? What I found even funnier is how the author bitches about how difficult it is to install software. Rpm's aren't that bad, but apt-get is a d r e a m.
We dance to all the wrong songs.
--Refused.
What does debian have to do with mandrake?
"Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
"My biggest gripe isn't so much with Mandrake as it is with Linux developers as a whole. First, can we PLEASE start naming things in a moderately descriptive way? Names like grip, alsa, chbg, gimp, mozilla, k3b. Huh? Great programs all, but do you have any idea what they do by their names?"
My
Limekiller
> Once you get used to the fact that it looks
> different than a Windows installation you'll find
> it's actually easier
Installation aside, once you get used to the fact that you sometimes have to update using the CLI (when the shiny packager thingy doesn't work), and that some things are a little 'unfinished' around the edges then hey, it's just like windows - except emacs runs faster and..er...if you have problems with an installation 'looking different' aren't you going to have a lot more problems further down the line?
Did this review tell anyone anything they didn't know about linux or MDK?
http://milkshake.dexy.org
I've been following slashdot and using Windows and Linux for years now, and one thing bothers me--the people who endlessly say, 'Windows is not stable'. That's just bullshit. It used to be true, but hasn't been true for years now, at least since Win2k. I've used many W2k boxes over the last three years, for an average of 10 hrs per day, for intensive things like Mathematica, compiling C++, etc., and have seen maybe four crashes. My CPU process on this box here at work has been running for the last 1628 hours and 49 minutes. It's no longer sensible to complain about Windows stability.
I thought Eugenia was bad. This guy makes her seems like John Dvorak. Ooh, wait. Not sure if that's good or bad. Anyway, what an insipid conclusion. "I've seen no evidence that desktop Linux distros are more secure than Windows." Yeah, great logic, Tweakhound. Lots of security advisories (I mean, geez, there's like hundreds of distros and hundreds of software packages so "Linux" has thousands and thousands of security advisories) doesn't mean the system is insecure. Generally these get fixed quickly and are harder to exploit or do damage with, in my experience. I guess, given that Tweakhound thinks that Windows XP is a great OS that Microsoft has ruined (doesn't Microsoft ALSO make the OS?) I don't know if getting the seal of approval from Tweakhound is such a great thing.
You said, "Insert stupid grunting here!"
God, you can't make anyone happy these days.
I'm sorry I haven't used Gentoo. Although the one thing I know that's great about it is that is has full support for i686, k7, etc... Debian still does not have binaries for anything better than i386 which is somewhat of a drawback. But there is some work towards making this happen. As far as I know, don't binaries have to be compiled for a Gentoo system by the user? This would be a big inconvenience and time-waster.
The fact that you say the standard kernel is 2.2 for Debian shows that you have probably never touched Debian in your life. The standard kernel is not 2.2. Debian comes with a 2.2 and 2.4-18 kernel. The 2.4.18 kernel can be used by typing bf24 at the boot prompt of the installer. This is clearly written in the help section of the installer after booting up the installer. So, you could say that 2.2 is the "default". However it is so easy to use 2.4 instead. I have installed Debian woody countless times and never have I used 2.2.
As for the installer, it is not "incomplete" as you say, and I'd like you to back up that statement with an example. Sure it doesn't have autodetection for a lot of things. But that doesn't matter. Don't select any modules for installation and then when the system is booted for the first time, just run "modconf" and install whatever modules you need once you find out your exact hardware. There are some autodetection packages you can install, although I've never needed them. It usually pays to know exactly what kind of hardware you have, even if you are running Redhat or Mandrake or whatever. I always found adding a new piece of hardware difficult in Mandrake. Debian is easy. Just use modconf.
I'm not sure why you say Mandrake is good for newbies. Newbies usually convert from Windows, hence, they usually want the newest software possible. Having the newest software possbile eventually involves downloading new ISOs every 4 months and installing a new version of Mandrake. Clean installs are better, so you'd have to delete your previous install. I once tried to upgrade from MDK 8.1 to 8.2 and had horrible libpng3 problems when trying to upgrade one RPM at a time. So I had to do a clean install. I've tried urpmi, and it just doesn't work that well. Maybe in 5 years it will be perfected.
With debian just "apt-get update" then "apt-get -u upgrade". Don't want to make a sources.list file? Just use netselect to create one for you. Don't like woody/stable? Change your default distribution in /etc/apt/apt.conf to testing/sarge or unstable/sid. Then "apt-get -u upgrade" or "apt-get -u dist-upgrade".
I'm sorry but Debian is not middle of the road. It covers the entire road from newbie to power user.
I paid money for Mandrake 9.1 when it came out, only to find that it crashes with my Radeon when you log out of KDE. "Oh, that's fixed in CVS" they say. Fat fucking lot of good that does us with cd's, doesn't it. I've been looking at mandrake update for weeks looking for this fix to be put out, and not a thing.
Yep, I moved from Debian stable + the kde 3.1 packages to Gentoo on my main desktop machine and haven't looked back since.
I still run Debian on my home server, for which it is (and always will be) ideally suited, but the extra speed and configurability of Gentoo have made me a convert.
This is off topic, but has anyone successfully gotten Mandrake 9.1 to install on one of the new Dell Simension XPS's? The installer seems to freeze on bootstrapping the installer image: the screen goes blank and they keyboard LED's just blink.
I just installed Debian 3.0 Woody, and it's using Linux 2.4. There was a choice of 2.2. I guess you're wrong. Anyway, what's wrong with 2.2 if it's patched and meets your needs?
Personally, I don't like the idea of Gentoo as it sounds like a lot of wasted time waiting for things to compile.
What's good for beginners is debatable. It depends on who they are and what their goals are. Back in the mid-90's I used to swear by Slackware as the best beginner distro as you really learnt how to use a Linux distro. I don't think I would recommend it to my parents though - in their case, Mandrake is probably a good choice.
Developers need to learn when to use static linking (The code requires a very specific version of the library, the library in question is unlikely to be used by any other application, or the library is as small or the same size as the application itself and plugins)
I would like to see a packaging system that is smart enough that if it sees that the libraries it needs aren't there... it goes out and downloads just the proper libraries - not telling you 'you need to install Gnome/KDE to get the one library included there'...
Like you said, shared libraries are a great idea in that they save bloat and keep things centralized - but we need a better way for non-geeks to maintain them. They need to be invisible unless you want to see them.
"Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys" P. J. O'Rourke
As much as Debian and Gentoo systems are fun to hack around with (not to mention superior package management), I think there is something to be learned from Mandrake's nice set of graphical interfaces. Though I would usually prefer to edit the /etc files myself, there are times when I'd really just like to hit a quick check-box in some dialog to enable DHCP or change a Samba setting. Linuxconf makes that attempt, but IMHO compared to Mandrake's clean GUIs it's pretty rough and ugly.
The real reason I stopped using Mandrake and RedHat was not really because I wanted to put GUI-driven systems behind me but because I was tired of downloading ISO's and updating my system, which was likely to scrozzle something or another. So is it just me or is there a divide between upgradeability and interface?
The author of the article claims he has his XP box running without reboot for days together :-) People who come up with windows-not-stable blanket complaint don't even seem to RTFA in question.
I've used Mandrake for two years now, and never done a full ISO upgrade. I've always done the initial install from ftp, then upgraded individual packages as needed. I use urpmi to do that, it resolves dependencies and generally works almost like apt-get. Plus, it can use rsync instead of ftp, as long as there's an rsync mirror available.
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
I have been comparing these three distro's (and Lindows 3.0) on two different machines for the last few weeks. And from the experiences I have had, Mandrake 9.1 has worked the best. One of the machines (a WalMart.com/Microtel/Lindows box) would not install RedHat 9 (RedHat 8.0 would) because the VIA processor caused some test to fail. On the other machine (a Shuttle BareBones system) I had a terrible time installing SuSE (oddly enough SuSE 8.1 would install fine). Mandrake 9.1 installed on both machines without a hitch.
I could use my Epson Printer, Scanner, and digital camera on the Mandrake 9.1 without any messing around. But (after I finally got the SuSE installed) I could not get the scanner to work. I thought I would install the Kooka program but it was nowhere to be found.
However, one of the things I don't like about Mandrake is that they put 'mdk' in all of the RPM names. That has proven to be some grief in the past.
I should also note that I have tried Debian on the BareBones machine and could never get X windows to work. I also had Gentoo running on it for months and really liked Gentoo. I like both Debian and Gentoo a LOT better for keeping things up to date than RPM's. But I have had lots of trouble with them when setting up audio and video cards, scanners, cameras, printers, etc. For example (and the reason I took Gentoo off of the BareBones system) when I added a printer with Gentoo, it turned out I would have had to re-compile the kernel, figured out what modules, and so on. Admittedly I would have learned a lot more doing it that way, but sometimes (for mental health reasons) I just want to plug something in and have it work. No fuss no muss.
Anyway when (if?) I get my review done it will be at http://www.qrwsoftware.com/rants/shootout.html.
From the statistical samples that I have gathered (i.e: my experience with about a dozen setups of XP and many more Win2000, plus the experience of almost everyone I know), I doubt your particular problem has anything to do with chaos theory, the bazillion lines of code (line-count is not identical to complexity) or XP per se.
Is the problem computer a brand-new no-name OEM, or is it the 5-year old machine?
Personally, I've seen XP spontaneously reboot often in the last year on brand-new computers, sure. However, after other operating systems were installed, they usually spontaneously rebooted as well.
In all cases this was a hardware problem. XP is very sensible to old, faulty, or "incompatible" hardware. This is no secret.
For old machines: unless you know your hardware very well and it's pretty standard, installing XP in 5-years old hardware is inviting disaster. They don't push customers to run compatibility checks and give them warnings certified drivers because it increases sales. It's a big red flag that the user can ignore at his own peril.
For new machines, it's a matter of hardware quality: as PC prices went down and everyone wanted a US$500 PC that can still play the latest games, there has been an epidemic of cheapo case+power-supply combinations (just a vibration of the case spontaneously reboots it), mislabeled or defective memory in the gray market, or blazing-fast and/or overclocked Athlons with cheap heatsink/fans (often badly mounted), etc. etc. etc.
The "faulty or badly mounted power-supply in the crappy case" issue in particular is annoying to no end, since the OEM coulnd't have saved more than 8 bucks for that choice.
There are many problems with Windows XP, for which I rarely recommend it. But spontaneous OS crashes and reboots are not one of them. About the only issue there are DirectX crashes in games, but games are not the most forgiving or well-behaved applications almost by definition.
Freedom is the freedom to say 2+2=4, everything else follows...
There is a funny opinion that once you try Debian you will never go back. I tried Debian and have come to a couple conclusions. I really love apt-get and Debian sucks as a desktop distro. Comparing Debian to Mandrake as far as a desktop distro is like comparing electric scooters to top-fule dragsters. I want KDE 3.11, I want XFree 4.3, I want all of the new GUI apps on my up to date desktop. Sure you can get these things for Debian but it always feels like a hack to me. PS: I'm not intending this to be flamebait.
I have been using Mandrake since version 7 and every single release I have installed has exactly the same problem with Supermount - it has never worked for me and I always end up having to re-write fstab after installation.
That is the only problem I have ever had with Mandrake though.
In this entire thread, you mention spontaneous crashing, and yet I see NO evidence that you've even bothered to troubleshoot the problem. Hve you looked at the Event Viewer? It will usually tell you exactly what is wrong.
For instance, I have two processors in this machine. XP blue-screens and reboots about once a week. Microsoft's fault? No, the message in the Event Viewer says I have two processors at different revision levels (and indeed, I do.) Since my processors aren't matched, XP crashes every once in a while. So far, it's not a big enough deal for me to go out and buy two new matched processors, but at least I know what the problem is and know that it's not Microsoft's fault.
If XP is crashing, you need to learn how to troubleshoot it. Read the Event Viewer. Check out the Microsoft knowledge base. Do ALL of this before you whine about XP not working or Microsoft making a crash-prone OS. Otherwise, you are doing yourself (and others) a disservice.
Go read this post. Or, if you don't want to troubleshoot the problem, for God's sake, call Dell support... that's why they are there. And what's the first thing they will do? Why, ask you to open Event Viewer...
I cannot believe you don't figure out the cause of the problem, and instead whine about it on Slashdot. I guess that's the lazy man's way, though...
Last time I checked, KDE is still at 2.2 in testing/sarge.
Sure KDE 3.1.1 is in unstable/sid, but every time I have tried SID it has only led to broken packages and unmet dependency problems. Kinda feels like being in RPM hell.
The Debian installer is not as bad as it seems, but after installing SuSE, Debian has a long way to go to get the "user friendly" stamp.
As I said in another post, apt-get rules. I will definitely agree with you on that. There is nothing like a 2 command upgrade to your entire system.
Just my 2 cents.
...Kazaa, WinAmp, QuickTime, Nero, Real...
I wouldn't include WinAmp in that list. It is (or once was at least) a Win32 port of AMP (Audio Mpeg Player), one of the oldest mp3 players, an open source project by Tomislav Uzelac. That's a fairly straightforward name that implies the use.
Yeah I understand that. I started with slackware, used debian for years, and now back to SuSE and RedHat just becase I want to get used to popular server distros I might use in the market out there. Right now, I'd rather use knoppix (because its debian plus auto hardware detect) or slackware hack stuff.
"Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
I think it's the responsibility of the OS to make sure uncooperative hardware/software is dealt with appropriately. I realize that doing so isn't easy...
Well this applies to all operating systems and at least as far I know isn't just realistic today.
I agree this would be nice, but Linus can't fix my NVidia drivers or replace the capacitors on my motherboard.
If your system has that much trouble, send it back to Dell. You want hardware and software support for your system, thats where you'll get it.
Quack, quack.
Esp the end where it put Linux users in their place. Great OS and all, I'm sure, but don't tout it like it's indestructible and will never be corrupted.
> I would like to see a packaging system that is smart enough that if it sees that the libraries it needs aren't there... it goes out and downloads just the proper libraries - not telling you 'you need to install Gnome/KDE to get the one library included there'...
apt-get, for either Debian or RPM packages, does exactly this.
You're providing the programmer's point of view here, not the user's. I tried Linux (Mandrake 9.0) for a couple of months (until I had unrelated issues that forced me to give it up) and while I could run KDE apps under Gname and vice versa, I didn't like having applications with 2 or 3 completely different looking widget sets sitting on my screen at once. This isn't a major problem I don't think, but it does give the impression of much fragmentation in the Linux community that could discourage some new users.
Why dont you guys rename it "Freedom Linux"? After all Mandrakesoft is french, isnt it?
*sorry, felt like flaming a bit*
Not only that but the basic system utilities are what's important.
;-)
If something breaks (and it will) knowing to use vi to edit your configuration is a bit much (knowing *how* to use vi is a whole other issue).
In Windows we have names like Notepad, Paint, Imaging, Calculator, WordPad, Backup, Clipboard Viewer, Disk Defragmenter, etc. These are simple, descriptive names and as attached as we seem (??) to be they are a nightmare for new users.
Even symbolic links would do.
Quack, quack.
I admit, apt-get can be finicky when using a mixed testing/sid system, but if you know what you are doing it will do what you want it to do.
"1 - I've built dozens and dozens of computers with custom installations of XP and I can count on one hand the number of times I've seen it crash. 2 - I've got an XP box in this room that's been running for several weeks, maybe months without a reboot (it's been so long I've lost track)." I call bullshit on this guy. I've seen installs of XP fall over and die from the insertion of a newly-purchased DVD; total freeze up, no warning, no nothing. I've also seen XP crash when trying to 'mouse' it out of a screensaver, playing a CD, or upon the loading of ZoneAlarm. XP is no more stable than any other OS.
All devices were identified correctly with the exception of the winmodem in the laptop. I could sit here and bore you with the details but hey, everything just worked!
I have the same spec laptop and have the following problems with Mandrake 9.1:
There is no Power management at all. The Compaq does not support APM and Mandrake 9.1 does not support ACPI out of the box (in spite of the claims by Mandrake). There is no standby, no hibernation and you must stand over it when shutting down and remember to depress the power switch for 4 or 5 seconds to switch off.
The sound volume is software controlled and unsupported.
The rather clever Synaptics touch pad is unsupported apart from the basic mouse functions.
I am reasonably happy with both my Laptop and Mandrake as long as they are kept apart. His remark does make me wonder about the accuracy of anything else in the review.
heh, I usually do it (rewrite fstab) despites supermount working fine on all hardware I used till today. 2 reasons, one, I dont like automounters, two, I usually change the mandrake-provided kernel to a kernel.org "official linus" kernel right after the install, so supermount is gone anyway.
hlv
"Contrary to popular belief, UNIX is user friendly. It just happens to be selective on who it makes friendship with"
I think the people who make M4ndr4k3 should just give up and do some work with Debian. RPM is gay.
If you want the new, potentially unstable apps in Debian, you should run a testing (Sarge) distribution. Stable is just that--stable. Woody is not really a desktop distro. The Debian desktop distro is Sarge. A neat side effect of this is that desktop users do the QA for the servers (which run Woody, because on servers stability is more important than having the latest features).
urpmi
Terrible Music?? wtf are u saying? is TERRIFIC music!! u prefer britney? xDDDDD come on!
Metal Up Your Ass!!!
har har har .... ooooh debian ooooh wow
I get in my car.
I put the key in a slot that looks like the slot in most other cars.
I turn the key.
Magic happens.
I don't really care that in newer cars the entire process is controlled by a bunch of microchips or that in an older car it's all wires and gears.
Turn the key.
Magic happens.
Yes, I'm a lazy linux newbie spoiled by my familiarity with the way MS products work.
Guess what? Most of the computer world (ie people who spend money on hardware, software, and support) are in the same boat. Developers have issues with the way OS's work. End users J U S T---W A N T---M A G I C.
Given that I'm pretty sure Mandrake 9.1 still won't recognize my poor wireless network, I think it may be worth a look see. One of these days, I'll actually be able to dump Windows for Linux and I can't wait!
Dogu
Anybody else see anything wrong with this? 183 double pumped? The only way of achieving this would be to overclock..and then you generally wouldn't call it ddr366, you'd just say that it's running at 366.
Vehicle Stars used car search is my current project
not even close
Zealot? Quit using that fucking word already. You sound like a little parrot.
Think for yourself already.
First I made the mistake of installing Adaptec Easy CD Creator4 (was not roxio back then) -- required a total OS reinstall; booting in safe mode and applying patches didn't work.
Then I wrote programs with VB6's "objects" -- severe memory corruption and a buncha crashes.
As for ext2 -- you simply don't use it; use ext3 or jfs. AFAIK ext3 doesn't work on software raid. Ext3 can be set to journal metadata AND data. Combine with hardware raid for zero corruption.
Win2K does NOT take only 'seconds' to check itself. Have you even seen the b&w graphical pseudo-console that checkdisk runs in? It took more than 45 minutes on my machine (Athlon XP 1800, 512mb ram & single 160gb maxtor hard disk).
Oh by the way -- Win2K can't use the full 160GB in a single partition. Only WinXP will, and only using NTFS. And then you must put up with sparse/hidden files that you can't see and can't erase, along with hidden data streams.
Supermount has been rocking on my PIII 733MHz. No muss, no fuss, no bother. It just works.
The only trouble it gives you is when you have to deal with the Loki Installer. Then you have to turn it off.
MDK 9.1 is the distro that Just Works (tm) for me. It is the MacOS of Linux distributions. It's not a distro for the leet, but for The Rest Of Us (tm) it is just fine.
I will go more into detail in another post.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
BlueCurve is ugly as sin and makes XP's Luna look like the pinnacle of GUI elegance. BTW so does the default theme that KDE ships with. Galaxy, on the other hand....mmmmmmmsuhWEET!!! It isn't "lickable", it doesn't look like Romper Room or Fisher-Price, it is elegant and understated like no other GUI since Windows 2000 or MacOS Classic.
Say what you will about French politics and French military tactics but the French know about aesthetics. Go to a cafe and they serve you art on a plate. Get a French Linux distro and you get art on your screen.
Again...I will speak my peace about the total package of MDK 9.1 in another post here.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
Every now and then, some slashdot or usenet pundit gives their $0.02 on what Linux "must" do to be succesful. Sorry, Linux doesn't have to answer to your demands.
Now as far as running third party packages is concerned, Windows also has these problems (with applications needing different dll versions). There are a number of solutions proprietary software vendors in both the Linux and Windows world have adopted. For example, either statically linking, or shipping your application with its own set of libraries is something often done in Windows applications and also commerical Linux applications (such as Opera)
but wait, now your graphics application dosn't work exactly right (or fails to start at all).
I've had this sort of thing happen before with Windows applications, especially freeware. Large scale commericial applications on the other hand can afford the overhead of adding a couple of extra libraries to their own directory.
backwords compatablity is a big deal, and like it or not windows and macos deal with it a LOT better than any Linux distro.
You have no idea what you're talking about. Linux also has "backwards compatibility". This issue has nothing to do with "standard APIs", in fact it's quite the opposite -- the simplest way to get compatibility is to avoid relying on pre-installed system libraries, and instead, install DLLs (or shared libraries) in the application directory. Like Star office, opera, matlab, java, etc.
too far? Yeah, that's my opinion of uptothenanosecond stuff like Gentoo or even Debian Sid for that matter. I like Debian stable. I like the fact that stuff is tested and dependencies are handchecked and maintainers are responsible, applications almost never crash or screw up and it's pleasant to use. Running bleeding edge stuff can be fun and good for the development of Free Software, so I don't knock anybody who wants to get involved. But let's face it, the average Linux geek only participates in a handful of projects. You shouldn't need to compromise your entire system simply in order to test a few of your favorite proggies.
On the subject of Mandrake, Mandrake has in the past had a reputation for being too bleedingedge, inadequately tested. SuSE and Redhat have been better tested and more stable. On the other hand Mandrake has more than once lit a fire under Redhat's patooty and taken the lead in developing for the home desktop, so kudos to them. But for crying out loud there has to be a happy medium. *Especially* if your distro targets the home user.
Mandrake has so much a home user would want, it would seem to be the obvious choice right now, but how stable is this 9.1 release?
(btw if your genuinely obsessed about configurability, why on earth would you run anything except Linux From Scratch?)
I think Gentoo's portage currently does what you say you'd like done.
If you think Mandrake is good these days, you should check out Redhat.
I found that Mandrake 9.0 (not 9.1) was unhelpfull once you wanted to do anything fancy with network config etc...
I found that mandrake's system config tools had many usability flaws, and as well as a general lack of completness - both in features and polish.
On the otherhand, I found that Redhat 8.0's system config tools were great.
Of course I was only using the GUI config tools - but that is the whole point of using Mandrake or Redhat right? Otherwise Debian, or Slackware etc. would be a better choice...
I can't comment on Redhat 9.0 or Mandrake 9.1 - but I doubt things have changed much.
There's nothing wrong with people wanting a stable distribution of course but I tend to agree with you that the Debian team does seem to go somewhat overboard on the issue. Really now, is that still KDE 2.2.25 in the testing distribution or did I just pull up a cached web page?
.cfg files and it was a pain to decide if you needed the new versions or not. I once was going through about 50 of them after an emerge -u world and accidently let etc-update overwrite fstab.
.deb based LFS system.
As for Gentoo, I really enjoyed using it. Downloading and compiling an ebuild really didn't take all that much time with a DSL connection, 10 or 15 minutes for most small apps and for the larger ones you could still do other work while they were updating. My biggest gripe was whenever a new version of the baselayout (seemingly often running their "unstable") your disk was littered with
I always thought that a cross between the two would be ideal and was excited about apt-build, but after lurking newsgroups I found that most Debain maintainers were against making it easier for users to actually compile open source software themselves. Some had gone so far as to even suggest creating binaries for every version of every processor they supported.
Anyway...for now I'm back to using Mandrake while contemplating whether or not to build a
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
Actually, Mandrake having jumped at the 2.4.21 UNSTABLE kernel was a mistake!
If you try to use TotalView (a commercial graphical debugger) in Mandrake 9.1 you'll see there's a bug in the kernel that makes TotalView crash on startup! And there's nothing you can do about it except hand-patch the kernel and recompile (ewh).
Pretty nasty thing to have around your kernel. Bob knows where else the bug could show up!
This is my first experience with Linux and I have to tell you I'm very disappointed. After having read in many different publications how great and easy Mandrake Linux is for the newbie to use, I sallied over to the Mandrake site and ponied up $94.00 for the 9.1 Power pack. I was put off first of all by the lack of information or choice in shipping. I thought at some point through out the purchasing process, I would be given a choice, but it never came. After having made the purchase I then inquired to Customer Service about how long it would take to receive the software. I received a reply that I should wait 8 business days. Fine. After the 8th business day I began to worry. I have sent many, many emails regarding this order to both the US and Euro sites and have received ZERO reply's from Mandrake. Mandrake Customer Service has simply chosen to ignore my requests. This is absolutely unacceptable. Period. If you're going to do business in this manner-you will fail. Of course my credit card was charge THE DAY I ordered the product. Today is the 17th day and I have yet to receive the product or word from Mandrake on the status of this order. I was really hoping to replace Microsnorf with Linux....but if this is the type of Customer Service I should expect...I expect I won't be changing any time soon. I'm really hoping Mandrake will redeem themselves by being honest and simply stating the product is not ready for shipping or refund my money. Hopefully they can prove my experience is rare and not the norm.....
Well its the ratfynk again, yes rpms have become the norm for buisiness Linuxes. I guess if you study rpm -i options and what the diffs are in Mandrake things are not too hard You can watch and step through an install proc if needed it is just tricky. The terminal out is OK for glitch busting, and because the original is usually available you can mostly figure out how things shake and break on your system.
./configure for their techs. Though don't forget if you have the gcc collection powered up in there, RedHat or Mandrake can still ./configure, and make just fine, (if you find where all the deps are moved to lately). You just need to first #./configure (function) --with (lib) PATH= (REDHATPATH to lib)..... Rather easy to muck up if you are not sure of yourself and don't know the right path or options.
One good thing about Mandrake is that you can put a terminal icon on your kde (or whatever it is) desk top real easy. You can still boot or reboot to a user or root without X... I hear. I would guess (during RedHats or Mandrakes interactive start up process somehow by saying no X for this session, value to true or the likes). I see you cannot chose start without Xgui in your X install anymore. Should be in a man page somewhere, its just really obfuscated and hard to find. I haven't figured it out in Mandrake 9+ yet. Since Xconfigurator has been murdered and laid to rest I guess startx is now a hidden proc. I'll find it even if I do a fatal kernel panic!!!!@#$#*^$uhgrrr. Maybe in RedHat... #switchdesk -no X ? Should be documented somewhere!
I like to be able type startx, its comforting for us old farts. I even like to be able to take a pico first at my mail, ifconfig, logs, and tracker log. Seeing whats new and exciting in pinging ports wonderland is important. Its really nice to know from where and when someone is knocking at the wrong door too often!
So I guess I shouldn't be too hard on RedHat and RedHat based distros. I can see why companies like IBM would not be too overjoyed with app-get or
Sometimes the man command is the one least used by us stuckup old Hackware and Debian users.
Redhats man rpm, etc and Mandrake man(s) should be required reading for any Linux Oldtimer wanting to do main stream cutting edge Linux, otherwise our bitching rights are suspect!
OH THE SHAME I fell off the wagon and use sigs again!
What's the advantage of manually tweaking all that stuff?
--
Long-term effects of Bush deficits
As far as it goes with the purported lies that Linux users propogate against Windows, please, don't make me laugh. I'm a developer, and am often pressed into service as a network admin, as well. If I were to receive a dollar for every hour I have wasted during the past seven years making up for the fact that, as a whole, Windows and much of the industry-standard software written for Windows is amateurish, half-baked technology, I could use the pile of cash to fund a very nice European vacation.
Let's look at the three issues he raises:
1. and 2. XP doesn't crash, and it's reasonably stable. Well, it depends on what you define as "crash" and what your standards are for stability. Yes, the well-worn BSOD has been getting much less use lately. Thank God. It's about time. Actually, I find Win2K to be more stable than XP. But when the kernel code is so leaky that after a long week of web development it can't fit its paged virtual memory into the available RAM even with all apps closed, then I get severely degraded performance. I'm also seeing lots of "weirdness" such as icons getting overwritten with garbage, and orphaned Explorer instances floating around in the process list, each sitting on 35MB of RAM. I could keep running like that, I suppose, as things grind slower and slower. But why? Better to just reboot--a procedure that is only truly necessary under Linux after a hardware or kernel upgrade.
It also bothers me to distraction that, as soon as I do manage to get a Windows install patched just so that it seems very stable, it becomes critically important to install another "security rollup" or whatever the nom-du-jour is for their latest parade of emergency fixes, and after installing that, it's right back to the phone calls from clients on Saturday asking why their server is down again. And for comparison, I have only ever seen a Linux system become unresponsive or do a kernel panic as a result of defective hardware or of my own incompetence during an attempt to compile a kernel specially tuned for my hardware. The difference in stability and robustness between the two OS's--especially under heavy processing loads--is so dramatic that anyone who says the two systems are comparable in that regard simply doesn't know what they are talking about. When you can flog a Windows web application server at near capacity traffic loads for a couple of years with no reboots and stable memory usage, then maybe we will have something to debate.
3. Ah, yes...the old "Windows is the dominant platform, so it is the primary target" argument. Actually, there are many reasons why Linux systems tend to be more secure than Windows ones. This, however, isn't one of them.
Let's start with something really mundane. It's called "su". Windows doesn't have it unless you're running CygWin, which most people don't do. That's why the normal thing to do in Windows-land seems to be to run as an Administrator all the time. Who wants to keep logging off and logging back into the system every time they need to do something as routine as rehupping a darn service? Nobody--me neither. So we run everything as admins, including reading our email. And then so do nimda and the love bug worms. Arrgh! I have tried a few times to run Windows the way I would run a *nix system, and I've always run into too many problems for it to be practical. Usability concerns aside, it often occurs that software you need to run just takes for granted that it has access to all the resources on the machine. This is part of the Windows culture more than it is the OS itself. In fact, Windows' access lists theoretically provide even finer-grained control over who can access what than you get in *nix. But I've never come across a situation where this incr