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.
Just gotta know is it easier enough for my parents to operate?
-- Karma Karma Karma Karma, Karma Chameleon - Boy George
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
Since you've missed the obvious, let me explain. If you're running Debian, you probably have enough geek blood that shiny new things like Mandrake and Redhat releases go unnoticed. Who cares what version oif KDE it ships with, if a Debian user wants a shiny new version of KDE, the Debian user fires up apt and gets it. Who cares how sleek the installer is, my system is tweaked. Why would I want to re-install?
Simply put, if you're a Debian user, you probably won't use this. For anything. This is not to say that one distro is better, certainly both Debian and Mandrake have their merits. All of this, however, doesn't excuse the editor from flashing his Debian-using ego around.
There is no reasonable defense against an idiot with an agenda
:wq
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 can't believe someone modded this as a troll. Debian is GOOD, really GOOD, but not for everything. I still have a Mandrake 7.2 running GREAT serving several remote desktops. If we only need Debian, then why is Slashdot running a story on (ohh the horror) another distro?? Linux is about choice, let's keep it that way. For me, Debian is good for servers, but for desktops RedHat or Mandrake is a better choice. But that is nothing but my opinion.
please excuse my apathy
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. =)
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.
Perhaps if the Debian teams spent less time on packaging everything (and managing all the interactions) and more time on the distro itself, it might have things like graphical installers, unified themes and all the other things that Red Hat, Mandrake and SuSE are doing. Yes, that sounds like a troll, maybe it is but the parent was just as bad.
I mean really, the whole situation is just absurd. You shouldn't need to decide which distro to use on the basis of how easy it is to install things. Period.
The Met songs are from Garage Inc. (1998), though they're covers of Thin Lizzy and Misfits songs from pre-'85.
Don't go knocking Dokken... they're one of the few hair bands that don't suck. Def Leppard is almost respectable, as before Mutt Lange got his hands on them, they were as NWOBHM as Iron Maiden or Tygers of Pan Tang or Diamond Head.
'I dunno if I would have made this review a story on slashdot... the review it self seems really thin, doesn't mention' ... 'kernel revision' ... 'glibc version' ...
... "This article isn't so much of a review as it is my experience installing and using it"
Not all people who read slashdot are linux geeks. From the article
This is exactly the type of "review" that I am interested in. Is the distro easy to deal with? What are problems I might run into? Is it easy enough to transition to so I can recommend it to my father or friends? The reviewer covers those questions to an extent and comes up with some decent gripes/requests.
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...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You shouldn't need to decide which distro to use on the basis of how easy it is to install things. Period.
Why not pick a distro based on how easy it is to use? Seems like ease of use is why a lot of people use Windows in the first place. A new user likely won't have any clue about the difference between the distros, so how else are they going to choose?
Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do.
Are we also supposed to chant "Mandrake is for newbies, Mandrake is about Ease-of-Use" repeatedly, or has it finally become fashionable to recognize their ties with clueful things like Bastille, Prelude, and other security-related projects?. Sorry, I'm a little behind on my groupthink ;)
Linux is what you make of it, any distribution can be installed and configured to promote ease-of-use, security, maximum customization, and fine-grained control.
perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5, (41*2), sqrt(7056), (unpack(c,H)-2), oct(115), 10)'
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'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.
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.