Recent Apt-Gettable Goodness From Ark, Conectiva

JimLynch writes "When you think of Linux, certain names spring to mind: Red Hat, SuSE--even Libranet. But you almost never hear someone say "Hey, did you download the latest version of Ark Linux?" Well, it's too bad, because Ark Linux might someday be a viable contender for the Linux desktop crown and it surely deserves some recognition as such at this point. Despite being labeled an alpha, Ark Linux is one amazing little distro." In other distro news, lmvaz writes "Conectiva, the biggest Linux distribution of Brazil and South America released yesterday the 'Conectiva Linux 10 - Technology Preview 2,' bringing the kernel 2.6.1, KDE 3.2 rc1, Gnome 2.4, Mozilla 1.5, OpenOffice 1.1, etc. The release notes are available here and the torrents for download are here. The final release is expected by the end of the first semester of this year. It's a nice bundle for people wanting to help getting the 2.6 linux kernel in shape."

Comments

Recognition = money

[Space cowboy]

as in all other things, if you can afford to market a product to millions, you're likely to end up with a larger share of the pie. Whether it's worth it is up to you...

Simon

Re:Recognition = money

[digitaleus]

I don't imagine that debian spend much money on marketing, yet it has a significant share of the Linux pie.

Not Debian based, Red Hat based

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not exactly apt-gettable goodness I'm afraid (which is too bad, apt-get is slick as hell).

Re:Not Debian based, Red Hat based

[Cronq]

If you like APT-like tools then check out this!

http://www.t17.ds.pwr.wroc.pl/~misiek/rozne/fc2/ po ldek-for-rpm-based-distro.txt

Re:Not Debian based, Red Hat based

[Daengbo]

Connectiva is the original "apt-get for RPM with repositories on the CD and updates" distro. Everyone else who has has produced an apt-rpm distro has taken their work as a basis, and you can even see Connectiva's name in the apt-get binaries somewhere, though I don't remember how I ran across it. My distro (LinuxTLE) uses their apt work, as well.
So, I'm sorry to inform you that, for once at least, the editors were not wrong on this, and their "apt-get goodness" doesn't need to mean debs.

Ark Linus is the best, except

[Anonymous Coward]

For some reason, it contains two of every binary.

Re:Ark Linus is the best, except

[baywulf]

I think Linus has forked three little binaries if I recall correctly :-)

Re:Ark Linus is the best, except

[(H)elix1]

For some reason, it contains two of every binary.

Only the tainted ones - it packs seven copies of the kernel modules that are clean.

Re:Ark Linus is the best, except

[pimpinmonk]

Forked is little-endian. Spooned is big-endian ;-)

Question

[gantrep]

Why do we need so many distros when we already have 1 or 2 well developed, well supported good ones? Instead of making a thousand for different purposes, why not just make it easier to customize Red Hat or Suse to fit all those purposes(i.e. LinuxBBC, uclinux, etc)?

Re:Question

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

Because when you have only one or two choices, you might find yourself with one of the two choices stabbing their loyal end-users in the back (I have a friend named Fedora who swears it'd never happen however ...).

When you have 150.000 choices, 149.995 of them may suck, and most of them may disappear eventually due to the process of survival of the fittest, but at least you can fall back on something. Less choice isn't good.

Re:Question

[Jameth]

Likely because we don't have so many good distros.

RedHat is really bad, at least in all my experience.
Debian has a lot going for it, but I find it very counterintuitive.
I like SuSE, but it's proprietary, so that's a no-go.
Mandrake's organization is so bad, it's painful, and I've had severe errors with every install I've done of theirs.
I like Slackware, because I know how it works and it has never fucked me over. On the other hand, it does very little for me, which is likely why it doesn't blow it.

Can't speak of many others, but I've liked Ark so far. It needs work, but that's what the alpha tag is for (In all truth, alpha Ark is more stable than the last release version of Mandrake I tried, which I think was 9.something).

Re:Question

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

I like SuSE, but it's proprietary, so that's a no-go.

What's attracting in SuSE is its novellty.

Re:Question

[Bero]

The reasons we started Ark Linux are simple -- even the best customization tools for existing distros won't make it possible for newbies to use them.

How would a newbie benefit the easiest-to-use tools being available for a traditional distribution if he can't get beyond the partitioning step of the distribution installer, which must please experts?

It is just not possible to create a distribution that makes a good newbie home desktop, a good corporate workstation and a good server all in one.

Furthermore, most traditional distributions refuse to diverge from the established standards -- which is, sometimes, necessary, if you want to do something new (like, for example, being easy to handle even for a total n00b).

The goal of Ark Linux is to make Linux dead simple to use while still keeping the system a powerful platform for people who know what they're doing.

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

why not just make it easier to customize Red Hat or Suse to fit all those purposes

Well one reason is that myself, like many other people, don't like either of the two Distros you suggested. And the one I like is probably not liked by many others, and so on.

But I agree with you in principal.

Re:Question

[gl4ss]

well, that's what most of the 'different' distros are: "customize Red Hat or Suse to fit all those purposes", the different distros ARE those customisations.

-

Re:Question

[inode_buddha]

Hi Bero, been awhile since I saw your name mentioned -- IIRC it was back when Mandrake got started. Interesting points, I've been wondering if it was possible to do it all in a single distro. It may be possible IMHO but it hasn't been done yet.

For years now I've thought that there needs to be a single software DB that *all* of the package managers and installers can use, even for source tarballs. FWIW I'm using Fedora and yum, but I'd like to be able to use the main Debian repositories also. Time to look at Ark, I guess.

Thanks for your efforts!

Re:Question

[antiMStroll]

Because some of us don't like RedHat or Suse? Why should you

A) Tell developers what to code? Do it yourself.

B)Tell me what to use? Use it yourself.

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

/me groans

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

Please note that ARK linux is not based on deb's (Debian package format). So I believe that Feodora and ARK Linux are equally easy to combine with the Debian repository.

Gentoo?

[Anonymous Coward]

I use Gentoo; how does this affect me??

Re:Gentoo?

[c0dedude]

We'll tell you when your compile finishes.

Re:Gentoo?

[blixel]

I'm no zealot, but I've got compiles running here in the background that aren't bothering my use of the system at all. (Thanks, 2.6).

Get your facts right before...

OK. While you're compiling in the background, I'll work on getting my facts straight.

Re:Gentoo?

[Dasher42]

Ark's philosophy is very good to see. I think it has its place on the installation side of things.

What I think is undersold is that fact that Gentoo can be used perfectly well based on binary packages. The reference platform contains a chunk of packages that can get you up to using KDE without a single compile.

See, what all that ports business is about is upgradability. It used to be a pain for me to manage upgrades to my RedHat 7.x boxes, with RPM dependency hell. Now I have a laptop, a dual Xeon server, and an Athlon desktop and when I need to, I can grab things from source and compile *once* to upgrade all three systems, and upgrades are easy. The only thing I have to sacrifice to do that is a few CPU-specific optimizations which may as well be saved for where it really counts anyway, though I can tweak where I really need to.

It wouldn't be hard to make a Gentoo package that installs every bit as easily and quickly as the others, for those who just want portage as an upgrade contingency. The moment the advantages of Gentoo and something like Ark or Knoppix wind up in one distro, you'll have it. Gentoo's closer to that than you might think.

That said, Ark's got something for the rest to learn from, and I hope that they'll be a part at whatever rises from the ashes of the SCO-infested United Linux.

Ark Linux in not "apt-gettable"

[0x1337]

Ark Linux is not based on Debian, but is instead based on Red Hat. See the article - they admit that they've goofed.

Re:Ark Linux in not "apt-gettable"

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's not based on Debian; but yes, it uses apt.

Re:Ark Linux in not "apt-gettable"

[cHiphead]

yep, and as a result, i have no interest in ark linux. this is a huge, slick, press release. If I want a good desktop linux thats well developed and based on red hat, I'd use Mandrake (and I did, until I was shown the light that is apt-get and debian.. turns out I'm more comfortable with CONSOLE based tools).

Re:Ark Linux in not "apt-gettable"

[Bero]

Ark Linux is indeed not based on Debian -- but it's most definitely apt-gettable.

We use the apt+rpm combo to handle package management.

The reasoning is simple - apt-get is definitely the best tool for package management out there -- but there are lots of valid reasons to disagree over a dpkg vs. rpm choice.

We decided in favor of rpm because it's easier to build packages -- since we're developing a distribution primarily for not overly technical users, all the technical things involved with building a dpkg package would be a major problem, while anyone who has figured out shell scripts a bit can easily learn creating rpm spec files.

Re:Ark Linux in not "apt-gettable"

[Anonymous Coward]

Then again, that's the whole reason for RPM's "bad" reputation.

Packages created by someone who only barely knows what they're doing tend to be ... less than satisfactory, and when those lead do dependency hells and assorted problems, loud idiots who don't understand a slightest bit about that start whining it's RPM that is somehow broken.

Re:Ark Linux in not "apt-gettable"

[Bero]

I think the much bigger reason for RPM's somewhat bad reputation is dependency resolution, as in " apt-get is much better!" -- many people still don't know that apt-get can be used with RPMs.

Bad packagers are problematic with any packaging system (but yes, the barrier is definitely much lower with rpm) -- that's why we've added at least a couple more sanity checks (e.g. our rpm disallows packages without BuildRoot:, and we provide sample rpm templates so people can start learning how to build proper packages w/o having to go through the hassle of learning Makefiles and all).

Not true

[boobsea]

APT is now avaliable for RedHat distros.. check out this page

Re:Not true

[Anonymous Coward]

Fair enough, but the comment in the article was because they thought it was Debian-based, when in fact it is RedHat based. That was what I was talking about.

I mean I guess we could say that FreeBSD isn't Linux based, but then someone would point out that you can run Linux binaries on FreeBSD. Doesn't change it. :)

Re:Not true

[interiot]

Why do posts keep getting moderated up for this? It's been available forever, has been posted in many Slashdot stories and posts. Is this actually a great feature that tons of people use, or is it something RedHat users just feel a need to exclaim that they're no longer lacking? How many times do I have to respond "The people putting the packages together matter more than the final interface used to install the packages."?

Does anyone know how to search for "apt" and "red hat" in posts? (I don't see an "AND" feature in slashdot's searches) It'd be nice to show people exactly how repititious this discussion has become.

Re:Not true

[rmohr02]

Unfortunately, even if you're using apt on a RedHat-based distro, you're still using RPMs.

Re:Not true

[ubernostrum]

Why do posts keep getting moderated up for this? It's been available forever, has been posted in many Slashdot stories and posts.

This is Slashdot... people don't read the stories or the comments, they just post at random.

Besides, lots of people still seem to be ignorant of the existence of apt for RPM-based systems. Most also don't know about Yum, which is a more RPM-native tool with apt's functionality. Opening their eyes never hurts.

Re:Not true

[optikSmoke]

How many times do I have to respond "The people putting the packages together matter more than the final interface used to install the packages."?

Indeed, I agree -- using apt on *RedHat* is a chore because of this (believe me, I used to use that combination). However, you should not lump all RPM-based distros into this category. Mandrake (with urpmi) works beautifully, and the main reason is they have employed an intelligent package-naming and dependency scheme (like Debian's, I believe) and have a tool (urpmi) specifically built for it.

I personally find it annoying when people break out the "RPM's are terrible" arguments -- like you say, the way the packages are put together matters much more. With Mandrake, you get well-thought out package names, and a huge range of packages (even more if you setup PLF and contrib sources). Frankly, I don't see apt as a motivator for me to switch my distro to Debian; Mandrake already has an equally good (if not better) solution.

Re:Not true

[juhaz]

Huh? He corrected someone who obviously doesn't know this.

Re:Not true

[Anonymous Coward]

"Unfortunately" you will have many more packages avaliable.

"Unfortunately" you have many, many times more people with the same system building software for you.

"Unfortunately" RPM is the defacto and most-common packaging system avaliable.

Re:Not true

[Anonymous Coward]

apt-rpm was developed by Conectiva more than two years ago.

I wonder why it didn't get more publicity.

Re:Not true

[rmohr02]

"Unfortunately" you will have many more packages avaliable.

I've never had a problem finding something with apt. Sometimes you can't find something in the official apt repositories, but there are always other repositories. Lack of a package in an official repository is not a problem in RPM-based distros though, due to the lack of an official repository.

"Unfortunately" you have many, many times more people with the same system building software for you.

There are more people building RPMs for RPM-based distros, but that doesn't mean there are more people taking the time to make sure the RPMs they build work correctly. It's not like there's a central place with guidelines for people who make RPMs.

"Unfortunately" RPM is the defacto and most-common packaging system avaliable.

"most-common"? You mean "most-commonly used"? I'm not quite sure how many people use RPM-based vs. DEB-based distros, and quite honestly I don't care. I will always recommend Debian-based distros over others.

Re:Not true

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never had a problem finding something with apt.

Never said you did. However, I have Debian on a laptop here and its always faster for me to find a precompiled binary in tar.gz format or to compile from source (since there is usually no .deb offered even though tere are plenty of RPM's).

Its just as time-consuming to find a third-party repository that has it, and even if it does, it usually contains a much older version of what I want.

There are more people building RPMs for RPM-based distros, but that doesn't mean there are more people taking the time to make sure the RPMs they build work correctly. It's not like there's a central place with guidelines for people who make RPMs.

What problems would these be? The only problems I have with RPMs are ones that depend of different versions of a library.

Its not as if APT doesn't have these problems either.

"most-common"? You mean "most-commonly used"?

I mean both. Look at the numbers. Debian is in the minority in both avaliability of packages and users.

I'm not quite sure how many people use RPM-based vs. DEB-based distros, and quite honestly I don't care.

The truth does hurt.

will always recommend Debian-based distros over others.

Of couse. Zealots will only reccomend their distribution to others. I, on the other hand, will tell users that I've used all sorts of distros (Debian being one of them) and that its more of a matter of personal taste than anything else that should guide their decision.

Re:Not true

[unDees]

I always liked Mandrake's urpmi stuff in theory, but in practice it seems to break in the same ways old RPM stuff breaks: complaints of missing dependencies (though I thought urpmi was supposed to resolve and fetch those automatically), packages that require mutually contradictory packages (probably not urpmi's fault, but still...), and mysterious refusals to carry out commands. I usually end up having to download and install by hand, and when that inevitably fails, figure out what's missing and download that, too....

I'd love to hear about it if there's some obvious --dont-screw-up switch to urpmi I'm missing....

Re:Not true

[rmohr02]

will always recommend Debian-based distros over others.

Of couse. Zealots will only reccomend their distribution to others. I, on the other hand, will tell users that I've used all sorts of distros (Debian being one of them) and that its more of a matter of personal taste than anything else that should guide their decision.

I'm not a zealot--I've tried numberous RPM- and DEB-based distros, along with Gentoo and Slackware, and because of my experience I will always recommend Debian. One of the reasons I haven't mentioned yet is dselect-upgrade, which I doesn't work with RPMs because of the nature of RPMs.

Re:Not true

[optikSmoke]

It may depend on what version of mandrake you are running on and what sources you have setup. When I ran mdk9.1, I had about 7 unoffical package sources and there were some problems like this -- mainly due to conflicting versions of the same package on different sources. In mdk9.2, however, I only use main, update (both official), contribs (officially "hosted" but not "supported" IIRC) and PLF (unofficial). These are the well-maintained sources, and I haven't had any problems in 9.2 with them. I think, although I wouldn't quote me on this, that urpmi's conflict resolution with multiple packages has gotten much better in recent versions -- occasionally it will ask "do you want to install this package or this other package" when multiple possibilities exist instead of just getting confused :).

The only other possibility is that you are using a poor mirror. I know that mirrors.secsup.org has some problems (missing packages ?) that confuse urpmi.

Re:Not true

[unDees]

I'll have to give mkd9.2 a shot, then. Thanks for the advice.

Answer

[Space cowboy]

I'd suggest it's a combination of 'not-invented-here' syndrome, along with a gross under-estimation of the amount of work required. There are exceptions, but I'd guess most fall into this...

Waay back in the mists of time, when slackware was on single-figure floppies, I wrote and distributed the 'MDK', a unix-like distribution for the Atari-ST using MiNT as the unix-like kernel. It's bloody difficult, even with the relatively-tiny number of packages that I used, to keep everything in sync. It didn't help that compiling gcc took 8 hours, either :-)

Simon.

End of the first semester?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing says "professional" like scheduling release times around school semesters.

"We'll fix those security vulnerabilities once these pesky midterms are done".

Re:End of the first semester?

[GrassMunk]

Its better than having your operating system ( made in you native language ) made by a corporation which contributes very little to your nation. Also keep in mind that Linux worked on the Linux Kernel while in school. Anyway, i know your making a joke but it erked me.

A comment...

[c0dedude]

Alright, let's stop letting microsoft do all our visual design. Evidenced here. That looks remarkably like WinXP's Control Panel. I'm sorry, but the general trend in desktop distros, especially ones with KDE, is to make things look like windows. Can we please try to innovate a little more on the user interface? I use Enlightenment, I think it does a fairly good job of this. I mean, some of the top downloads for themes are based on Mac's OS X. We need a defined Linux-look and feel that's not based on something developed by someone else. The Linux desktop should not try to be a clone of the Windows. see here.

Re:A comment...

[Zorak Man]

if so many people are used to this design, and are comfortable, maybe this is the best way to do it. People don't want a steep learning curve. Once they become comfortable living in their little windows friendly linux world, some of those people can move on to a more "true linux" distro. Its a gate way, not every one has the abilty or time to drop everything and learn a new OS.

Re:A comment...

[FFFish]

Fersure. Quit copying Microsoft, and start copying someone who knows what they're doing -- Apple!

Re:A comment...

[Anonymous Coward]

What's wrong with copying a design that is known to work? They spend a lot of money figuring out what works.

Re:A comment...

[qw(name)]

Its a gate way...

Shouldn't that read, "Its a Gate's way"?

;-)

Re:A comment...

[aliens]

We need a defined Linux-look and feel that's not based on something developed by someone else

Well the problem with a defined look is that well it's a defined look. While we have so many choices you'll never have a defined look. Do we go with Englightment? Gnome? KDE? TWM? And then how do you make everyone use that?

So going towards the Windows UI and tweaking it along the way is possibly a good thing. Remember MS has spent millions probably on researching the User Interface for Dummies. If we want linux to be on the worlds' desktops you can't ignore MS and Apple's work.

Re:A comment...

[SpectreGadget]

Done already. Copying M$ is copying Apple!

Re:A comment...

[AvengerXP]

I thought the goal of KDE *was* to be exactly like Windows. Is it not? To make Linux attractive to the general masses of Windows users?

Re:A comment...

[Bero]

"Microsoft does XYZ" means neither "XYZ is the best/right thing to do", nor "XYZ is evil!".

It does mean, however, that 90% of the people (all potential Linux users ;) ) know how to handle it -- so in the "Microsoft to Linux transition phase", it's a good thing to make switching from Windows to Linux as easy as possible.

This does not mean, of course, that we can't experiment with totally different user interfaces at the same time -- but having a Windows-like interface for the "converters" is definitely a good thing to get them to consider migration.

Re:A comment...

[Anonymous Coward]

> Quit copying Microsoft, and start copying someone who knows what they're doing -- Apple!

They tried that already. We're still hearing those little whiney bitches complain about how Microsoft copied their trash can idea. Give it a rest. We just let those Apple freaks sit at their own table now.

Re:A comment...

[bonch]

So going towards the Windows UI and tweaking it along the way is possibly a good thing. Remember MS has spent millions probably on researching the User Interface for Dummies. If we want linux to be on the worlds' desktops you can't ignore MS and Apple's work.

Yes, but that means Linux, instead of having its own niche in the visual realm, will always be playing catch-up to Windows/MacOS. Do you really want the Linux GUI to be compared to Windows forever? "How much does this look like Windows? Not enough! Push out a new minor revision with a Windows-like control panel!"

Apple and Microsoft keep pushing their GUIs forward year after year. Linux, on the other hand, is running after them instead of treading its own path. I understand that there is a fair amount of borrowing and competitive inspiration on everyone's part, but someone needs to sit down and draft up a pleasant, powerful-yet-accessible GUI for Linux. Pretty please? Right now, OS X has the advantage of being retardedly simple to use and yet powerful because I can instantly access a UNIX-like command shell. That's what I've been wanting from Linux since I first tried it in '96.

Re:A comment...

[kevinowen]

But I thought they both copied Xerox?

Re:A comment...

[alext]

First you need a structure.

Once you've decided on the abstractions to represent (devices, file systems, My Documents etc.) and how they are modelled you can then worry about L&F.

The main problem with the Windows GUI is the chaotic nature of the abstractions chosen, not the L&F.

Re:A comment...

[Daengbo]

I wrote a /. submission about this control panel style several years ago when Redmond Linux (now Lycoris) decided to use it. It is based on UI usability studies done by some major players, including, but not limited to, MS, but was not a copy of MS at the time. IIRC, it was that the two pane approach with more advanced features available on request was determined to be the way to go.
So, it's in the public record as a good idea. Just because MS did it doesn't mean that they did it first or that it was their idea to begin with.

Re:A comment...

[Daengbo]

Since KDE can look like virtually anything you want it to, how can it be modelled after Windows? If the default looks like Windows, that's probably because more people are comfortable with it. But, then again, KDE default mouse behavior doesn't follow Windows', so they need to change that to be exactly like Windows, so I'll fire that off in an email to the developers. Thanks for your flamebait ... oops I meant input.

Re:A comment...

[inode_buddha]

Ummm, true. Personally I prefer Enlightenment, if it wasn't such a PITA to get it in Fedora OK. FWIW I still have all of the GTK themes and E themes archived from RH7 days, just in case I figure it all out. Hints?

Re:A comment...

[aliens]

I agree, I just got an old G3 to learn OS X with and I gotta say it's very slick.

If that's what you've been wanting from linux since 96 why would it be bad if we copied it?

And I don't mean that we should copy these interfaces pixel for pixel, but we could take it and make the improvements that each need.

Re:A comment...

[Mistshadow2k4]

Agreed! I hate the Windows XP look, and while Aqua is pretty, I want my Linux to look like Linux!

Incorrect

[boobsea]

Ark is not debian based, as you state, but apt is avaliable for RPM based distributions:

http://ayo.freshrpms.net

English?

[Zorak Man]

Is it just me or am I the only one who can't find an English page form this distros creators. I'm not some crazy "only English" freak, but unfortunately thats the only langauage I speak... well, barely.

Re:wow

[rborek]

The major problem with SuSE is that you have to buy the CDs to get the distribution... or wait a month or two to get a download-only crippled install. Some of us like to play with various Linux distros and don't want to have to go out and buy each and every one to see which one's the best.

I'm personally hoping Novell changes the distribution methods for SuSE.

Re:wait just a minute folks

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice post, but I think your point would be made clearer if you used more underscores for some reason.

Ignorant to definition of "Debian"

[Anonymous Coward]

i'm not the same guy you replied too. but you're a fool if you think installing APT makes your system Debian. there's a lot more to a Debian box than just APT. the original poster was complaining that Ark is not Debian based, which is completely correct. The fact that you can slap APT on this RH-based distro is irrelevant.

Another Debian troll

[Anonymous Coward]

Who said anything about apt making your system into Debian?

I believe boobsea was trying to say that apt-get was avaliable for RedHat distro's. You and the other guy is just trying to rub in the fact "its not Debian" in order to make it somehow look inferior.

Re:Another Debian troll

[Anonymous Coward]

does the man whore to whome you give blow jobs wear a red hat during his period?

only ignorant people use redhat

Connectiva mirrors

[DerOle]

Go here for FTP and HTTP mirrors of the site.

Re:wow

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Novell buys SUSE.
2. Gives away product for free.
3. ???
4. PROFIT!!

Sounds like a great idea to me!

It really doesn't

[Anonymous Coward]

Just sit there and continue to compile away...

Mod me down

[Zorak Man]

so I found that english page... So not only can I barely speak english, I'm stupid too.

Another reason why Linux+desktop=no time soon

[Anonymous Coward]

Too many distractions, aka, distributions.

Adios, Karma.

[bfg9000]

I don't want to attract flames en masse, but I am about to. Flame accordingly.

A large part of leadership is doing what's best for the project, and that includes a) giving up control when required, and b) reorganizing where required in order to best utilize resources. This discussion of Ark Linux (which I've heard of but is basically a small player) has helped me to realize that we're being held back by our disunity as a community and our insistence on doing everything by ourselves individually instead of focusing on more communal efforts in which resources are shared for the common good.

I think that the Linux distro leaders (not just Ark, I don't mean to single them out) should begin looking into the possibility of friendly mergers, a la the "mostly failed United Linux". There's a massive duplication of effort in the Open-Source and Free Software communities, and it is literally draining the already limited resources of the community. We have easily 100 different distros, 90% of them are clones of other distros or are so similar as to make themselves irrelevent, and they are all hard at work adding the new Gnome, the new KDE, the new *whatever* into their newest version instead of actually doing something innovative with their time. Linux still has useability issues that existed at the beginning, but everybody's too engrossed in dividing the miniscule Linux market share a hundred ways rather than working together to create a single magnificent system that would dwarf the proprietary competition and create massive acceptance and use of open software and operating systems.

I understand that the guys who have their own distros love their distros and think that they are the best distros out there, but really, is that as important or worthwhile as working together on creating something totally new, rather than just duplicating other people's distributions and putting your own name on it? There are some great hackers out there putting out distros, but they'll never make a name for themselves compiling a distro that less than 20 people will use regularly. They should focus on doing something new, filling a niche that hasn't been filled yet.

As Tina Turner sang, "We don't need another distro". But there are lots of things we DO need, and reaching out to others to propose joining forces would free valuable and talented people up to to valuable and talented things. I'm not questioning the motives of the distro leaders, and I don't mean to offend anybody or come off as bossy and demanding. I'm just saying that if we want Linux to succeed, we have to work together and make sacrifices. We should strive for unity and cooperation where possible, because we are currently NOT using our resources effectively.

Re:Adios, Karma.

[dslbrian]

There are some great hackers out there putting out distros, but they'll never make a name for themselves compiling a distro that less than 20 people will use regularly. They should focus on doing something new, filling a niche that hasn't been filled yet.

For some of the "little" distros, disparity spurs innovation. Some people focus on PC distros, some like embedded, some like doing live CDs. No one player is going to cover all these bases.

I find it odd that some people think that the whole community should move as a united mass toward some commercial goal. I've got news for you, not all people have commercial goals. Not all people have your goals, and not all people need to have any goals. There is such a thing as an enthusiast. People have hobbies, and some of these enthusiast types like to do distros. So what if no one else uses it, it serves their interests, and to them mabye thats all that matters.

Re:Adios, Karma.

[mixmasta]

Think of all these side projects as a testbed where experimentation can produce new ideas. Hopefully, the best ones rise to the top.

I believe it is analogous to the investment in R&D a commercial outfit would make.

Re:Adios, Karma.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup. For example, according to the ark review, it sounds like you install a base system from the first cd, then additional software later from another cd. I'm a big fan of Mandrake, but if they'd pick up on this idea I think it would be great. Occasionally you'll run into problems with an install, usually not Mandrake's fault, could be faulty media, hardware, whatever. It's especially annoying if you've spent a fair bit of time with the individual package selection option. I would prefer the ark approach of get the basic system working first, THEN add the extra applications you want.

That's just one example where a big guy could learn from a little guy. Then there's issue of different approaches for different people. There are people who would absolute hate Gentoo and never want to go near it, while others swear by it and wouldn't use anything else. Overall variety is a very good thing.

Re:Adios, Karma.

[Bero]

You're right re the fact that too many distros can potentially be a bad thing.

So why did we decide to start a new one nevertheless [remember that we did so roughly 2 years ago]?

It's easy, nobody else was doing what we're doing.

Our goal was (and still is) to create a distribution that is easy to use for both Windows converts and total computer newbies, while still providing a powerful system we can use ourselves w/ a bit of customization.

One of the key points in Ark Linux is to pick only one application of every kind (who really needs 500 editors and 30 window managers?), to save the (non-technical) user from having to make choices (s)he can't possibly understand.

Why not do this as a patch to an existing distribution? It's obvious -- does anyone seriously think e.g. Debian would accept a feature request saying "remove 5000 packages"? They won't (and for a good reason - for Debian-type users, having the choice is vital!). And just doing it as a script that uninstalls 5000 packages from a previously installed system wouldn't work, because the newbie wouldn't even get to the point where he can run the script.

Yes, by now there are other distributions that try to do the same thing (Lindows, Lycoris, Xandros, ...) -- the difference here is that they're commercial, and we'll always be 100% free.
That said, there's no point in not cooperating -- if anyone from any other distribution is reading this, we'd definitely like to work together -- but the full extent would have to be determined.

Using a common core is an option - but even there, you'll run into different needs -- e.g. for a corporate workstation or server, Kerberos and LDAP authentication are must-haves (and things lots of applications will link to if they're there, introducing dependencies right into the core of the OS) -- for a home user desktop, they're just unneeded bloat - so you'll end up even with a modified core, if you want to get both right.

Re:Adios, Karma.

[Anonymous Coward]

we're being held back by our disunity as a community and our insistence on doing everything by ourselves individually instead of focusing on more communal efforts in which resources are shared for the common good.

There is only one FreeBSD distribution out there. And guess which is more popular, Linux or FreeBSD?

(not to mention the fact that they are, of course, dead!)

Re:Adios, Karma.

[forgetmenot]

Can't disagree with you more if I tried.
What you are basically saying is "Hey you, you hobby programmer! Stop doing that thing that you're doing because you're having fun and do something else that you might not enjoy as much but is at least not done yet by somebody else. And do it quick dammit if you wanna beat MS someday. Whaddya mean you don't give a rat's a**?"

There's a lot of duplicated effort because Linux is very much still a hobby OS for many people. To tell them to get organized and contribute to existing projects is like asking someone to not build a Lego Tie-fighter because a million other people have already done it.

I could not care less if Linux isn't on everyone's desktop. I use Linux for the things I use it for and will continue to use it for those things whether Bill Gates becomes dictator-for-life of the Universe or not.

Besides, one of the biggest problems with MS isn't that Windows sucks, its the "monoculture" of Windows Software and hence that fact that there's no alternative to it sucking. Would a Linux momoculture be any better in the long run?

But I hear what you're saying.

Re:Adios, Karma.

[antiMStroll]

This is based on the false premise that these contributors would continue to work on Linux if they were no longer "allowed" - whatever that concept is meant to imply here - on the things which interest them. Further to that it also implies the establishment of a Linux "authority", one determining which projects are valid or not. Linus himself disagrees with this.

Linux is not a proprietary top-down mandated project. It's a volunteer effort encompassing the gamut from multinationals to government to high school students. Your 'fix' is to make it subject to a single authority, and it will kill Linux as certainly as it killed the proprietary Unixes it's replacing.

Re:wow

[dslbrian]

The major problem with SuSE is that you have to buy the CDs to get the distribution...

My thinking was the same a few months ago when RH decided to EOL their "consumer" versions. At first not knowing much about Fedora, I started checking into the other distros. Thought about SuSE, but didn't like the idea of forking over cash just to decide if it was the right one to settle on. Looked at a few others too, but ultimately went with Fedora (we will probably eventually standardize on RHEL WS at work, so it makes sense from that standpoint).

Point is that if there were SuSE ISOs available, I would definitely have tried it out. But forking over cash just to demo it, or downloading packages one by one is just not worth the time.

Unfortunately I wasn't all that impressed with Fedora the first month I had it. It was incredibly unstable, which was shocking since I figured it was a derivative of RH9. After dumping the stock kernel, downloading and recompiling a custom kernel (at least a couple dozen times), I managed to stabilize the box (I found that the ACPI stuff and possibly some other power management bits were the culprit, at least for me).

Mozilla 1.5?

[localghost]

So they have the latest beta of KDE, but they can't have the most recent stable Mozilla release?

Re:Mozilla 1.5?

[Bero]

Ark Linux alpha 10 is more than a month old -- that was long before mozilla 1.6 was released.

The current development tree (dockyard) has mozilla 1.6.

When did I make a Linux distro?

[Ark42]

Its a joke, don't mod me down.

Re:Debian is good enough for me.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're off by about six decimal places on the userbase size.

apt-gettable was a casualism

[timothy]

apt4rpm (if I recall correctly) was developed by Conectiva employees, and Conectiva has used apt for several years, possibly since their first public release. They're not based on Debian, correct -- they're more like Mandrake, a Red Hat based distro that has diverged as it's matured.

timothy

Re:apt-gettable was a casualism

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, you are right. Conectiva Linux was RedHat based.

The first apt/rpm port are made by Alfredo Kojima (WindowMaker) to Conectiva.

wtf?

[Anonymous Coward]

It always annoys me that every time a redhat/kde-based distro comes out, people complain that it should include gnome. If you want redhat-gnome distribution just get the damn fedora core and you'll be all set. There isn't a good, free, redhat complaint kde distribution (I'm not counting mandrake...that thing is not nearly as simple as redhat...it has way too much stuff in it. Fedora core has just the basic things in it and thats the reason why i like it). I can install suse and be happy with it, but they do not provide iso images which is annoying too.
So basicaly, if you want gnome/redhat type of a deal, get fedora and stop your bitching.
If you are happy with mandrake, so be it.
But if you want a simple, kde/redhat based distribution, then youre fucked.
Ark doesn't count either because their installation process is too simplified. For example, I have few hard drives in my computer and I like to select which hard drive to install to, plus i'd like to patrition it manually. In ark linux you cannot do that. Its too simplified. It just takes over everything.

Suse is only one who gets it right, exactly the way I want it. They just need to provide those damn iso's (no, i am not going to buy the cds, i'm a poor college student). What sucks though, novell just bought them out, and they bought out ximian, so I bet they fuck it up completly. Damn.

Oh, and I didn't plan to start a holy jihad up in here. I was merely writing my thoughts.
All I ever wanted was a nice, kde-only based distribution that doesn't have 3 million packages but only the basic ones: KDE, mplayer, kplayer, Kopete, koffice and thats about it :)
Oh, and don't forget a simple but powerfull installation process.
KDE -> Only desktop
Mplayer/Kplayer -> Kplayer is kde frontend to mplayer which can play pretty much every media format
Kopete -> kde messenger that can connect to all the protocols
Koffice -> good enough office suite for college use
What else could one possibly want?
Anybody listening? :)

Re:wtf?

[Bero]

Yes, definitely listening.
You've mostly described Ark Linux in your wishlist. ;)

We do pick only one of every kind where possible, and our choices mostly match yours.

Re:wtf?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, if it wasn't for the compilation time (a thing that could take you away from using it, but you can use GRP) and the lack of any graphical intallation (you do it everything by hand) then Gentoo could be your election. I wanted a Gnome-only distro and put a "-kde" in make.conf, so I don't use anything that's KDE based (sorry for KDE users out there, but I find it silly to have two desktops when I use only Gnome). You could do a "-gnome" and emerge only what you want.

A happy Gentoo user

Re:wtf?

[Anonymous Coward]

Last time I used ark linux, it didn't let me customize my patritions/hard drives. Is that fixed in later versions?

Re:wtf?

[Bero]

This is a feature, not a bug. ;)

We want a dead simple installation, without scaring people off by throwing words they don't understand at them.

That said, since many people are requesting it, we will be adding an alternative installer for techies in the future -- but don't expect this to happen for some more months, we'd like to get our newbie-friendly stuff done first. ;)

Volunteers to speed it up are welcome of course!

Re:wtf?

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to use Mandrake, but got bored with it because it was so _simple_ and didn't teach me all that much about Linux.

But well, I have since happily switched to Gentoo, so I may not be your typical user. However you are the first I've heard call Mandrake nothing but easy to use.

By the way, you can select which packages you install in Mandrake too. Just select Advanced Install, deselect the right packages, and you'll never have to waste HD space on Gnome again.

Re:wtf?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hallelujah brother!

A simple KDE distribution with no excess fat. Just ship a distro with KOffice, Kopete, JuK, KDevelop etc..

Any extra apps (like Mozilla, MySQL, PostgreSQL, OpenOffice) I will get myself, if needed.

Re:wtf?

[Anonymous Coward]

You say that this is a kde only distribution, yet synaptic is written in gtk.
How do you explain that? :)

KDE only means no gtk crap what so ever.

Re:wtf?

[Bero]

Depends on how you define things.

I define a "KDE only distribution" as "a distribution that doesn't include any other desktop environments".

There's no reason not to include good applications just because they happen not to be written with our favourite toolkit.

Furthermore, starting with the next release, we'll be using the
GTK-Qt theme engine to make GTK applications integrate better with the KDE desktop.

Re:wtf?

[Anonymous Coward]

You want a reason not to include it? How about requirement to include 3 billion gnome dependencies for each gtk application? If you keep including gtk applications, ark linux will just become another bloated distribution.

Re:wtf?

[Bero]

This is a valid concern, but there are a couple of gtk based killer apps - can you name replacements for any of the following without the dependencies?

• gimp
• sodipodi
• gnucash
• mrproject

We're keeping the dependency chain as small as possible (e.g. we're leaving out the gtkhtml dependent parts of gimp and make it call konqueror for its html help system instead) though.

Re:wtf?

[Anonymous Coward]

I personaly would rather run old version of photoshop using wine, than run gimp. Way more powerful and simpler to use. At least until Krita comes out.

MOD DOWN - KNOWN TROLL

[Anonymous Coward]

Interiot is a known troll who goes into random discussions and accuses people of wild things and tries to get them modded down.

Do not reward this behavior.

Re:mod down - known troll

[interiot]

I may be perhaps a little negative lately, I'm sorry if that's the case. I don't think I asked that anyone be modded down. Certainly different people have different opinion of why posts are good and variety is a good thing. Just that... well, it was a one-line comment simply noting the existance of a tool that's been fairly well known on slashdot for several years, adding nothing else, and am trying to understand if there's more to apt-on-redhat than is initially apparent.

Also, if I am a troll, it should be pretty easy to find egregious posts either in my recent posting history or google's longer archive of my posts (188 stories posted to so far). Feel free to browse, I think it's clear I'm not a troll.

Re:MOD DOWN - KNOWN TROLL

[Anonymous Coward]

Interiot is just one of your many aliases though, everyone knows you spam more with the other ones. Hell, I bet you don't even run Debian or Red Hat, you just read about apt on some random webpage.

Software downloads

[killmister]

I don't think Novell will change this policy - their purchase of SUSE had a commercial basis, so nobody from Novell salesreps will be happy to see SUSE sales going down due to the fact that most customers find it convenient to download their product for free. To my mind, the most pretty software download policy belongs to Oracle. You can download everything for free from their OTN network. The software downloaded works OK without any key activation. Brilliance for developers. For run-time environment one will buy the licence anyways.

Re:wait just a minute folks

[Anonymous Coward]

What exactly is the English language Einstein?

Re:wow

[bluewee]

I had problems with the ACPI / APM stuff as well, and that is one of the main reasons why I switched back to Gentoo / WinXP dual boot, because I am on a Laptop and need the Power Management.

Re:wait just a minute folks

[Anonymous Coward]

American.

The true linux user

[zippo01]

Why not just build your own linux, like a true linux-geek?!?!? i do, i make it any way i want it. Distro's are always what someone else wants not you.

Re:Debian is good enough for me.

[AvengerXP]

"Debian has a devoted userbase of more than 15,000,000 people; Conectiva has virtually no users at all."

So you're saying switch to Microsoft? Basing the quality of something on the number of people involved?

Re:wow

[flynns]

Yeah, but remember that profits from Linux have traditionally never been (although this may change...) about product *sales*. It's been about support packages and installation assistance and all the corporate helpdesk goodness (that can be sarcastic if you like; either way...) that companies like RedHat (and, god forbid, Novell) can provide.

So if the majority of your profit comes from supporting existing or new installations, then it would make sense to spread your software as quickly as you possibly can. It goes something like this:

1. Novell buys SuSE
2. Novell gives SuSE away for FREE (and will also sell it to people who like boxed software)
3. SuSE becomes pervasive. (right, right, I know, but for the sake of argument...)
4. PROFIT! [or something like it]

Why should the visual design be different?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course the visual interface is a copy. The whole thing is a copy! Every "open source project" is just an an attempt to copy someone elses innovation. If you disagree, don't mod this down - post a counter example!

Wrong question.

[Frater 219]

Why do we need so many distros when we already have 1 or 2 well developed, well supported good ones?

It isn't a question of "we need", and it never has been. People create new Linux distributions for the same reason a lot of open-source software gets created -- because they want to. This is an obvious result of freedom: people can do what they want to, regardless of whether it is what anyone says "we" need.

In a free society, the motivation for individuals doing things is not that some authority thinks that society needs the outcome. Rather, it is that individuals choose to do things, for whatever obvious or inscrutable reasons they may have, using their own time, resources, and skills.

What you could ask, instead, is: "What motivates people to create more Linux distributions, or other free software that's similar to existing software?" Human action is often inscrutable indeed -- we often cannot even correctly state in retrospect the precise reasons we ourselves make choices. However, I suspect that several factors may enter into the decision to make new software to accomplish the same goals as existing software:

• Aesthetics. People have particular opinions and preferences for how things should be done. They write code and assemble collections of software that reflect these preferences, so they can work in a computing environment that is more fulfilling or enjoyable to them personally. Thus, people may create software that meets the same functional goals as existing software, but does so in a way they enjoy more.
• Ethics. Many people believe that free software is a moral good, or that dependence on software under particular licenses is harmful or risky. Thus, people may create software that meets the same functional goals as existing software, but is under a different license. (See GNOME and KDE, or some folks' preference for BSD over GPL.)
• Confidence. Some people feel more confident in using a tool if they have built it themselves, and therefore understand more fully than a tool built by someone else.
• Control of development. Likewise, people may see an existing software project as hampered by constraints on its development, and create (or fork) a new one to reap specific benefits of control. For instance, Mandrake Linux was created originally as a fork of Red Hat optimized for Pentium processors. (The "constraint" on Red Hat was 386-compatibility.)
• Quality. Sometimes, there's existing software that fills a need, but it is known to have flaws, or is built in such a way that it is difficult to prove correct or to make secure. A number of the non-Sendmail MTAs (particularly Postfix and Qmail) have been designed to avoid Sendmail's monolithic architecture and consequent security problems.

Put another way, it is usually only from a particular (often, biased) perspective that two pieces of software meet all of the same needs and desires. It would be a short-sighted person indeed who complained that GNU Mailman is duplicative of the efforts that went into the writing of Majordomo. After all, people's interest in pieces of software (and in writing and assembling software) is so often individual -- not aggregate or social -- and nobody but the person doing it can really know why.

Re:Wrong question.

[OldJohnno]

I think you've missed a very common reason people build things: it's fun and it can be very satisfying. Why would I design and build a table or chair for example, when there is plenty of quality furniture already available (and I can afford to buy it)? Same reason people are still writing text editors or building distros - they enjoy doing it. And IMO that's as good a reason as any...

Re:Wrong question.

[Ogerman]

It isn't a question of "we need", and it never has been. People create new Linux distributions for the same reason a lot of open-source software gets created -- because they want to. This is an obvious result of freedom: people can do what they want to, regardless of whether it is what anyone says "we" need.

While creating new Linux distributions is an exercise of freedom, it is unwise and wasteful. There is a huge difference between 'competing' software implementations (ex. Sendmail vs. Exim vs. Postfix vs. Qmail) and 'competing' Linux distributions. Writing new software ads diversity and brings about new ideas. In contrast, writing new distributions only duplicates the work of others. There is very little diversity and creativity involved. All Linux distributions are fundamentally identical. Sure, there are minor tweaks and different packaging and configuration tools, but there is no reason why these options cannot be rolled into the most popular distributions instead. The simple fact is that modern distros like Debian have plenty of flexibility to allow alternative components and experimentation.

However, I suspect that several factors may enter into the decision to make new software to accomplish the same goals as existing software: aesthetics, ethics, confidence, control of development, quality.

You are largely correct about these factors as applied to new software itself, but your point is invalid regarding the plethora of nearly-identical Linux distributions. I suspect that there is often something else at play: elitism. It's the "I'm too cool to use / contribute to a popular distribution, so I'm going to do my own thing instead and maybe get my name known too" This attitude is highly counterproductive in the open source community, where the tasks at hand are great and the available talent is currently limited. I say this as one who has done the whole "Linux from scratch" thing and realized that it was a total waste of my time beyond the first couple months as a learning tool.

In the commercial realm, this 'elitism' of sorts becomes the failed dot-com business model where you hope that branding alone will make you money. Plain and simple, there is little or no money in Linux distributions themselves. This is why RedHat discontinued its standard distribution to free up more resources for business solutions and services. Other aspiring Linux companies should take note and get behind existing popular distributions instead of doing their own thing. It's really better for everybody.

Re:Wrong question.

[Frater 219]

This attitude is highly counterproductive in the open source community, where the tasks at hand are great and the available talent is currently limited.

Those people's "talent" is only "available" to the people who own it, not to you or "the community". Only the people who choose to do whatever it is they do -- programming, making their own distributions, drawing pretty desktop backgrounds and Mozilla themes -- have the authority or ability to choose what is valuable for them to do.

It doesn't matter whether you criticize their choices as "elitist" or "wasteful". Other people's time and skills belong to them, not to you or "the community," and it is not yours to direct. You do not have access to their minds, their preferences, the systems of values by which they direct their decisions. When you call their choices "wasteful", choices they make using their own resources and time, what you are actually saying is "Boo hoo, all these smart people don't want to work on what I think is important."

Maybe they aren't interested in making a distro for you; they're doing it for their own purposes. You should go up to some biker while he's repairing his Harley, and tell him that he's "wasting time" working on a motorcycle, and that if he is so good as a mechanic then he should repair city buses "for the community".

After all, who is arrogant -- the volunteer who works on his own project, or the user who whines that the volunteer doesn't work on the user's favorite project instead? The volunteers who write and collect free software are not doing it for your sake. You are fortunate that you can benefit at all from their efforts; you have no standing to complain that they "waste" their time on what they see as interesting or worthwhile to do.

Re:Wrong question.

[Ogerman]

The volunteers who write and collect free software are not doing it for your sake. You are fortunate that you can benefit at all from their efforts; you have no standing to complain that they "waste" their time on what they see as interesting or worthwhile to do.

Wow, you are entirely missing my point. Of course people are free to do as they please and nobody is here to command them one way or other. On the other hand, in any community, there is wisdom in listening to others ideas before engaging in ones own actions. It's not a community if everyone does their own thing without any regard for a mutually beneficial outcome. There are good arguments why the endless creation of new Linux distros is deterimental to the community at large and wasteful of time for those who create them. Those people would be wise to listen to others thoughts on the matter before continuing. This has nothing to do with arrogance or whining on the part of those who make recommendations against actions that they personally see as unwise for the community as a whole.

The Open Source community has too many leaders and not enough followers.

Knoppix Live-CD

[Darken_Everseek]

K, I posted this on the last live-cd review topic, but the thread is pretty much dead, so I'm hoping for some response here..

-----
At the rist of being lynched, I've been using MS for a good long time, and only recently did I download the Knoppix live CD.

I tossed in the freshly minted boot CD, hit enter at the command prompt, and in very little time, was up and running on the KDE desktop. It was definitely an experience for me. The best part was probably the warm fuzzy feeling I got from knowing I wasn't running off windows. Now, I run a fairly decent desktop system; P4 2.4 GHz, 768 meg Ram, SBLive, and a GeForce4 MX 440 card. Reading thru the startup, the knoppix cd seemed to recognise everything without any trouble. When I got into the KDE desktop, however, my screen was locked at 640x480, and my video card was reading as nv. It didn't look like my 440 card was supported.

Now, to put things bluntly, other than some very basic shell commands used a few years ago, and some experience with pine and pico, I'm a linux n00b. Tyring to figure out how to install drivers, and get all the old programs up and running was a bit daunting.

Mostly, I just want to ask: Can I expect the same results from a full-install of a distro? or is this just a function of not being able to cram everything onto a CD? Would another live-cd give me better results?

Re:Knoppix Live-CD

[Wee]

Mostly, I just want to ask: Can I expect the same results from a full-install of a distro?

No. A full install will yield a much nicer experience. I have a little Shuttle XPC sitting next to me here at home and it runs Windows XP. It mostly stays suspended, except when I want to play a game. A few months ago, I downloaded the latest Knoppix for an upcoming work project. For grins I threw it in the Shuttle to see what it would do. I had an experience similar to yours.

If you have an old hard drive laying around (even a 3GB drive would do), add it as a slave, disconnect your Windows HDD and reboot with a full install CD. Poke around on the new install for a while. I think you'll have fun. If you don't like the new distro, leave the disk in there and reformat it Fat32 or something. Use for MP3s. If you wind up liking it, go google for a dual-boot howto.

or is this just a function of not being able to cram everything onto a CD? Would another live-cd give me better results?

I suspect that is part of it. Part of it might also be that certain choices have to be hard-coded into a live-cd distro.

Try Fedora, SuSE, or Mandrake and see what you think. Or Ark. They're all pretty good about balancing hand-holding with letting a savvy user get stuff done. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.

-B

Re:Knoppix Live-CD

[Anonymous Coward]

When I got into the KDE desktop, however, my screen was locked at 640x480, and my video card was reading as nv. It didn't look like my 440 card was supported.

um, "welcome to linux"? ;)

you've already got a good reply re full install. go for it. and consider buying it with a book. redhat bible or whatever. it makes life so much easier to have a thick manual, over trying to thread together online docs of various vintage and depth. and skip trying to decide on an Ultimate Distro first. everybody has their own opinion; form yours *after* you've installed a full distro and lived with it for a while. what you want right now is documentation. you can become arrogant later.

if you want more reassurance that linux won't bite you, try more disk distros. oddly enough, they vary in hardware detect, machine to machine. knoppix has been great on every machine i've tried. on one friend's machine it didn't figure out his network card. he had full success with mepis instead. with me, i went through mepis's bizarre kb issue, and it didn't detect the network card. big YMMV with the disk distros. but they're awesome for reducing the alien factor. go play till you're comfy.

Ark Linux?

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't Ark Linux the dstribution someone made solely because of Red Hat removing the KDE Credits from Red Hat 8.0? Isn't a distro based on a pissing contest a bad idea?

Re:Ark Linux?

[Bero]

No, definitely not.
That's a severe misrepresentation of what happened.

I left Red Hat to start a totally different kind of distribution because I disagreed (and still disagree) with the way Red Hat was heading -- removing KDE credits was just a very small part of that, the much bigger part was removing most KDE applications, and stripping KDE of its identity (such as forcing the ergonomic nightmare known as double-click on users -- I still have to see ans computer newbie who doesn't have problems learning how to double-click).

Ark Linux is very different from Red Hat both in the technology used and the purpose.

How About Innovating Off a Meta-Distro?

[mmurphy000]

True, but it would be nice if we could be more innovating configurations of some meta-distro, particularly a live-CD-capable distro (e.g., Morphix) instead of building distros from bare metal.

With live CDs, having highly-targeted Linux distros is not much different than having an application that you just happen to launch by booting from CD. A robust, 85%-defined-via-a-distro-builder app meta-distro would make creating targeted live CDs as easy as creating application installers. One could even picture a dual-purpose CD, designed to either install an app on an existing Linux or boot into Linux for people who are not Linux-ised yet. But, creating such a targeted live CD seems to be still in the land of people who are more likely to use Gentoo than, say, Mandrake or Fedora. If the innovation came off a common Morphix-like framework, then some percentage of that innovation will improve the framework, making it all the easier for kernel n00b's like me to create a live Linux CD.

Choice

[nuggz]

The point of free software is that you can make a choice. You aren't stuck by what anyone else thinks of a situation, you can do what you think is best.

Yes this will lead to what outsiders think of as wasted effort. But it is obviously worthwhile to the person who is expending it. People should be free to spend their time, money and energy on whatever they want.

A community of choice and freedom will not have a single orderly progression, but that is okay.

Re:Debian is good enough for me.

[Anonymous Coward]

> Debian has more than 200,000 packages.

You guys are still on PostgreSQL 6.5, right?

/moldy

Re:wow

[j0e_average]

I totally understand your try before you buy thinking. However, I've used SuSE for a couple of years now and buy each new release religiously. I want to support the company. What's cool is they ship both the dvd and cd versions in the distro. Generally speaking, I'll let anyone who wants the CD's have them gratis.

Re:wow

[Anonymous Coward]

What is this "profits from Linux" of which you speak?

Note

[Anonymous Coward]

The poster's comments on ArkLinux (excepting the last sentence) are not his own - they're copied verbatim from the introduction to the article.

Re:Gentoo

[Anonymous Coward]

It puts it a couple of steps lower on my "distros I want to try" list. Other than that, none.

apt on RPM systems

[asr_br]

APT4RPM was developed (ported to RPM systems would be more accurate) by Conectiva about three years ago and was adopted officially on Conectiva Linux 6.0.

It's very mature by now, has a strong community (check the project page and the mailing list) and has a lot of cool features that are not (yet?) available on Debian systems (like LUA scriptable interface, apt-shell, meta-repositories, instalation of packages by filenames, etc.).

There's an article on LWN about it in particular which is worth reading for anyone who already knows it from Debian: "New features in APT-RPM".

--
Ademar

Partial answer

[salimma]

Remember the Bluecurve controversy? Bero quitted RH over that, and started Ark Linux, AFAIR.

Nice distro - once it hits 1.0, if an end-user comes to me asking for a distro recommendation and (s)he much prefers KDE over GNOME, I'd probably recommend Ark.

It's probably the only large (in size) distro that does not ship GNOME, on the other hand (it does ship the libraries) so I would not recommend it for people who like both desktops. Least of all those who prefer GNOME, if that's not self-evident :)

Watch out for that door, on your way out...

[Anonymous Coward]

n/t

Re:PARKING PROBLEMS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA

[yomegaman]

Man, nobody can combine towering arrogance with whining, self-pitying ineffectuality like Slashdot nerds, I'll give you that. You'd think the two would be contradictory, but you guys manage to pull it off somehow. Why such geniuses cannot find better ways to solve their problems than sitting at home begging for sympathy from strangers, I have no idea...

MOD DOWN - KNOWN TROLL

[Dave2 Wickham]

Anonymous Coward is a known troll who goes into random discussions and accuses people of wild things (like being a troll) and tries to get them modded down.

Do not reward this behavior.

Re:PARKING PROBLEMS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA

[Roberto]

I you fired someone in the US because of the result of an IQ test, you can probably be sued on discrimination basis.

If you fired him because they didn't perform, that's ok, but then they would be fired for being bad at their jobs, not because of their IQs.

Lesson of the story: if you gonna pretend you are smart in order to try a witty comeback, you need to have a higher IQ than you seem to possess.

3 isos?

[74nova]

i read thru the article and still cant figure out why there appear to be three isos for this distro when only 1 is necessary and the third not even mentioned. anybody know what it does?

btw, the torrent should be moving along pretty well, im giving over 200k up

go APT

[GirTheRobot]

one word. Debian.

Why put up with what others want in a distro, when you can decide yourself. I don't see why people are so hung up on RPM either.

Re:Debian is good enough for me.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry, but it is impossible for there to be 15,000,000,000,000 users of Debian GNU/Linux. Your calculation is highly inaccurate. Please correct it.

REDHAT FOREVER!!!!!

[genner]

Since when are our choices limited to Conectiva and Debian? Red Hat and it's user based spin off Fedora, still make up the majority of linux users.

Re:Tina Torsvald

[Rich Klein]

Didn't Tina Turner sing "I'm your private distro?"

Re:Tina Torsvald

[bfg9000]

I'm your private distro
A distro for money
I'll crash when you least want me to

I'm your private distro
A distro for money
And any old lawsuit will do


Sounds like SCO.