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

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).

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 :-)

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

[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.

Gentoo?

[Anonymous Coward]

I use Gentoo; how does this affect me??

Re:Gentoo?

[c0dedude]

We'll tell you when your compile finishes.

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.

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

[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.

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".

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...

[FFFish]

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

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.

Incorrect

[boobsea]

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

http://ayo.freshrpms.net

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.

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!

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.

[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.

Mozilla 1.5?

[localghost]

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

When did I make a Linux distro?

[Ark42]

Its a joke, don't mod me down.

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

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?

[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: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?

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.

[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.

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.

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.

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