Aurox Linux 10.0.1 Beta Reviewed

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Aurox Linux 10.0.1 Beta Reviewed

Posted by timothy on Sunday October 24, 2004 @06:22PM from the offshoot dept.

sarumont writes "Here's another lesser-known distro trying to make a splash on the big scene. Aurox Linux is a Fedora-based distro mainly developed in Poland. Even in its tenth release cycle, it is still a young distro and as such: small. Could it be the next big thing? Even gentoo was small and "lesser-known" once. Check out this review, hot off the presses at LinuxForumsDOTorg."

26 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

slashdot effect. by tasinet · 2004-10-24 18:26 · Score: 2, Funny

Well, now it's on slashdot so it is no longer just a 'small and lesser-known distro'
You know... by m0rph3us0 · 2004-10-24 18:28 · Score: 2, Interesting

If people spent half the time improving what is there as they do creating new distros Linux would far surpass Windows and OS X on the desktop.
1. Re:You know... by Lord+Kano · 2004-10-24 20:03 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  If people spent half the time improving what is there as they do creating new distros Linux would far surpass Windows and OS X on the desktop.
  
  In case you haven't noticed, most of these distros aren't aimed at the desktop.
  
  You think Gentoo is thinking about grandmothers?
  
  They're not.
  
  Red Hat? Nope! Debian? No way. Slackware? No.
  
  The desktop isn't the holy grail. There's no need to launch a crusade to obtain it. If we can put out a few fires like the DMCA and keep up the pressure for people to use open standards, it won't matter.
  
  LK
  
  --
  "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
2. Re:You know... by gl4ss · 2004-10-25 03:27 · Score: 1
  
  ...creating new distros is also 'improving'.
  
  that's why they do it.. they improve the existing stuff to make something that suits for the use they got in mind better.
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
too many by Gherald · 2004-10-24 18:49 · Score: 3, Insightful

I for one resent the fact that the amount of linux distros is still growing. Why? There are many answers I could give, but consider that one of the following is usually true:

1) It is based on an existing major distribution, contains little useful innovation, and as such does nothing but add pointless name clutter and minor incompatibilities.

2) It is sufficiently different enough from the current major distributions to be considered innovative, but that innovation would (in the majority of cases) be better spent imporoving existing distros, particularly in the areas of package management, modularity, convenient installation, and general ease-of-use.

Now I understand that having the "right to fork" is an essential part of OSS and I would defend that right to the death (ok so maybe I'm exagerating a wee bit, but less than you would think). Choice is awesome, I like choice. But who has time to try 100's of distros? It is of some consolation that their are review sites to give us the scoop, but reading them is tedious too, and not guaranteed to be helpful or relevant.

Bottom line: New distros have their place, but we need fewer of them. Far fewer. Development time (or should I say "repackaging time"?) would be better spent improving existing deployment tools, e.g. Portage and Catalyst.

--
The unofficial /. digest
1. Re:too many by puddpunk · 2004-10-24 19:28 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I was going to mod you up, but then I decided I would reply to you instead...
  
  I agree with what you say and admit you have quite an insight into the matter. For instance, I thought the amount of debian-based distro's were reaching critical mass. Ubuntu Linux came out and I installed it on my tiny 450MHz laptop, gnome 2.8 and all. I was so damned impressed. I've use dozens and dozens of distros (Gentoo, debian, suse, knoppix, xandros, fedora, redhat the list goes on...) but this one still managed to blow me away, and fit my needs perfectly, more so than debian which is what it's based on.
  
  If you've heard the saying "Jack of all trades, Master of none" I think you'll start to understand _why_ we have so many distro's. We need different distro's that fit different purposes.
  
  I need an up to date yet stable distro for my slow laptop -> Ubuntu
  I need a very stable and secure distro for my server -> Debian
  I need a flexable hobby distro for my desktop -> Gentoo
  I need a distro that will be familiar to a windows user -> Xandros/SUSE
  I need a distro that is suited for workstations -> SUSE/Red Hat
  I need a server distro with GUI administration for an ex-windows user -> SUSE Enterprise
  
  I think we get the point... Why should we have to try to ram a distro into every situation, each problem is different so each solution needs to be.
  
  IMHO, that is part of where MS went wrong with windows. Suddenly everyone who's used windows on the desktop thinks that they can run a server for their work (Hey, why hire an IT guy!) so we end up with hundreds of open spam relays, rooted boxes and DDoS zombies. Of course, there are advantages for having a common platform between desktops and servers but the problems can outweigh the benifits.
  
  So after all that, you can basically boil my post down to: Use the right tool for the right job.
  
  Yes, perhaps the 100s of distro's need to be cut down some, but IMO not as much as your suggesting.
  
  Cheers,
  Chris.
2. Re:too many by Gherald · 2004-10-24 22:05 · Score: 1
  
  > Yes, perhaps the 100s of distro's need to be cut down some, but IMO not as much as your suggesting.
  
  Cutting down the 100s that already exist isn't my main concern, though do I think we could make do with less than half the current number. But we can let time deal with that, as the lesser ones fail and become abandoned.
  
  What I am more concerned about is the number of NEW ones. I think we should give priority to making the current tools better and more flexible.
  
  I am not saying there should be no NEW distros, I just think maybe 60-80% fewer NEW ones every year would be nice.
  
  --
  The unofficial /. digest
3. Re:too many by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-02 19:03 · Score: 0
  
  I was going to mod you up, but then I decided I would reply to you instead...
  
  How are you posting at only +1 but have enough karma to have mod points? I call shenanigans....
Blah... by BladeMelbourne · 2004-10-24 18:53 · Score: 1

Pro: Very Fast
Con: Some very outdated packages

These two are quite possibly the reason Andy claims Aurox is as fast on his PII as an OS running on the latest AMD offering.

Con: In some places it seems a bit too similar to Fedora Core
I'm still yet to see a problem with this, unless Andy can provide a specific example of the "Fedora" way being not ideal.

English is my first language, and I like to run up2date software packages, so I will stick with Fedora.

Although the multimedia capabilities do sound tempting... Fedora lacks a little in this department IMHO (I am a Fedora user, dont flame me).

Is it me or does anyone else think Andy got too excited with his exclaimation marks? I was almost expecting to see multiples!!!
1. Re:Blah... by lakerdonald · 2004-10-26 07:08 · Score: 1
  
  That's part of the fedora feel i was talking about:
  aurox comes with up2date and just like on fedora it works like shit
Speed first by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-24 19:22 · Score: 2, Insightful

Pros
-Strong Multimedia Foundation
-Runs very smoothly
-Great Package Selection
-Very Fast

So, looks like what we have here is a Fedora with lower minimum requirements. Good! GNU/linux destros desperately need a speed boost.

Vector, Yoper and now Aurox. Seems there is a lot of interest in a fast desktop. I wonder when mandrake or fedora will notice.
1. Re:Speed first by BladeMelbourne · 2004-10-24 20:00 · Score: 1
  
  Fedora does run fast, if you:
  
  1) Disable the many unused services that come turned on by default. Same story as Window$.
  
  2) Use the Xfce 4 desktop (comes with FC2 and hopefully later versions)
  
  Other optional points:
  3) Compile your own kernel (I was always scared of the idea until I tried it)
  4) Tune the hard disks with hdparm
  
  I have done steps 1-3 on a P3 450MHz and on a P4 inside a VMware VM... the speed gains are noticeable and the desktop is very responsive.
Fedora Fork - bad... by kosmosik · 2004-10-24 20:13 · Score: 1

IMHO it is bad fork. Main aspect of this distro existence is poor translation of Fedora into polish - but this is no mean to fork for me. Aurox team should work with Fedora community to deliver better translation, maybe develop "Aurox Fedora Extras" repository/cdrom (with MP3, DVD, NTFS, nvidia etc. stuff) but not to make an entire distro which is not so good for me. Only better localized but it is based on Fedora so it means Fedora will be always one step before Aurox.

Other aspect of Aurox existence is fact that it is mostly distributed with polish IT/Linux press - to it is developed by big publishing house to have somethng that is a brand and can be distributed with press... So IMHO Aurox has nothing to offer despite better *polish* localization... But for me it is bad. They should work with upstream instead of forking such simple task like translating few strings in menu system and instalator.

http://fedora.redhat.com/projects/translations/
http://fedora.redhat.com/projects/i18n/
1. Re:Fedora Fork - bad... by GiMP · 2004-10-24 22:36 · Score: 1
  
  This isn't the first time. The polish appear to have a "not invented here" syndrome. Look at gadu-gadu or PLD (polish linux distribution).
  
  It might not be a bad thing, though. Do you want to explain to a new user how to change the distribution from English to Polish, or should you just give them a disk which already assumes this? I imagine new users would be happier to know it isn't "that American OS with polish translation", but is "a Polish OS".
  
  I don't think that forking Fedora is bad if it helps spur development and growth of the OS. At the same time, changes should be provided to the community and, where possible/necessary, backported.
2. Re:Fedora Fork - bad... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-24 23:34 · Score: 0
  
  Fedora isn't so open for developers with new/different ideas. Fedora main purpose is to serve RedHat as testing ground etc (examples are on mailing list) and that's why some things are dropped at beginning due to ,,this would be incomatible with RHL''.
  
  PLD is no longer Polish Linux Distribution, it's PLD Linux Distribution (recursive naming to avoid confusion about language). PLD is made to serve developers purposes and anyone is invited to become developer. PLD supported many things like IPv6 before any other distribution. It has such nice tools like poldek (which IMO is much better than apt/yum).
  
  (ps. localization in PLD isn't main goal because almost evey PLD developer/user knows English and just doesn't care)
  
  You can't compare Aurox and PLD for example because Aurox is almost RedHat/Fedora with name changed and some translations added while PLD is much more. Currently there is 7842 packages in PLD CVS repository.
  
  Gadu-Gadu sucks. It was made to earn money but protocol itself is one big mistake. Use jabber ;-)
3. Re:Fedora Fork - bad... by puddpunk · 2004-10-24 23:58 · Score: 1
  
  Well, see what happens when Fedora(.us) FORGETS POLAND!!!
4. Re:Fedora Fork - bad... by kosmosik · 2004-10-25 02:37 · Score: 1
  
  PLD is actually something very different from Aurox - Aurox is simply most of packages from Fedora (they are even compiled on RH servers) and just few additions to system (mostly localization of system stuff like menu, installer etc.).
  
  PLD is completely different system (yes it is based on RH - but it is based on RH in the same way Mandrake is based on RH). It has some advantages and I know people using it and liking it (mostly its developers). It has its own (very good) package manager and strong community. Also they have lots of innovation (f.e. using bzip2 for packages, manpages, indexes etc., every package comes with ZSH functions for it etc.). And last but not leas PLD stands for PLD Linux Distribution - it is distro for anybody not only polish.
  
  Forking is good but only when it makes sense. For me forking of entire distro just to add some translated strings (really, Aurox is not much more than some translation) is not making any sense...
5. Re:Fedora Fork - bad... by GiMP · 2004-10-25 12:54 · Score: 1
  
  > Forking is good but only when it makes sense. For
  > me forking of entire distro just to add some
  > translated strings (really, Aurox is not much more
  > than some translation) is not making any sense...
  
  But surely PLD started this way? Regardless of what translations might be available for PLD, it is still a Polish distribution. It used to be called Polish(ed) Linux Distribution and the webpage lists support for only English and Polish as a goal.
  (http://web.archive.org/web/20000520003244/ http:// www.pld.org.pl/)
  
  Is Aurox a good idea? I'm not sure. I suspect that having more than one distribution designed specifically for a Polish audience can't be a bad thing if it encourages further innovation. I think it is too early to tell. I'm not sure if having outdated/faster software is a goal of Aurox, but it certainly won't hurt with adoption in Poland, based on the average salary there.
6. Re:Fedora Fork - bad... by kosmosik · 2004-10-25 21:23 · Score: 1
  
  > But surely PLD started this way?
  
  PLD started as a fork from RHL. PLD founder (now not in PLD project due to some developer rants) Tomasz Kloczko was dissappointed with RH closed developement model and decidet to fork of to make a better distro. And PLD is different from RHL right now - it has different ideas, different philosophy, different implementations and so on... PLD is maintained mostly by system administrators and developers.
  
  Now Aurox is basically *nothing* (despite of few translated strings and some branding) new/different from Fedora. It has the same set of packages. Most packages are exactly taken from Fedora (not even recompliled on different buildsystem) - so I don't see anything innovative/good here just beside wasting time/energy for forking.
  
  I am not against forking - it is good when it makes sense.
Clueless choice for a name by infonography · 2004-10-24 20:31 · Score: 3, Informative

I have known of the Aurora Linux a redhat based distro for the Ultrasparc since at least 2001. Can a Distro maker go to all that work and still be so in the dark as to not at least do a google search for the name first. It would be one thing to have a app called that but a whole distro? Expect a name change once their servers are un-slashdotted and they get a clue.
And no I am not raining on their parade. The quality of the distro is unknown to me. I wish them the best of luck.

--
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
1. Re:Clueless choice for a name by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-25 01:30 · Score: 0
  
  "It would be one thing to have a app called that but a whole distro?"
  
  Well in their defense, there are more distros than apps, so it's probably easier dealing with app names.
2. Re:Clueless choice for a name by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-25 02:20 · Score: 0
  
  The name has nothing to do with Aurora + Linux, "aurox" is "aurochs" - famous, ancient and extinct animal that used to live in European and Asian forests (in Poland also).
  
  I don't think it deserves a name change only because it resembles another word.
  
  BTW I use Aurox, however as my user experience grows, I like it less and less...
Small? by ZappaSoft · 2004-10-25 03:01 · Score: 1

"The full 10.0.1 release is a set of 4 CDs, which are available for free as ISOs over the internet." How is that a small distribution? 4 cds. ?
1. Re:Small? by RevAaron · 2004-10-25 05:58 · Score: 0, Offtopic
  
  I just downloaded the 14 CD set for Debian, 8 GB. Suprised my ethernet port is still on here at work. 4 is looking pretty small after that, though to me one CD is what I expect linux to be...
  
  --
  
  Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
2. Re:Small? by RevAaron · 2004-10-26 01:13 · Score: 1
  
  How is this off topic? Someone said "4 CDs isn't small," but I provided some food for thought- when 14 CDs is an average or large distro, 4 CDs isn't so big.
  
  --
  
  Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
Cool name by hey! · 2004-10-25 06:28 · Score: 1

Aurox is Gernman for Auroch.

The Auroch is the now extinct ancestor of domestic cattle. They disappeared from England in 2500BCE, but the last Auroch died in a Polish zoon in the 17th C.

--
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.