18 Live Linux CDs -- In A Row

prostoalex writes "OSNews carries "a quick roundup" of 18 (they are not kidding, eighteen) live Linux distributions. Among those who made the list: Basilisk (based on Fedora), BeatrIX (based on Debian/Knoppix/Ubuntu), Berry Linux (based on Fedora), Damn Small Linux (based on Debian), FreeSBIE (based on Free BSD), Gnoppix (Knoppix/Debian plus Gnome, now merged with Ubuntu), Kanotix (modified Knoppix/Debian), Knoppix (the first big live CD, based on Debian), Luit (Debian/Xfce, rox filing system), Mandrake Move (based on Mandrake), Mepis (Debian), Morphix (modular Debian), PCLinuxOS Preview (a Mandrake fork), Sam (Mandrake/Xfce), SLAX (Slackware), Suse 9.1 and 9.2 (rpm-based), Ubuntu Live (Debian), Xfld (Debian/Damn Small Linux and Xfce). To call it a review would be a stretch, although a helpful paragraph on each operating system's claim to fame is provided."

Comments

Lacking a Major Player?

[SpottedKuh]

Interestingly, they have two versions of Suse reviewed, yet no Gentoo?

Re:Lacking a Major Player?

[Anonymous Coward]

Having a "gentoo-based livecd" is kind of an oxymoron - gentoo, whose claim is that its a targeted install for the specific machine, now has to boot everywhere, and lock people in to using only the apps on the cd, which is not part of the Gentoo Philosophy - which is (in one word,) flexibility.

OTOH, It would provide a nice base to create a livecd, however, given that only necessities can be added in and it can be stripped down a whole lot (like compiling the system with dietlibc or even uclibc.)

FreeSBIE?

[Anonymous Coward]

If calling it a review is a stretch, what is calling FreeSBIE a Linux Live CD?

chart, please!

[js7a]

Who would take the trouble to try so many distros and not bother to summarize their findings in tabular format? Someone with the sorely lacking proce capability of Mr. LaRue, evidently.

Inevitable comment, but valid point..

[Propagandhi]

Does anyone stop to think that there may be too many flavors of Linux for the average user? Consider this, if you will: Joe User, sick of cleaning the spyware and virii off his Windows box for the bazillionth time reads about "Linux" in the Times/on Cnet/wherever. Naturally, he googles it, and ends up with all 18 of these live distros, a ton of kernel related stuff that he doesn't understand, and a gazillion news articles reviewing things he knows nothing about.

I have RTFA, btw, and it was pretty approachable, but it still didn't make it much easier for the user to pick out something to replace his E-Mail checking/Web Surfing/Occasional Media playing (pr0n) computer. Perhaps the Linux community should get together and make a serious effort at a unified "desktop" launch. Personally, I think it'd go a long way towards getting more people off XP and involved in Open Source, all these fractured distros aren't really helping.. /2 cents

Re:Inevitable comment, but valid point..

[JanneM]

Perhaps the Linux community should get together and make a serious effort at a unified "desktop" launch. Personally, I think it'd go a long way towards getting more people off XP and involved in Open Source, all these fractured distros aren't really helping.

This seems to pop every once and again, in different varieties: "there's too many distros/desktop projects/widget sets/web browsers/Hello Kitty squid cookies to choose from. Why can't we have just one?"

A few questions:

* Who, exactly, would do the picking? Based on what criteria? And who would decide that person/organization actually was a good choice to pick an alternative?

* What did you have in mind for enforcement? Selective assassinations of developers and users that refuse to go along?

Users pick different distros/desktops and so on because they have different needs and different preferences. And developers develop a particular option for all kinds of reasons - becoming popular may not even be on the list at all.

So, let's say "we" decide on Redhat with XFCe as the new standard for Linux. Will that mean that Debian will close their mailing lists, Novell immediately liquidates itself and all gnome and kde developers quietly rm their development directories and take up the torch of XFCe? Nope. If anything, an attempt to mandate one option out of many will antagonize a lot of people and make that option less popular then before.

Re:Inevitable comment, but valid point..

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah and there should be:

only one kind/brand of car
and one tv
and one computer
and one kind of house
and one restaurant

choice is wayyyy to hard for consumers!

Re:Inevitable comment, but valid point..

[dmaxwell]

Just how do you propose to cut down on the proliferation? These pieces are all laying around for anyone to scratch his itch with. Try your "Google criteria" with Windows. You will get an equally confusing raft of crap that pops up. The only reason there isn't a decision on which Windows for most people is that Dell or Gateway decided for them.

I suppose a would-be Windows refugee could ask the geek that lives across the street or see if there is a LUG in town. The only way Linux can be what you want is if order is imposed on it. If order is imposed, Linux would cease to have what attracts so much development. Fast and competing development is how this has to work or it won't work at all.

I even maintain my own Knoppix builds (not for DL unfortunately...they have Captive drivers and MS fonts installed). The reason I can make a Knoppix that the stock one doesn't provide is because anyone can roll their own. Nothing has been done to make this difficult for the sake of having a unified market. A chaotic ever evolving Linux may never be able to unseat the likes of MS. A staid controlled Linux never will because very few will want to develop for it.

Re:Inevitable comment, but valid point..

[kfg]

Does anyone stop to think that there may be too many flavors of Linux for the average user?

Yes, and decided the point has validity.

"Perhaps the Linux community should get together and make a serious effort at a unified "desktop" launch."

No, they shouldn't.

KFG

Re:Inevitable comment, but valid point..

[Anonymous Coward]

Most likely you'll get redhat or Suse near the top of the list.

The "problem" with RedHat and SuSE is that they are "kitchen sink" distros; i.e., they throw everything and the kitchen sink onto their CDs. That's not a problem for a reasonably computer literate person, but it can be a big problem for Joe Average Luser who just wants his email, browse the web, and listen to some music. Having 20 different programs for each of those (most of them crap) can be very confusing.

What'd be nice is if there was a set standard between all distros for file location, system layout, base installed libraries, universal package format, standard config tools, and a universal format for configuration text files.

Amen!

Re:Inevitable comment, but valid point..

[kfg]

"Distributions matched: 344"

Number of things you can build with a Meccano set (or Lego, for you youngsters): Limited only by your imagination.

Of course if all you really want is a model of a '57 Corvette you should just go buy one of those. Or is it an '84 Ferrari GTO you're after, well go buy one of those. Not into cars, huh? How about this lovely Mosquito nightfighter kit? Or a Charles W. Morgan in full running rigging? It can be built with just standing rigging too, if you want to do a diarama of it in dock at New Bedford.

Oh, wait, I'm sorry, the model manufacturing community has decided that framentation is a bad thing and that every model having different parts and assembly instructions was just confusing the average model builder.

They only supply prebuilt, Lime Green, Tatra T57s now.

I hope you like prewar Tatras. . .and Lime Green.

KFG

Re:Inevitable comment, but valid point..

[DarkMantle]

Yes, but as the grandparent post states.

It's too confusing for Joe 6-Pack to be able to decide on a linux distrobution to use. Lets Look at Joe's thoughts.

"I've had to remove even more Viruses and spywares off my computer. I thought that Anti-Norton-Virus was supposed to protect me." (Note, as someone who helps Joe 6pack too often, yes, they call it the anti-norton-virus, instead of NAV)

"What's this Linux thing I read about?" (Followed by a search from one of his pay-per-click toolbars. See's ads to increase his *nix by 3 inches)

"Wow, there's a fedora linux, mandrake linux, debian linux, slackware linux. I don't like the sound of that last one, I think it's made by slackers"

Now deciding to find out what linux is and why there's so many, Joe types "what is linux" into his spyware toolbar and finds...

Linux is a kernel that developers can create the rest of a computer operating system on top of.

Joe now wonders why there's an army officer in his computer, or worse yet, a piece of popcorn. So in confusion he searchis for pr0n from his pr0n only toolbar and forgets about it.

The moral of the story, All these branches of linux are confusing to Joe, and without Joe's support linux can't wipe out M$. So if we can't decide on one, lets reduce it to the big players, then keep a few around for elitist (Such as gentoo) and call it a day.

Re:Inevitable comment, but valid point..

[JanneM]

So, again, who is going to do the ellimination?

Who is going to say to, for example, the Mepis developers that they are not welcome to develop their distro anymore? And what do you suggest when they say "f**k you" and redouble their efforts, and most everybody else sees you as a posterior opening for trying to dictate what other people do with their time?

As for Joe:

Joe will get whatever flavour his geeky friend Billy recommends him - the same friend that in practice will work as support and mentor until Joe is up to speed on his new system. It really doesn't matter which distro Billy hands over; all the modern ones are good, and the informal support network is a much more important factor than any details of the particular distro anyway. Or, he will buy a desktop with Linux preinstalled and will run whatever came with the machine.

By the time Joe really discovers the wealth of alternatives out there, he does so because he's been delving deeply enough into the Linux world that he is perfectly capable of choosing himself.

People who aren't interested in computers aren't stupid, or dense, or uneducated. They just aren't interested in computers.

Re:Inevitable comment, but valid point..

[blanks]

" I think it'd go a long way towards getting more people off XP and involved in Open Source"

I agree on some of the things you are saying, but do you honestly think that the general public really gives two shits about open source?

Will they save money?

Its it easier to use?

Can they do everything they need to do for fun and for work?

These are the things people care about, not open source.

Re:Inevitable comment, but valid point..

[lachlan76]

So what are you saying? We should forcefully shut down any developers who make their own distro?

I don't care what Joe does, I want my computer to do what I want it to do. I don't care what MS does, as long as they don't stop me from doing what I want to.

Re:Inevitable comment, but valid point..

[Vo0k]

So your suggestion is actually to... create yet another distro?
Because I don't see the current ones going away that easily...

Re:Inevitable comment, but valid point..

[Total_Wimp]

It's actually a little easier than all that. Joe six-pack picks up Red-Hat Linux at the CompUSA because he heard "it's the most popular" or "it's the best" or some other such thing. He loads it up (terrifically easy install) and starts to work.

Is Red Hat Linux "the best"? Who knows, but it is one of the most talked about in the media and it is on the shelf at CompUSA so why not give it a whirl?

OR...

Same reasoning, but he ends up downloading Fedora for free from one of the mirrors after going to the Red Hat web site.

THEN...

After he's wet his whistle, he'll start looking at some other distros (or not) and settle on something he likes.

Yes, this is how Joe Six-Pack really thinks. He goes with the distro he's heard about and gives it a try. It's probably going to be Red Hat/Fedora (but might not, depending on what kind of people he hangs out with).

Put another way: How on Earth is Joe Six-Pack going to figure out what brand of beer to buy? What car to buy? What brand of PC to buy? Which video game to buy? He might be a little confused, but he'll probably end up with the market leader with a reasonable chance that he'll try something else later on. He'll do this because the market leader is the one he's heard more stuff about. From this perspective, picking a Linux distro is probably not much more stresful than picking a candy bar brand. We don't really evaluate candy bars _that_ thouroughly... we buy a Snickers.

TW

Re:Inevitable comment, but valid point..

[Photo_Nut]

Parent poster wrote:
Does anyone stop to think that there may be too many flavors of Linux for the average user?...Perhaps the Linux community should get together and make a serious effort at a unified "desktop" launch.

And this would be *yet another* flavor... The truth is that you can't herd cats. Everyone wants to make the wheel in their own image, and there will always be a thousand varieties of anything that isn't controlled by a corporate entity.

The reason that Linux isn't competing on the desktop against Windows is that it isn't something which a user can go out to the store and buy software and hardware with confidence for. If I go to a best buy, there is no Linux certified laptop. There is no Linux certified Tablet. No Linux certified Media Center. I can buy a laptop and put whatever OS and drivers I want on it, but if I want a good laptop, I buy an Intel Centrino with Microsoft Windows. Maybe Joe Sixpack is a little less informed about software, hardware, etc than I am, but I happily pay the Microsoft tax because I get software that my wife can use out of the box, and she can also add software that her schools use (she is a teacher, and her school uses grading software that runs on Windows).

Windows has more software available for it than any other platform, and that includes FOSS. How is Linux special if all the software that runs on it also runs on Windows, but I need to worry about not being able to run the latest game or work with the latest cool devices? When I bought that Taiwanese 20GB portable USB2 storage device 2 years ago, I plugged it into my Windows machine, and I could use it. No kernel futzing, etc. I wanted to show my friend a bunch of photos on a CD (simple CD-R with no folder structure and just a bunch of .JPG files), and he spent 10 minutes putzing around with Linux getting his CD-ROM drive mounted, and attempting to find X-windows software that would load a picture. On Windows, I stick the disk in, and when it asks what I want to do, I click full-screen slide show.

For two years in college, I had a DEC Alpha running Linux and Windows NT. It was a damn fast computer at the time, but the Windows only ran x86 software under emulation, and that meant that I couldn't run all the software I wanted to in my room. So if I wanted to use the school-licensed software apps, I had to go to the public cluster. Eventually, I traded my alpha for a Pentium at a lesser clock rate, and it just clicked in my mind what I had been missing by running a less-used OS (even though it was a version of Windows that could run *some* Intel 32-bit Windows apps). That was the point where I gave up on my Microsoft is the devil category of thinking. I realized that the Intel/Microsoft platform is a constant. It always supports the latest hardware, and the apps from years ago continue to run.

In order for Linux to take over the desktop, it's going to have to be put out as the major option by hardware vendors, and it's going to have to clone all of Windows. Windows adds about $50 to the cost of a PC, but it is the brand name which people know runs their software. Software makers (even FOSS makers) target Windows over Linux simply because their target audience doesn't run Linux.

The barriers to adopt a desktop operating system are huge. Apple is successful because they have a user base and a set of apps. They made a very smart move to bring in Unix into their OS. This article is just a single data point which shows how the Linux market is fragmented. And Linux doesn't natively run Windows software. Windows is evolving, and the only thing which is completely bug-compatible with it is itself.

There are good emulators for Windows, but ask most people if they want to run a good emulator, or the thing being emulated. When I ran OS/2 Warp, I found myself using Windows more than the PM. I definately thought it was cool that the Windows session was embedded in the OS/2 session, and lots of things were really neat about that system, but it reall

Re:Inevitable comment, but valid point..

[Mornelithe]

MS and Apple didn't 'get it right' by making the interface shinier first and worrying about the core second. That doesn't alleviate the fact that installing an operating system is hard (which you cite as a problem).

The only reason people can use Windows and MacOS, but they "can't" use Linux is that Linux doesn't come pre-installed on a desktop system from any of the major players. People never have to install OSX or Windows, and that's a major advantage.

Ordinary people are perfectly capable of using a modern Linux desktop once it's installed. There are plenty of people here giving testimonials like, "my mom uses Linux, now that I set her up with it." The problem is that 99% of PCs are sold with Windows installed, and 100% of Macs have MacOS (assuming you want Linux to take over there, though I don't know why you would).

If Linux had 95% of the PC marketshare and came preinstalled on all PCs, and Windows were struggling, and nothing else were changed from how it currently is,* I doubt you'd see people having terrible problems, and people would be talking about how 'Joe Sixpack' can't handle Windows because it's too hard to install it separately and it's 'non-standard' so it's hard for people to use. "It doesn't look like Linux, so no one will ever switch."

KDE and Gnome aren't unusable by any reasonable standard. They're not even that different from Windows and OSX. At least, they're not any more different than the differences between cars or beers. We don't have radically different paradigms for web browsing and word processing on Linux. They just look a little different and shuffle the menus around, and that's not anything you can't get used to quickly.

Linux doesn't deliver. What it delivers is an ugly conglomeration of strange actions and odd command lines.

I don't know where you got this idea, but it's bullshit. If you're doing what everyday people are doing, you can do it in one, consistent environment (pick KDE or Gnome, I don't care which), and without a command line. Hell, I could do most of my 'power user' stuff without a command line if I wanted.

* Well, maybe change the fact that most hardware manufacturers would rather shove bamboo under their fingernails than release specifications for their hardware so that open source people can support it, rather than spending their time reverse-engineering the interfaces. I bet people could swing that if Linux had 95% marketshare.**

** Anal-retentive hardware companies are probably the #1 reason Linux users want other people to use Linux (other than altruism or something). I know that if hardware companies wouldn't be such bastards about releasing specs (they don't even need to write drivers), I wouldn't even consider caring what other people use (not that I care a lot now).

Re:Inevitable comment, but valid point..

[swv3752]

At out Linux meetup last night we had a new guy show up. One of the members was showing off his new Linspire notebook. The new guy fiddles about with the notebook for a few minutes and exclaims that Linux is easy to use. He figured it wouldn't take him very long acclimize to the slight differences with Linux.

Linspire uses KDE, but GNOME is essentially the same to a beginning Linux user.

Re:Inevitable comment, but valid point..

[grumbel]

### The only reason people can use Windows and MacOS, but they "can't" use Linux is that Linux doesn't come pre-installed on a desktop system from any of the major players. People never have to install OSX or Windows, and that's a major advantage.

That and because its trivial to install other software under Windows and MacOS, while its almost impossible for the normal user to install something under Linux when it doesn't come with the distro. Moving from 'I have seen some software on some webpage' to 'I can use the software' doesn't take much more then a few minutes under Windows/MacOSX, most of which is just download time and install time, both of which fully automatic, under Linux such a issue can turn into a day long job, full of manual work, webpage browsing, groups.google browsing for tips&tricks and workaround, dependency resolution and other stuff which is impossible todo for the average user and still a pain for the experienced one.

FreeBSD?

[Justin205]

OSNews carries "a quick roundup" of 18 (they are not kidding, eighteen) live Linux distributions.
...FreeSBIE (based on Free BSD)...

Since when is FreeBSD a Linux distro?

FreeSBIE is not Linux

[SirCyn]

FreeSBIE is based on FreeBSD and should not have been included in a Live Linux CD Roundup without special mention.

I suspect that the author is not familiar with FreeBSD, and assumed it would be the same as Linux. In many ways FreeBSD is similar to Linux, but the fact that he could not get Printing or Wireless running tells me he really didn't know what he was doing. Both of these tasks would take me 15 minutes.

On a last note, this is only the second release of FreeSBIE, and it's based on the somewhat criticized 5.x line. Problems of one kind or another should be expected. Give them a few more releases and I'm sure they'll have the bugs worked out.

Re:FreeSBIE is not Linux

[HanB]

FreeSBIE is based on FreeBSD and should not have been included in a Live Linux CD Roundup without special mention.

Well it's not GNU/Linux, but somehow ``Linux,'' for starters, got mixed up with ``all OSS os'es which run on i386,'' and I have no problem with that. I can explain a more accurate version of the truth later on when the audience is interested.

I'm very glad there are alternatives for Linux. Since I would hate it if we would step from one monopoly into another.

Personally I use OpenBSD on the firewall, and Linux on the desktop, and I'd wish there were less rock/suckers. You know: MY OS ROCKS!!!1 YOUR OS SUCKS!!!!

There's only one guy profiting from these silly flamewars: Bill Gates.

Re:Error

[SaidinUnleashed]

Because it /is/ a live CD, and it's actually pretty nice, if your hardware is supported.

But it barfs on new and cutting edge hardware.

i.e. no netcard detection, improper clock speed detection, etc. It still works, just not as well as it could.

on a personal note- woo! DSL! ...but not a very flattering review of our distro.

It's really not that confusing. Most people get the hang of it quickly.

Having a tough time getting worked up over this.

[whjwhj]

I don't know about you folks, but the whole Linux distribution thing is not generating the sort of excitement and enthusiasm it used to for me. Maybe because I started using OS X ... ?

So how many of these can...

[smartsaga]

replace a windows server that does file sharing, web server, ACLs, backup, that also can partition a hard drive, can authenticate using active directory, network configuration, email server with a minimal graphical desktop, that fits on a miniCD that if it is ever hacked all you do is restart the computer and the server is back to it's "clean" read only state.

If you have a "live" CD then updates take as little as burning the updated CD and rebooting the server with it. Configuration files can reside on a floppy to avoid unwanted changes, facilitate backups, etc. Processes can run on sandboxes to avoid total system compromise in case of a hack attack.

I mean, how many out there? Domainix sounds good but still needs a lot of typing. Not easy enough to brag about infront of windows only people. Slax has an add-on for samba and it is small enough... But how many out there??

If there would be one that does all that.. I would even pay for it!!!

Have a good one.

A strawman!

[Anonymous Coward]

"A new user moving from Windows shouldn't have to know (or care) if they use KDE/Gnome/Fluxbox/etc or 2.4.x/2.6.x. They should just be able to use a machine and be done with it."

Don't you see, new users don't need to care! Pick any good, general distro and install it for them. Don't talk about KDE vs. GNOME. Don't talk about 2.4 vs. 2.6. They will use the one that is installed and be happy!

You (and many Linux advocates) create an issue that does not matter to the new user, and then claim that it hampers Linux acceptance. The only reason in hampers is because WE (Linux advocates and attackers) WON'T SHUTUP about it.

My brother wanted to try Linux. I gave him a Knoppix CD. He was impressed and happy. KDE vs. GNOME did not come up even once! He'll learn about all the choice after he has some experience with what he thinks is the only choice.

Oh, I dunno

[jd]

When you consider that different people want different things out of their computer, it makes perfect sense to have many flavours. That's the same reason there are so many car manufacturers, and indeed why many of those produce multiple models at the same time.

A given car manufacturer may easily produce a subcompact, a compact or mini, a regular car, a hatchback, a saloon and/or an SUV, with anywhere from zero to infinite customizations and extras, in budget, standard and luxury price ranges.

True, it would be a little unusual for a single company to produce ALL of the above, and release new, updated models every few weeks, but it would not be outside the range of variation that exists.

However, when you consider a car, there aren't many things you really want such a device for. You might want to go from A to B, carry cargo, look flashy, win races at the local club circuit or get laid (unless you're a geek, in which case this doesn't happen anywhere, whether you have a car or not).

The range of applications for a computer is considerably greater. As such, the need for special customization is also greater. Unlike car dealers, distribution dealers tend to work with entirely pre-packaged goods. (One of these days, I intend to release a distro which is much closer to the car dealership / personalization model, without getting into the extreme of Gentoo, which is like customization by buying your own autoparts store.)

Because customization is much harder, using the pre-packaged model, you end up having to get this degree of flexibility by having more distributions.

(Even with that said, there are probably still far more car manufacturers, especially if you include all the motor racing teams, than there are Linux, *BSD, AT&T Unix, Plan9/Inferno, MIT Exokernel, Mach, HURD and *DOS distributions out there, combined. On that basis, I'd say there's actually lots of room for expansion. The only absolute rule I think should be applied is that distros should be clear about what they do and don't do, the same way you don't buy a Jeep in the hope of winning a NASCAR or Formula 1 event.)

P.S. I managed to write the whole of this post AND read the first couple of chapters of the latest revision of the Linux Kernel book by R. Love, all before the next pre-release came out. Either I'm speeding up, or the kernel developers are slowing down.

History of industry

[Anonymous Coward]

When automobiles (you know, cars) were first invented and becoming popular, there were, literally, hundreds of automobile manufacturers in the US alone. Hundreds. How is the average (rich) Joe to choose?

Fast forward to now. Auto manufacturing is a mature industry with only a few US manufacturers and a few more world wide.

Linux has been around, as a viable desktop OS for, oh, let's be generous, 5 years. Because it is not created and controlled by a monopoly, it is still a vibrant, changing market place with no clear leaders that can completely dominate. On top of that, FS/OSS principles make it hard to dominate!

Yet, you want, somehow, magically, some "higher power" to declare what a Linux distro should be and look like. You'd remove the natural shakeout provided by the market place as it matures and the freedom built into the FS licenses just to force a "one (or 3 or 4) size fits all"?

You people that argue for this "one and only" Linux have no answer as to how to bring it about. It's ironic because the freedom loving Linux people who want choice are called communists or socialists and the "give me only one" crowd want to eliminate choice. The only way to eliminate choice is to surrender it to an authoritarian power.

Go surrender. I'll stay here with my vibrant, exciting, amazingly creative choices!

Too many brands.

[Vo0k]

On the other hand, there's way too many brands of coffee. I go to a supermarket and I stand in front of a shelf with coffee for 7 hours, unable to decide. In the morning I go to a resturant to have my morning coffee, they hand me a menu, and I see 15 different brands. Before I choose one, they excuse me, they are closing and it's evening. I even planned switching to tea because of that problem, but once I entered a chineese tea shop and nearly died from dehydration.

My friend says "Why don't you just pick one at random, or try a bit of each to decide on your favourite, or read some reviews to pick one that appeals to you best?" but if I did, what kind of moron clueless coffee drinker would they take me for?

Re:no gentoo?

[Tolleman]

Isn't it? You still have to customize all the applications that goes on the disc to save space and loading time. Its alot easier to do with just a few global USE and CFLAGS then to fiddle around with all the source debs and rpms. But what do I know, I'm no expert on source debs and rpms. It's not like every user would have to make their own liveCD. BTW, Gentoo Games made LiveCD's running Enemy Territories and Americas Army.