Mandriva Buys Assets from Lycoris

ulteus writes "For months after the acquisition of Conectiva, Mandriva moves further with the following announcement: "Mandriva today announced an agreement to purchase several assets from Lycoris, a major North American Linux distribution for home users. As part of this agreement, Lycoris' founder and CEO Joseph Cheek is joining Mandriva to develop a new and advanced Linux desktop product.". This is exciting for all Mandriva and Lycoris users, but I'm wondering: who's next?"

Comments

I see no problems with this

[justforaday]

I'm looking forward to having to explain why I have a CD labeled "Manlyca" laying around...

Maybe consolidation is good

[FlyByPC]

Perhaps what Linux needs to become competitive with Windows in the desktop-OS market is for several Red-Hat-like companies to come out with competing Linux desktop products. Once the way is paved (keeping it Open Source, of course), I think a critical mass will eventually make Linux or a similar Open Source project a no-brainer choice for the desktop.

Re:Maybe consolidation is good

[AKAImBatman]

Linux doesn't need consolidation as much as it just needs to address the existing usablility issues. I touched upon this in the Symphony OS story, and I hope to get a new blog entry up on it in the next day or two.

The long and short of it is:

1. The packaging system is user-unfriendly.
2. The locations of programs are user-unfriendly.
3. The folder layout of Linux systems is user-unfriendly.
4. The lack of a standard base of installed libraries is application (and thus user) unfriendly.

If this can at least be solved at the distribution level, then we'll be good to go. But right now a given distribution means different things to different people depending on what packages are installed.

(P.S. Speaking of my blog, I get a kick out of the fact that the story I submitted on my last entry is still pending. Since Saturday. Guess the editors just think it's cool to look at or something. :-P)

Re:Maybe consolidation is good

[tomhudson]

Maybe they can steal a page from SuSE, and call it YALinux (Yet Another Linux). Anything's better than Mandriva.

Of course, if they buy Wombat Linux, they could be called Woman-driva, but that would just scare everyone else off the road.

Re:Maybe consolidation is good

[Coryoth]

1. The packaging system is user-unfriendly.

It's actually pretty good at what it is - a means to package a diverse system that can be tailored to the user. Things like Smart (a Conectiva/Mandriva project even) and Autopackage help a lot. To get the packaging systems you want you need to fix #4, and I don't think that's likely to happen (at least not successfully).

2. The locations of programs are user-unfriendly.

Really? Any program that actually supports the freedesktop.org desktop entry file is readily accessible to the user unless they use some WM or DE that doesn't bother to use them - which means they've gone out of their way to complicate their lives. As for where the programs are stored on disk ... well, that doesn't really matter does it? You want a searchable tag/label based system, so why not consider the package database as such a label view - you can see all the programs on your system with ease through the "package label" view of your filesystem, does the physical location really matter that much to you?

3. The folder layout of Linux systems is user-unfriendly.

To some extent I agree, but we're dealing with legacy here... even OS X and windows have some odd folder locations and names carried over. Besides, there's always GoboLinux, which I presume you already know about.

4. The lack of a standard base of installed libraries is application (and thus user) unfriendly.

This is the big one really. If you want a fixed mandated core set of libraries that the user is forced to install... well, grab yourself a nice mandated controlled system like OS X, because Linux probably isn't what you're looking for. In theory you could just set up a distribution that has such a guaranteed base set of libraries, and in a sense some already exist - try Linspire, or Xandros. The catch is that people write applications for "Linux" not "Debian, stable" or "Linspire 3.1" or whatever. Given a random open source application it will make whatever assumptions about libraries it cares to - it's up to the packages to make sure those dependencies are met. FOSS applications tend to be coded against "whatever system the developer cared to use" rather than specific distributions and versions. Commercial developers maybe? Well they do have requirements - Oracle requires particular versions of Redhat in standard installs. Other commercial developers can do that if they like. Alternatively they could accept that the Linux world is a diverse world and restricting yourself to the one distribution that is guaranteed to have everything you want where you want it is a little limiting. You can always use Autopackage and handle the dependency issue elegantly in a way that's effectively invisible to the user.

The fact is that different distributions are different. You seem to be asking for all (or most) of the distributions to agree on a firm fixed set of base libraries. Distributions are different competing companies often however - you may as well ask Apple and Microsoft to hammer out a combined base set of libraries that you can be guaranteed to get in both OS X and Windows. Maybe that's a good idea. Maybe CoreImage on Windows and DirectX on OS X is what you'd like to see. I'm not so sure it will happen though.

Jedidiah.

Re:Maybe consolidation is good

[jweric]

Not really. For one reason: Who is this critical mass you talk about? Their are 4 generealized groups of PC users that are relivent to the linux world that we want:
1.)Current Linux users, these guys are set and probibly wont go anywhere any time soon
2.) Buisness class users that use windows
3.) Educational users that use windows
4.) Home users that use windows

3 & 4 are typicaly the same, and are considered the "critical mass" since their are more in this group.

The problem I see is not linux but the DE that comes with it. The average person will not care one bit about what linux does, because thats the way it is with windows. That is the main problem with DE's today, you have to worry about what linux does too much for it to be useable to grandma and grandpa. Once you make it that seamless then you have the stuff you need to go after the critical mass.

So now you will ask me:"How does this effect the reason why consolidation is good argument?"

It isnt distros that need to consolidate but more of an interaction with each other and with the DE makers.

To beat Microsoft in this arena, their needs to be more of a weaving between the DE and the kernal. I could be wrong and the only way this can happen is consolidation. This is my view, but most likely I am looking at things wrong.

Re:Maybe consolidation is good

[shahruz]

I have recently made the jump from Win98 to Mandriva 10.1 and it was a surprisingly pain free experience. I have installed other distros in the past and after a while ended up paving over it with Windows for one reason or another (generally one of the reasons above). This time I don't see any reason why I would go back. My system is far more stable, robust and dare I say easy to maintain that it was as a Windows based system. Granted that my geek quotient is somewhat high, but if you take into account that my wife, my 8 year old and 4 year old are using it as well you cannot say it is incredibly difficult.

I am preaching to the choir on Slashdot and my point is not that Mandriva or any other distro is superior for its ease of use. My point is that traditionally all these were excellent reasons why the average computer user would not use Linux. I think that these are now no longer necessarily valid reasons. In my most recent experience:

• Install fast and easy, I went from windows to XWindows in an hour or less, and my computer is a Duron 700 with 128MB of RAM.
• Directory structure is not familiar but the majority of what I use was already set up for me in XWindows so I could use it out of the box and dig in deeper later.
• Free support is only a Google away.
• I have been able to find and install RPMs and archives of what I need. When it is not on the CD I have been mostly successful finding it and installing it. What I have not been successful compiling/installing would not be considered common sofware and I would not expect to get it running under Windows either.

I recently read In the Beginning Was the Command Line by Neil Stephenson. It is now 6 years old but I think that it explains the phenomenon better than I can.

typo

[ulteus]

"For months" -> "Four months". Sorry!

What's so exciting about it?

[ScrewMaster]

I'm not sure that too much consolidation is good for the Linux market. I like the diversity available in the multitude of distros out there. Microsoft supports will probably argue that that is a weakness, but in reality it is one of Linux's greatest strengths ... something-for-everyone rather than one-size-fits-all.

Re:What's so exciting about it?

[toddbu]

Diversity is a great thing, but don't discount the value of standards. People want stuff that they can count on, and if Linux is really going to compete against Windows and the Mac then there needs to be a big push down that path. My ideal world is that there are a couple really big Linux vendors who cooperate on standards, and then a bunch of small guys doing customization for those who want/need it. The recent XFree86 fiasco shows that even an entrenched "vendor" can be booted pretty quickly if the community feels that their actions are counterproductive to the benefit of all.

Consolidation of the commerical Linux vendors.

[CyricZ]

We are seeing the very same consolidation of the commercial Linux vendors that happened back in the late 1980s with commercial UNIX. Indeed, it will be interesting to see where this leads.

Mandriva?

[Anonymous Coward]

Buying out another Linux distro makes about as much sense as buying out a little girls' lemonade stand.

Lycoris Major Linux Distribution?

[StarWreck]

Since when is Lycoris a MAJOR Linux Distribution? I'm fammilar with and have personally installed and used Debian, Red-Hat, Gentoo, Slackware, Amiga-Linux, Fedora, SuSE, College-Linux, Mandrake, and Lindows/Linspire but I've never even heard of Lycoris before...

Re:Lycoris Major Linux Distribution?

[strongmace]

It isnt one of the top20 distributions. It typically hangs at around 50th on the distrowatch rankings. Here is the distrowatch page for lycoris.

Re:Lycoris Major Linux Distribution?

[PenguinBoyDave]

You have not heard of Lycoris before because they are indeed not a major Linux player. I used them for a while, but the hardware support was lacking. Amazingly enough, their product had a strikingly similar look and feel to WindowsXP, but it never took off. When I did side-consulting, I tried to get about fifty of my customers who were looking at new computers to try Lycoris. forth-eight of them said "No" after taking it for a test drive. While it looked like Windows, it wasn't Windows, and that was what they wanted on their desktops. Sure...they bought a lot of Linux servers from me, but the desktops remained Windows.

Re:Lycoris Major Linux Distribution?

[man_of_mr_e]

Well, Lycoris was much more "major" a few years ago. Originally it was called Redmond Linux, and was using very Microsoft-esque imagery and logos. They were billing themselves as a clone of Windows on Linux.

Then, they abruptly changed their tune. Most likely they got some C&D's from Microsoft and they decided to change their name to Lycoris. While they were still going for a Windows-esque look and feel, they seemed to have lost some momentum, primarily after Lindows started to take off.

Re:Lycoris Major Linux Distribution?

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

MODS ON CRACK!

This is not a flamebait: honestly, who the hell knows Lycoris?

The parent is right: Lycoris isn't a major Linux distro. Period. I don't see why that's a flamebait, just the parent merely pointing out that the usual PR statement bullshit just doesn't match reality at all in this case.

As a Mandriva user...

[seanvaandering]

My recent upgrade from 10.0 to 10.1 is riddled with problems, will this aquisition actually change the distro, or do the people who download FREE versions of the distro get screwed? I noticed that some software in RPM format asks you for a disk you never got in the download version, its almost why I switched from Windows in the first place all over again!

Needless to say running this Distro in 128MB of RAM is not recommended. :)

Mandriva?

[Anonymous Coward]

Now who the hell came up with the name Mandriva?

It couldn't have been a native English speaker, because, at least to me, it reads "Mandriver" and just SCREAMS HOMOSEXUALITY.

New name speculation...

[mgkimsal2]

Mandrivis
Lydraktiva
Condraktivis
Mancortiva

I know you guys can come up with more!

Clitoris?

[Kevin Mitnick]

Oh.. sorry.. Lycoris.. Haven't had my dose of pr0n yet this morning. Gotta wait 'till the co-worker goes for coffee.

Might give it a whirl

[miletus]

I used Mandrake from version 7.2 up until 10.1. I found 10.1 to be problematic with various hardware, and 10.2 just impossible. So I switched to Ubuntu and everything works pretty well.

Since I still have a Mandrake club membership, I might give the new version a whirl, since the font rendering and desktop stuff from Lycoris looks interesting. I seriously doubt they'll get away from the bloated, buggy mess they've turned into.

Who?

[sben]

You're wondering "Who's next?". I'm wondering "Who?".

Well lycoris looks really nice

[zlogic]

However personally I don't like Mandriva's general look&feel. Some things look cool while others suck. Their website looks as if it was drawn in Paint back in the old Win98 days. There's no easy way of installing software like apt-get install foo or yum install foo. Or having segfaults all the time while using Mandrake 10.1. Or having to use KDE 3.2 when 3.3 is out just because the guys have screwed something up and nearly made a fork of KDE (or why did it take so long to stay up to date?) Hope they'll learn how to make their products look really professional, that's probably one of the main reasons which keeps me from using it. And is Lycoris Debian-based or does it use RPM?

Re:Well lycoris looks really nice

[mgkimsal2]

There's no easy way of installing software like apt-get install foo or yum install foo.

urpmi foo

Whoo, that was tough...

Re:ugh, marketing

[gbulmash]

I was going to say Corel Linux, but then remembered that's Xandros.

According to docs at the Lycoris site, they used to be called "Redmond Linux" and News Forge has a late 2001 review of a beta of Redmond Linux. Founded as Redmond Linux in 2000, they changed their name to Lycoris in January 2002.

Couldn't find a history to see what distro it might have originally forked from.

Greg

Who's Next

[ronark]

from the 'not-going-to-happen-in-this-lifetime dept.'

"Mandriva announced today that they are purchasing the majority of shares in Microsoft Corporation. What does this signify to the Linux community?"

Monopoly?

[pjwhite]

I think they're going to try to acquire all of them and create a monopoly on silly made-up company names.

Oh, no...

[solomonrex]

I'm sorry, you're going to have to limit yourself to one of the other 10,000 distributions available.

Maybe this will boost their brand image

[Iloinen Lohikrme]

I think it's definately a good thing that Linux companies are joining forces. Until now, the only major Linux companies have been RedHat, Novell (Suse) and lately Sun. If one puts one of these companies distribution to a solution offering, the customers atleast have heard about these, and with good luck they have good image about them.

In my mind Mandriva hasn't had that image. Few years ago they allmost went to bankruptcy. After that, I have to confess, I haven't been able to trust them. But now when they are merging with other Linux companies, it seems that they have got new blood in their veins. I have been looking their Enterprise Server offering with interest, and if they keep expanding and making their brand more known, their offer will become lucrative. Until then, I will continue using RedHat as the primary OS for production use.

And to those that think that it's bad that there will be less players, I have to remind you that you can allways fork if something goes into a bad direction. To me a future where there would be 3-4 well known and stabile Linux companies with dozens of noncommercial distros would be a perfect situation: innovation and competition together with option to have a stabile offerings.

Cheers to Mandriva!

Lycoris...

[MsGeek]

The base of Lycoris is...wait for it now...CALDERA OPEN LINUX. As in The SCO Group.

This was something that had to happen after the SCO v. IBM blowup sometime or another. I stopped recommending Lycoris to friends and family after the SCO lawsuit, and I suspect I was not alone. Poor Joe Cheek was stuck in the middle of all this.

Mandriva is a good distro, and Joe Cheek is a really good developer. He created a version of Linux that was really good for retraining people with Windows on the brain. Maybe Mandriva will do a "Mandriva Switch" sub-distro geared to the same audience as Lycoris.

Lycoris: something of value

[Yankel]

Okay, so Lycoris isn't ranked high on DistroWatch, and it may not have a huge following (but enough of one to mod people down ;)

However, something's brewing. Mandriva wouldn't have made the acquisition if nothing interesting was going on.

Whaever Lycoris has, it's obvious that Mandriva wants to throw more resources into it and integrate it into its own offerings. It'll be interesting to see what happens six months from now.

Yeah, we're working on it

[HishamMuhammad]

Mod at will, but I think it's on-topic to make a shameless plug here for the distro project I'm a part of, GoboLinux, since the entire point of the distribution is to make the radical changes to Linux that we consider necessary for it to overcome the problems you listed.

1. The packaging system is user-unfriendly.

Yes, and that is because in regular distributions, you have a "list of packages and dependencies" and then the actual files scattered through the file system, and those are held together by a database of some sort. The fact that in the actual filesystem you can move single files around, overwrite stuff regardless of the package list, etc. leads to loss of syncrhonization and corruption of the packaging control system.

2. The locations of programs are user-unfriendly.

True, and that is because of traditional Unix conventions created to deal with stuff such as /usr on NFS, etc. These days we have more advanced methods to deal with this, such as UnionFS, but those legacy paths are still there, complicating the overall structure of the system.

3. The folder layout of Linux systems is user-unfriendly.

That is the heart of the matter. Changing the directory layout is how we addressed problems 1 and 2 in GoboLinux. We organize all data each program under /Programs/[name]/[version] (not like Windows where parts are under windows/system, in the registry, etc.). With this total modularization, we don't need to maintain a database of "what belongs to whom", and it also gives the user a better view of what's in his/her system, and how are things organized.

4. The lack of a standard base of installed libraries is application (and thus user) unfriendly.

This is indeed a problem. In GoboLinux, we apopted a small standard "base" set (inspired by Linux From Scratch) which we then build on. This helps, but standardized "frameworks" of libraries would be a good thing -- note that desktop environments like KDE and GNOME do this to some extent.

So, if you want to take a look at an actual implementation of these ideas, give GoboLinux a go. :) It's a live CD (which can also install to the HD).