Granular Linux Distro Preview is Worth a Look

Linux.com has an interesting look at Granular Linux, a desktop-oriented distribution that's primary goal is to be easy to use. "With a single CD's worth of included programs, Granular Linux manages to cover a significant portion of normal end user needs, and those applications not already installed can be easily added through Synaptic. The slight problem with video and more serious problem with sound of my machine suggest that Granular is not without its issues, especially when most other distributions work properly on this hardware, but as this is a preview release of version 1.0 I think it can be more or less forgiven. I'd definitely recommend Granular to anyone with an interest in trying out a new distribution. "

Comments

I hate the phrase "easy to use".

[serviscope_minor]

Because I don't find any of these "easy to use" attempts easy to use. Because I know unix already, and these distros do it differently in order to make it "easy". But I'm not most people.

But my point still stands. Easy to use is not the same as "windows like" or even "shallow learning curve". It can mean "expert friendly".

That's not to say they're mutually exclusive, but this term is abused more than most.

Re:I hate the phrase "easy to use".

[wizardforce]

I agree with you, "easy to use" is relative. Grandma's idea of "easy to use" isn't necessarily the same as any of ours. she may only need to browse the internet or play simple games, we O.T.O.H may require Bash to be handy for shell scripts to automate different tasks, to refine things etc. Then if you're reasonably familar with *nix commands it's much simpler to communicate fixes for problems, installing software etc. a single command rather than click* click* click** click more....

Re:I hate the phrase "easy to use".

[uvajed_ekil]

I've found LinuxMint to be fairly easy to use so far, at least as easy as any other distro I've tried (which is all the biggies, 15-20+ over the years). I've tinkered with Linux off an on since 1994 or 1995, but the current iteration of Mint (Daryna, based on Ubuntu and Gnome) is the first distro I've been able to use for everything I do, given my limited linux/UNIX knowledge.

My desktop still dual boots XP pro and Ubuntu, but my laptop, which I use probably 90% of the time, only runs LinuxMint now. Mint does some things well "out of the box" that other distros don't, like play DVDs and work with my wifi card, which are a must if Windows users are to be converted. Yes, it uses some closed-source drivers and stuff, but it is still free and works damn well for some of us. I've even toyed with Virtual Box and installed XP with just to see if it would work. That install went fine, and XP seems to work, even though I was previously unable to install it without the VM because there are no XP drivers for my hardware.

I may be more persistent than the typical user who feels abused by MS, but I honestly believe the current crop of desktop linux distros are getting VERY close to truly becoming Windows replacements. They still aren't "set it and forget it" easy, but they are close, and less fiddling is needed once you have everything set up. I'd love to see a bit of consolidation in the linux community, rather than the ridiculous number of distros we see now, and a focus on hardware compatibility and drivers that install without any hassle. If we get that, anyone will be able to install and use linux.

I'm forced to agree.

[Zombie Ryushu]

Easy to use has nothing to do with it. Focus on Application and Hardware support. Easy to use doesn't help you if your applications won't install or some chipset goes unsupported. These people need to work on building the needed applications for the Linux that exists now.

Re:I'm forced to agree.

[Captain DaFt]

"Easy to use has nothing to do with it. Focus on Application and Hardware support. Easy to use doesn't help you if your applications won't install or some chipset goes unsupported. These people need to work on building the needed applications for the Linux that exists now."

Applications and hardware support that "just work" are exactly how I define "ease of use".

The OS is just the part that makes the applications work on the hardware. Ideally, an OS that "just works" means I shouldn't even notice it.

KDE

[Psychotria]

Its a KDE-oriented distro. I am not sure that releasing a new distro based on KDE in the current climate is a good idea. Don't get me wrong, KDE-4 is shaping up to be great (and backports and development on KDE-3 are still occurring), but what separates this distribution from any other KDE-3*-based distro?

Re:It's just PClinuxOS

[ozmanjusri]

just PCLinuxOS with a different name and a different wallpaper.

Yep. The only interesting thing about this is how it was made.

The LiveCD project is dedicated to providing you with tools to create your own LiveCD from a currently installed Linux distribution. It can be used to create your own distribution, specialised CD, or to put together a demo disk to show off the power of our favourite OS.
http://livecd.berlios.de/ It dramatically lowers the barrier to producing and distributing your own Linux distro.

I suspect we'll be seeing a flood of special-interest Linux distros very shortly. It could be a breeding ground for some interesting innovations.

Re:It's just PClinuxOS

[Pc_Madness]

Because thats what linux needs, MORE distros. *sigh*

Re:It's just PClinuxOS

[hcmtnbiker]

just PCLinuxOS with a different name and a different wallpaper. Yep. The only interesting thing about this is how it was made.

The LiveCD project is dedicated to providing you with tools to create your own LiveCD from a currently installed Linux distribution. It can be used to create your own distribution, specialised CD, or to put together a demo disk to show off the power of our favourite OS. http://livecd.berlios.de/

It dramatically lowers the barrier to producing and distributing your own Linux distro. I suspect we'll be seeing a flood of special-interest Linux distros very shortly. It could be a breeding ground for some interesting innovations. Fedora, Ubuntu, and most other distributions, and one of my personal favorites ZenWalk, have their own set of tools for easily creating your own liveCD. This is nothing new.

From my experience "easy to use" means: features that get in your way when you try to do real work. Most distributions go down this road and it drives me fucking nuts. If you really want a distro to be easy, focus your attention on getting all the hardware you can to work out of box. Put ndiswrapper on it(I cannot believe how many distros leave this out be default), maybe(ndisGTK too), and just make sure the manual explains how to use it for the people not familiar.

Re:Nothing to see here

[tor528]

Focus your resources on stuff that matters.

That's how I got fired from my last job.

News for nerds?

[iamacat]

Maybe an announcement of the first version of Slackware was. Perhaps radically different distributions like Gentoo. But for the life of me I can't understand why another ordinary desktop disto is on the front page.

Re:It's just PClinuxOS

[Spy der Mann]

I suspect we'll be seeing a flood of special-interest Linux distros very shortly.

Sometimes I've fantasized about making my own mini-distro based on anonymity, hacking and privacy tools . Maybe I'll load it with I2P, Freenet and all that.

This tool to remaster your distribution is a very nice thing to have. It's like having a RAD but for distros.

Also, having read Stallman's book, I consider this tool to be effectively supporting the spirit of software freedom. It's no use if you're *allowed* to make changes to a software and distribute it to others, if the technological barriers are impossible to cross.

Ridiculous

[jw3]

"Its primary goals are to be easy to use and user-friendly (...) Upon booting the Granular live CD ISO with the default settings my test PC, which uses an old ATI Rage 128 video card, the system froze at the loading screen. A quick reboot and selection of safe VESA settings solved this problem with no fuss."

Come on. Am I the only one to think that the above is funny?

January

Re:Easy to use is nothing new

[thefekete]

Second that.

I can't say I tried this distro (or read TFA for that matter), but I've been on ubuntu for the last 3 years and I don't see any reason to switch. The main reason is the documentation. At this point I could probably be compiling custom kernels and installing all my software from source with every configuration tweaked out, but I need to get some work done. Ubuntu is my choice because of it's large user base, period.

With that comes a lot of people trying to do a lot of things. And chances are that someone already tried to do what I am, and they wrote about it to boot.

The more documentation and fewer hardware issues there are, combined with alternative or ports to those high demand apps, the faster people will be dropping winturd in the circular filing cabinet.

Classic

[JamesRose]

I read the article and gave up when he couldn't install his audio hardware and was switching between OSS and ALSA (neither acronym did he explain). Normal basic user guy would never get passed that point, never. Easy to use? Maybe, but as shown in the article only for the people who always used to think a few tens of lines into the command line were easy.