Slashdot Mirror


A Trip Down Distro Memory Lane

M-Saunders writes "What did the Linux world look like back in 2000? TuxRadar has republished a distro roundup from Linux Format issue 1, May 2000. Many distros such as SUSE, Mandrake and Red Hat are still around in various incarnations, but a few such as Corel and Definite have fallen by the wayside."

58 of 238 comments (clear)

  1. SuSE Ruled... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...until Novell bought them out. When it became apparent that Novell wasn't going to uphold the SuSE quality, I switched over to Ubuntu. Haven't looked back since.

    1. Re:SuSE Ruled... by Shuntros · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'd be interested if you could give a full breakdown of what SuSE's shortcomings are since Novell took them over. I've used SuSE since the late 90s. It was never foolproof, no distro is, but despite trying a number of other distros I still find it preferable to all of them, including Ubuntu.

    2. Re:SuSE Ruled... by IANAAC · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Except that Novell has done some good things too. Yast is still pretty amazing. Oh and Novell opened it up and set it free.

      It's OK to not like a company, but give them credit where they actually deserve it.

    3. Re:SuSE Ruled... by Xoron101 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I've always thought that Debian was a great Distro. Stable, lots of packages that can be installed, and lots of resources on the web.

      Ubuntu (based on Debian) ties it all together with a nice, easy to use installer and GUI. Great choice for desktops, but I'd stick to Debian for servers.

    4. Re:SuSE Ruled... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 5, Funny

      The first SuSE version released from Novell broke on my system, wasn't worth the time to fix, and I went back to the previous version. If that was the best Novell could do with SuSE, then I would try another distro. When it came time to rebuild my file server, I went with Ubuntu since it just work when I installed it. These days I prize working out the box over calling forth my grandmother's spirit to recompile the kernel to run on ordinary PC hardware.

    5. Re:SuSE Ruled... by ultrabot · · Score: 2, Interesting

      ...until Novell bought them out. When it became apparent that Novell wasn't going to uphold the SuSE quality, I switched over to Ubuntu. Haven't looked back since.

      It seems [Open]SUSE is becoming a bit "hip" again, after years of silence. These days everybody is using Ubuntu (and it's becoming synonymous with "Linux"), though...

      --
      Save your wrists today - switch to Dvorak
    6. Re:SuSE Ruled... by Daimanta · · Score: 3, Insightful

      One shortcoming: YaST.

      It's dogslow and doesn't have the easy of aptitude.

      I was trying to install some pieces of software a couple of years ago on SUSE(which was my first *ux distro) and I was going down the lane of installing tens of packagedepencies for one piece of software. Eventually a friend convinced me to use Ubuntu. I was sold the minute I understood the apt-get command.

      Even if Ubuntu had it own shortcomings(still a lot of textfile configuration editing) it still worked decently. And with the leaps Ubuntu is making in the usability field, I can probably stay with it for a very long time.

      --
      Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
    7. Re:SuSE Ruled... by sortius_nod · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I use SuSE for my home server too, I see no issues with it... I've used many different distros (RH, Mandrake/Mandriva, Slacks, Ubuntu, Debian, the list goes on), but SuSE seems to do what it's meant to without a lot of headache - true, configuring from conf files can be a pain if you're not used to where it puts some.

      Either way, run what you feel comfortable with until it shits on you... I know there's a lot of anti-Novell sentiment here on slashdot, but it's like hating a red-headed child - you may not like them, but they are still part of the family.

    8. Re:SuSE Ruled... by citizenr · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yast is still pretty amazing.

      you clearly never seen Yast infection

      --
      Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
    9. Re:SuSE Ruled... by ogdenk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Like Ubuntu has never had a problematic release... please. I've seen at least one piss poor release from every distro.

      I finally got sick of all of the inconsistencies present between all of the Linux distros and switched to FreeBSD and NetBSD (on non-x86 hardware) back in 1997. Though I had run NetBSD/mac68k on a IIci since about 1995. I also knew BSD well from my experience on a VAX and SunOS 4 boxes.

      A couple of my machines run OSX as well these days because A.) I like the interface. B.) I like to run a few commercial apps. C.) Running them in WINE doesn't count.

      Much happier now. The only things I have running Linux are a Linksys WRT54G, a Linksys NSLU2 and an iPaq 3850. Those would run NetBSD as well if there were solid drivers for everything and someone ported OPIE to NetBSD.

    10. Re:SuSE Ruled... by Vlad_the_Inhaler · · Score: 3, Informative

      YaST is a general config utility with modules to handle a large range of hardware and software packages.
      You set up Networking with YaST, which boot scripts are started under which runlevels. When YaST is not enough, well - then you edit the config files by hand. No big deal.

      --
      Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
  2. Slackware rules! by spaceyhackerlady · · Score: 5, Interesting

    In 2000 I was a seasoned Slackware user, and had been so for several years. I did my Master's thesis in LaTeX on a Pentium 233MMX box (which I still have), complete with diagrams done in xfig.

    I did a lot of course work on that box: Viterbi decoding, polyspectral analysis, lots more.

    ...laura

    1. Re:Slackware rules! by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Slack was and still is a nice distro for folks that know what they're doing, want a solid, stable system and don't care much about fit and polish or having the latest goodies. I was Slack user and proponent myself for a couple of years.

      The main thing I don't like about Slack is that lack of real package management. I like the power and convenience that tools like Synaptic and apt-get provide -- a lot. And the fit and polish that desktop-oriented distros like Ubuntu offer is a guilty pleasure for me and an absolute necessity for my techno-angst-ridden wife.

    2. Re:Slackware rules! by GreatDrok · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I started out with Slackware in late 1994 on a 486DX33 with 8MB of RAM. It was amazing. 40 floppies to install it since I had no CDROM drive. I bought a 14.4 modem and had access to my university e-mail (pine FTW). X11, gcc, Netscape, FTP, the lot. All on a machine with 200MB of disc. I reckon I could function quite happily on that machine even today apart from Netscape which would have to be replaced with Lynx I guess.

      By 2000, a Linux distro was incredibly easy to install by comparison. Today it is even easier. You barely even need to worry about compatibility.

      --
      "I have the attention span of a strobe lit goldfish, please get to the point quickly!"
    3. Re:Slackware rules! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Disk...sets....
      The ancient bane of my shelving.
      Well thanks, i thought i had those sets of memories decently blanked out of my mind.

    4. Re:Slackware rules! by dbcad7 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Slackware is what I started on.. I remember getting the Cds, making a root and boot disk and installing.. It was during the time of modem internet and I specifically bought a modem that would work (non win-modem).. getting that baby to work was a challenge but always satisfying once the puzzles were solved. I kept that modem through several upgrades and new systems.

      I think the order of discovery for me, was.. Slackware, Redhat, Mandrake, Debian .. once I got a taste of Debian, it's been Debian based distro's ever since.

      Things sure have come a long way.. but I don't regret the hours I spent solving problems way back then.. as I said there was a certain satisfaction to getting something to work.

      --
      waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
    5. Re:Slackware rules! by Kozz · · Score: 2, Funny

      I also have a P233MMX on which Slackware ran in year 2000. Maybe the two of them could get together for a play date?

      --
      I only post comments when someone on the internet is wrong.
    6. Re:Slackware rules! by Peter+Simpson · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I built a Slackware system and had it dual-booting on my 486-33 at my new job. I was using it (with X11 and Motif) as an Xterminal off our UNIX system to do schematic capture, after I got fed up with Win3.1 and QEMM (which was what I was supposed to be using).

      That the same hardware could perform so much better running Linux (versus Win3.1) was a real eye-opener .

      Have not thought a Microsoft OS was worth paying for since.

    7. Re:Slackware rules! by arelas · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Impressive, 8MB ram in 94...I think I only had 4 and that cost me dearly.

    8. Re:Slackware rules! by GreatDrok · · Score: 3, Interesting

      arelas said: "Impressive, 8MB ram in 94...I think I only had 4 and that cost me dearly."

      I was able to upgrade it a few years later to 20MB as I found four 4MB memory sticks. 1MB sticks were pretty easy to come by but the 4MB ones were pretty rare. Linux would run fairly well in 4MB but 8 was definitely better and with 20MB it flew. I had a 386 laptop which only had 2MB and I was able to get a very bare install of Slackware onto it just for shits and giggles of course. Using PLIP I was able to network it to my 486 and use it as a terminal. X was too much for it to manage mind you but it was cool just for command line stuff. I even had a VT100 emulator on my Psion 3a. Since the 486 had the 14.4 modem, I was able to share my internet connection from it to my growing selection of rescued machines. By 1996 I was running a SUN SPARCStation 1 with OpenBSD as my main work machine. I managed to get 64MB of RAM for it, a 19" monitor and it was a very nice environment to write my PhD thesis up using LaTeX. I really miss the Type 4 SUN Keyboard and optical mouse.

      --
      "I have the attention span of a strobe lit goldfish, please get to the point quickly!"
    9. Re:Slackware rules! by JK_the_Slacker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I beg your pardon. You're referring to dependency management. Slackware has had "real" package management for YEARS.

      For real people... stop the FUD!

      --
      I'm waiting for a "-1 somepeoplejustshouldn'tgetmodprivileges" meta-moderation.
    10. Re:Slackware rules! by Keen+Anthony · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think I would probably still be a Linux user had fonts been properly rendered and smoothed in X as it was in Windows and Mac OS X. That turned out to be a deal breaker for me, looking back, and really the one feature besides DirectX that kept me using Windows. I still know how to configure and compile FreeType to support things like subpixel rendering, but I never could get my fonts the way I liked them. At the very least, kerning was always off. Obviously, I pay a lot of money to have font rendering in all my apps the way I want it.

    11. Re:Slackware rules! by spaceyhackerlady · · Score: 2, Interesting

      My first Slackware box was a 486/66 with Slackware '96 aka Slackware 3.1. It came with 8 MB of RAM, which was fine for everything but Netscape, which worked, but only after a minute of page thrashing. I maxed the box out to 32 MB and everything was fine.

      My current development box at work is a 2.4 GHz Core 2 Duo with 4 GB RAM. It runs Slackware 10.2, though heavily updated (gcc, kernel, etc.). I just updated the kernel to 2.6.28.3. I refuse to run Gnome; the desktop is KDE. Needless to say, it flies...

      I play with Debian on Sun UltraSPARC boxes, and have uCLinux on a number of little embedded computers.

      ...laura

  3. Mandrake Mandriva by fyoder · · Score: 5, Funny

    Many distros such as SUSE, Mandrake and Red Hat are still around in various incarnations

    Mandrake started out well, but then suffered some sort of identity crisis, had a sex change, and become the totally flakey bitch named Mandriva. Some say she's been to rehab and is much nicer now, but she is ancient history as far as I'm concerned.

    --
    Loose lips lose spit.
  4. It was a nightmare for regular users in 2000... by WiiVault · · Score: 4, Interesting

    and look how far it has come. Seriously, despite some remaining imperfections Linux has turned into a really pleasant desktop experience. I remember when installing Linux was a nightmare, with dozens of configurations, tons of unsupported hardware, and the need for highly advanced skills just to make it usable. Now it is rare to have to mess with the details- for the most part it just works. I'm primarily a Mac user, but I do a lot of stuff on my Ubuntu install as well, I am just shocked at how far Linux has come and quite interested in what is to come.

    1. Re:It was a nightmare for regular users in 2000... by Rhabarber · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You say it, in 2000 I set up a Gentoo system on one of those early Pentium III Notebooks. Yes, sure, it took me a couple of hours. But guess what, I still use it every day, exclusively. Just copied it from box to box over the years. So I'd say that time was quite a good investment ;)

    2. Re:It was a nightmare for regular users in 2000... by Compholio · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm primarily a Mac user, but I do a lot of stuff on my Ubuntu install as well, I am just shocked at how far Linux has come and quite interested in what is to come.

      Really? One of the huge original selling points for me was that Linux made (nearly) all the drivers open source and distributed as part of the kernel. This idea is really important because it means that once a driver for something is made it sticks around forever (sans growing pains every once in a while). Personally, I think this issue is why Linux will win in the long run and why Windows Vista was such a huge catastrophe - Linux will always update drivers for even the most obscure hardware where MS has to convince external entities to do the updates. Since these entities are not always amenable to this plan, and sometimes no-longer exist, the "Linux plan" has huge long-term advantages.

    3. Re:It was a nightmare for regular users in 2000... by hawk · · Score: 2, Informative

      But that's rather full of exceptions. *IF* the full driver made it to the kernel, and stays in the sources, sure. Then there are things like ath_hal that require a true adventure. .10.5.6 has been around for a while, but with kubuntu, I had to extract and make by hand. I then panicked when a new kernel downloaded on an update--that *used* to be a problem with linux when you had custom modules; they were dependent upon the version of the kernel. Even when a pre-compiled module was available to support hardware, it could require force loading due to version mismatches.

      Today, that doesn't seem to be a problem; it kept working with the new version.

      (.10.5.6 hasn't made it to FreeBSD yet, either--the work is done, but sam doesn't have enough testing results to commit it yet. I have an alias as root that deletes the directory for ath_hal, then extracts and renames .10.5.6 with sam's patches. [when I update the source, cvs replaces that with the official versions, so I need to repatch each time]). That done, however, it just plain works flawlessly).

      hawk

    4. Re:It was a nightmare for regular users in 2000... by MrBandersnatch · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Like a few posters above me I started with Slackware in...94..Maybe 95. I remember that install actually being quite smooth since my hardware was well supported (a somewhat antiquated 486SX-25). Ahhhhh having a dual boot machine back then really was something to geek out about.

      I've done maybe..30 installs since then, moved between Redhat, SuSE and Ubuntu and STILL the totally smooth installs are more to do with having experience with the hardware though. 8.10 on my home media PC? INCREDIBLY smooth; even managed to get my wireless card running full speed. My latest install on a core i7? Incredibly smooth once I worked out (4 hours later) that having ANYTHING hanging off the Gigabyte sata-2 controller would crash out the install into a BusyBox :/

      Point being that Linux is still very dependent on having just the right combination of hardware to get a smooth install. The wrong MB, the wrong wireless card (especially), and you will be p**** around searching forums (damn I miss Usenet and Dejanews...Google really have done that an injustice), searching for drivers, applying patches etc etc.

      But still, yup youre right; the last few years with MS having totally dropped the ball with Vista has given Linux and the X/Gnome/KDE desktop some real time to catch up and its almost a different ballgame. Almost....

    5. Re:It was a nightmare for regular users in 2000... by Vlobulle · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Well, in 2009 the audio system is still a complete mess and the screen configuration (setting the resolution and multiscreen settings) not far behind.

    6. Re:It was a nightmare for regular users in 2000... by Compholio · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But that's rather full of exceptions. *IF* the full driver made it to the kernel, and stays in the sources, sure

      In my mind this scenario is not full of exceptions, these exceptions exist on a local time scale. I see it is a matter of "when" rather than "if" - eventually a fully functional driver will get included, and when that day comes it will work forever thereafter (it is very incredibly rare for drivers to be removed).

    7. Re:It was a nightmare for regular users in 2000... by Compholio · · Score: 2, Informative

      An implementation of the Atheros HAL just came out recently (http://www.linux-magazine.com/online/news/open_source_hal_for_atheros_wlan_chipsets). The proprietary HAL would never be included, but since there is now an open source HAL it is unlikely that you will have such problems down the road.

    8. Re:It was a nightmare for regular users in 2000... by jellomizer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I am shocked on how little it has moved sense then. The only thing is better hardware detection... But that was because hardware manufacutres got REALLY REALLY STUPID and focuses stricly on Windows Only hardware. They made a D2A and a A2D converter and hooked it up to a telephone socket and Called it a Win Modem. The took out the Logic board in a printer and called it a Win Printer. There was a slew of really bad hardware that was all driver driven making it hard for Linux to do anything. They have seem to gotten a little better from then. But still Compared to Windows or Mac it is second par in Hardware detection. But at least you have more options. But besided hardware detection and installing little has changed from my Slackware Distribution in 1994.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    9. Re:It was a nightmare for regular users in 2000... by ion.simon.c · · Score: 2, Informative

      Now, however, a Linux distro usually won't run nearly as well as XP will.

      Are you *sure*? I have a four, five year old desktop machine that dual boots Win 2k3 and Gentoo Linux. If we ignore the terrible Flash plugin and turn off KDE 4.SVN's Desktop Effects, I find that the Linux system is faster to boot, faster to get me to a ready "desktop", and no slower than Windows at performing tasks in The Gimp and Firefox. Perhaps my experience is atypical.

      Also, was 2000's four year old hardware proportionally as slow as 2009's four year old hardware? That is, if you were to plot the CPU and IO performance increase over time from ~1997-2009, would the plot's slope remain relatively constant? (I have no idea, that's why I'm asking.)

  5. Re:I've got your 2000 right here... ;) by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 5, Funny

    None of the silly pissing matches about which distro was the best.

    Now I know you're lying!

  6. Sad To Remember by hduff · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You'll find my name in the contributors for documentation in Mandrake 7.0, and it was an excellent distro in 2000 and remains so today. They would likely be a more significant distro today had they not experienced near-fatal management problems (mostly a re-focus of resources on computer-aided learning). Corporate bankruptcy did not help even though they emerged from it, a rare occurrence in France. But their biggest failure was to develop admin tools for their Red Hat-clone in Perl rather than what Red Hat used, Python, probably the combination of developer preference and a desire to be "NOT" Red Hat. They also introduced a number of incompatibilities just because they thought their way was better (and it may have been). Their style/icon/theme choices were not the best either (plain and cartoon-ish) and failed to appeal to younger Linux enthusiasts. They had a good concept with "Red Hat done better" and should have stuck with that. It is still my distro of choice, even with my familiarity of Red Hat (I've been a Red Hat Fedora Unleashed co-author). But it's sad to remember the opportunities squandered at Mandrake/Mandriva. I would suggest that anybody give it a try, especially if you have not yet selected a favorite distro. It now does have a nice feel and polish and "just works".

    --
    "I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
  7. A 'get off my lawn' moment by nurb432 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    How about a few years before that? SLS ( the first 'real' distro ), Yggdrasil ( paved the way for GUI installers ), or the classic root/boot (with its hex-editing to boot off of IDE ), or even when the kernel wouldn't even self host and you still needed a running minix system..

    Kids these days don't know how good they have it.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:A 'get off my lawn' moment by Peter+Simpson · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I have in my hand, a CDROM marked "December 1993" from Infomagic, I also have Infomagic's 2-CD Linux Developer's Resource from June 1994, with (it says here):

      - complete snapshots of TSX-11.MIT.EDU and sunsite.unc.edu Linux archives

      - SLS 1.05 with kernel 1.0

      - Debian 0.91 beta

      - Preliminary versions of the WINE code

      and a "complete live filesystem!" ...and lots more. Wow. Hard to believe, huh?

      (now, get off my lawn...and here, take this Ubuntu disk and try it out at home)

    2. Re:A 'get off my lawn' moment by nurb432 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I still have my infomagic cds as well. Got them every quarter, and it sure beat trying to download it all via dialup ( or sneaking into the local college's data center with a box of floppies )

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    3. Re:A 'get off my lawn' moment by kwabbles · · Score: 3, Funny

      ...or even when the kernel wouldn't even self host and you still needed a running minix system...Kids these days don't know how good they have it.

      Whippersnappers sans bootstrappers. Shameful.

      Why... in my day my old man would smack me with an oak limb if I forgot to sync the filesystem three times before shutting down.

      --
      Just disrupt the deflector shield with a tachyon burst.
  8. TuxRadar by hduff · · Score: 3, Informative
    TuxRadar is an online effort to re-publish archives of LinuxFormat magazine on-line. As a former LFX contributor, I applaud this.

    At http://www.linuxformat.co.uk/wiki/index.php/Main_Page , they are also attempting to convert the PDF stories into WIKI format. This could be a a valuable repository of technical and historical information.

    I support their efforts and release to LFX and an all rights I may hold in any contribution I may have made to LFX. (I was an early contributor and some of my work was not done under their standard contract.)

    --
    "I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
  9. what happened to Corel Linux? by unfunk · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...last I heard of it, it had the friendliest installation process of all the Linuxes (which wasn't saying much at the time, I guess...), but then it kinda.. disappeared...

    1. Re:what happened to Corel Linux? by ramandu · · Score: 3, Informative

      It was bought by the Xandros corp. about 2001. So for most practical purposes Corel linux is still around.

      --
      Know thyself. -- Delphic Oracle, 8th century BC
  10. Those pictures remind me by ultrabot · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ... how much gnome sucked (was it ver 1.4?) and kde ruled. KDE was under an evil license back then, though.

    Gnome was about to "take over the world" with their ingenious CORBA based "Bonobo", which is still around (though very little noise is made of it these days, c.f. Mono).

    Now that I look at these pics in retrospect, I can recall the huge UI discrepancy Linux had with windows. Windows these days does not look much better than back in 2000, but boy, has Linux caught up.

    --
    Save your wrists today - switch to Dvorak
    1. Re:Those pictures remind me by eldepeche · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I dare you to run a KDE desktop without installing any Qt libraries.

  11. Progress of free desktop by Pecisk · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Ohh, memories :)

    Those screenshots and mentioned features really shows very rapid progress free desktop (GNOME, KDE and standalone apps) have achieved these 8 years (from KDE 2/GNOME 1.4 ugly-as-butt-but-functional to KDE 4.2/GNOME 2.2x ohh-shiny-and-my-tv-card-is-working). Yes, there are still issues, there are problems, but progress is deniable and imho only Mac OS X can fight with feature set offered by free desktop.

    Ok, yes, apps does matter and market share and knowhow too, but still...this is indication that free desktop is here to stay and won't go anywhere but forward.

    And btw, yes. Mandrake ruled the day back then. First distro which took users (no matter expierenced or newbies) *seriously* (nice looking themes, icons, serious localization, superb packaging - you name it). And it is still very hugely used in Europe and they are profitable company (escaped from bankrupt once), as far as I have heard. Shuttleworth definitely would say that Mandrake was inspiration for Ubuntu.

    --
    user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
  12. Anyone Remember the Four Yorkshiremen Distro? by Dogtanian · · Score: 5, Funny

    I started out with Slackware in late 1994 on a 486DX33 with 8MB of RAM. It was amazing. 40 floppies to install it since I had no CDROM drive.

    That's nothing. I ran Linux 0.03 on my Sinclair ZX81 in early 1982. It were stored on 300 C90 cassettes, took 18 days to load and I had to hold the RAM pack to stop it wobbling.

    And you try and tell the young people of today that ..... they won't believe you.

    --
    "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    1. Re:Anyone Remember the Four Yorkshiremen Distro? by ebh · · Score: 4, Funny

      Cassettes? Luxury.

      I read Linus's mind in 1974, keyed what would later become Linux 0.0.01 into the front panel of an IMSAI 8080 with 1K of RAM, and once I got it running, backed it up using the paper tape punch of the ASR-33 I used for the console.

      The first application I wrote for it was an ESP transmitter which I used to beam the Apple II monitor ROM bits into Steve Wozniak's brain.

    2. Re:Anyone Remember the Four Yorkshiremen Distro? by Sique · · Score: 2, Funny

      I preferred the C=64-Version...

      LOAD "VMLINUZ",8,1

      Fond memories...

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    3. Re:Anyone Remember the Four Yorkshiremen Distro? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Press Play on Tape.

      fun times...

    4. Re:Anyone Remember the Four Yorkshiremen Distro? by harry666t · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hmpf.

      In one of my previous lives I used to run simulations of an universe on an early prototype of an abacus, running a REAL Unix. One of the simulations went uncontrolled, became Singularity, created Earth and shit in six days, it was like 6000 years ago, AFAIR. That singularity used to run until 1882, with the only major upgrade around 1 A.D. Now, that's also a pretty nice uptime.

  13. A confession, of sorts by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I bought Caldera OpenLinux in 1997.
    It was actually fairly decent, with a much better installer than other distros and GUI system management tools. In these features, it presaged what many other distros have done since then. If they had kept working at it, it might have been a real contender...
    Of course, Caldera morphed hideously into SCOg after 2000, lashing out at the Linux community, abandoning technology for litigation, and creating their own private pit of Hades to which they are now consigned.

    --
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
    1. Re:A confession, of sorts by nurb432 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Many of us did, back before they were evil. It was way ahead of the others at the time.

      For collection sake, i kept my copy of both workstation and server. About the same time i bought a license for Staroffice.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  14. check its pulse by zogger · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...I cannot figure out exactly what pulse audio is really for, but I "fixed" my fedora 10 system sounds by totally removing PA, going to sound prefs and checking alsa everything, rebooting, going to terminal and doing alsaunmute. Bam, all my sound works fine now. And I fixed my vid by downloading system-config-display and using that. Why they don't include that in the default install like they used to I do not know.

    I wish there was something along the lines of a more stable RH/RPM desktop system between bleeding edge and always something broken fedora and expensive "enterprise" redhat.* I'd actually pay RH for a consumer desktop system that would do all media and etc even if it was only 99% "pure if they made one with long term support, just not what they are asking for some business model server hybrid "workstation" system. They used to charge 60 bucks, then dumped that for free broken or expensive mostly not broken, I want a sweet spot in the middle there someplace. Twice a year fedora releases is too much, by the time you have everything all tweaked and running smooth, its back to broken stuff, and on dialup, forget it, about impossible to stay updated. I understand and that's fine for devs and tinkerers, but not for just a user who isn't a dev (that would be me and I bet a few million other people).

    *The CentOS guys are adamant they are enterprise/server and don't care too much for the desktop, I've checked them out and don't like that attitude on their forums too much, and I don't run servers anyway, just want a bit more of a better and longer running desktop. I think the market is there especially if they (they being redhat) did an apple and sold hardware with it preinstalled so everything "just worked", a desktop system, a lappie, and a netbook.. And not the Dell example either, they play act at support for ubuntu (top of Dell's linux pages they recommend vista-that's play acting at support IMO)

  15. I love these threads... by digitalhermit · · Score: 2, Interesting

    My first Linux was downloaded with a 9600Baud modem.. There were newer modems at the time, but I saw no need for it :D. I got most of the floppies working and created, but for some reason, the installation wouldn't quite complete. I posted a message and within a few hours, someone offered to send me a known working set of disks. He did. Within a week I was booting into my first Linux prompt.

    That's what I remember most about Linux. Some random stranger spent his time and money to send me disks. That was just unbelievable.

    Tinkering with that Linux installation reminded me of the first computers I'd owned.. The TI99/4A, the 800XL, C64... They were so wonderful to tinker with...

    It never ends. Before it was a wonder to get dialup access to a shell account working.. then tcp... then the first X session.. Now I'm using Linux to tinker with HDR images, create music, ray trace, re-create experiments that once took million dollar equipment, map Martian images...

  16. Memory lane... Stormix? by CAIMLAS · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Wow, that review sent me - like a drunk bum thrown into an alley from the back of a squad car - down memory lane!

    Ah, anyone remember linuxconf? What a piece of junk! It mostly worked, when it worked. But I remember it interfering with any manual configuration changes made (without telling you). Very irritating. I ended up ignoring it, I think.

    I can't believe Linux got any sort of foothold on the desktop with releases like the the early KDE and GNOME, to be honest. I remember constantly, constantly fighting with the two (and their respective toolkits) to make them a) look half decent, b) behave half decently, and c) work in a fashion which did not interfere. Part of that

    I remember when I started out, more or less with RedHat 5.2. GUI options? What GUI options? You had (from my recollection) fvwm, fvwm95, afterstep, and -maybe- icewm. I don't remember for certain if icewm was available in 5.2, but it was in 6.0, as I used it in 6.0 when I moved to it. I dabbled for a while with 5.2 but never permanently, as my hardware was not yet supported. I also tried DOSLinux and the HappyHacker guides before I determined that yes, I needed a real linux distro. After a botched upgrade from RH6.1 to 6.2, I moved over to (IIRC) Mandrake 6 or 7 (whichever came out around the time of RH6.2).

    It's funny, but when I decided to go with RH (largely because I could order the CDs - I ended up grabbing them from Best Buy, IIRC), Slackware was already considered to be a hodgepodge of crap thrown together, largely targeted at/used by the "h@x0r" community. It's only become more of the case, of course, but Slackware refuses to die.

    It wasn't long after Mandrake that I went to debian (maybe late '99), and stuck with that until just this past April, when I gave Ubuntu a try. Stormix 2000 was a major catalyst in me moving to Debian, if I'm recalling things correctly. I still use Debian as much as possible, but Ubuntu goes on my primary workstation/laptop.

    As this thread is about Linux in the year 2000: does anyone else remember Stormix 2000? It was an incredible, incredible distro for it's day (consistent look/feel, debian based, intelligent installer), and I'm sad to see that Progeny didn't make it as a company. They didn't get half the credit that was due them, IMO, as they were a major force behind the current way in which distros are packaged, IIRC. They stuck around for a while and provided some good additional packages, and an alternative installer for Debian 3, which was very nice (in terms of hardware support, which was lacking in Debian at the time).

    --
    ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
  17. 2000 = late by CarpetShark · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It may have been a wonderous time, but it's also the time when Windows was starting to offer a stable platform that competed in some respects. Back in '94 or so... now THAT was a good time. A full 32-bit, fully multitasking OS, with server apps, programming tools, music players, virtual desktops, decent package management, good internet, tried and tested security, choice of window system and widgets (not just X and KDE or GNOME, but Openlook, MGR, etc.) all while Windows was still deciding whether to include a browser by default.

  18. Re:*terrible* icons by Randle_Revar · · Score: 3, Funny

    Personally, I thank Linuxconf for screwing up my config often enough to convince me that gui configurators are a terrible idea