Slashdot Mirror
Corel Linux to be Based on Debian & KDE!
Martin
Bialasinski wrote in to send us a
press release
from Corel which says that future
their Linux upcoming Distribution will be based on
Debian (Yay!) and
KDE.
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
KDE is about to relase 1.1.1 with 2.0 already looking very promising. All releases of KDE have been very stable and easy to install.
Once again in the comments above we see some of the FUD surrounding KDE rear its ugly head. For the record:
- You can use any Window Manager you like with KDE. See the screenshots page on their web site to see KDE running with other window managers.
- KDEs use of CORBA is far more advanced than Gnomes. As one poster says Gnomes use of CORBA in the panel achieves little more than WindowMaker has been doing without CORBA for years.
- KDE does not have to look like Windows and contrary to the first posters comment that Corel chose KDE because it does look like it, Corel merely say that it may be configured to look like Windows.
- I agree that KDE may not be as themeable as many people, inlcuding me, would like. KDE 2.0 will be based on Qt 2.0 (you know, that free toolkit) which should be properly themeable.
The KDE developers have worked tirelessly to produce this environment and deserve every bit of recognition for it. KDE deserves to be the face of Corel Linux. If Gnome ever reaches this stage, I'll be the first to reconsider my feelings, although I do not see Gnome catching up in the near future.To see just how advanced KDEs use of CORBA is check out KOM/OpenParts. KDE 2.0 will integrate the KOM technology throughout all of its applications. For those among you who like to see working code and not just talk, check out KOffice. This technology is very real and here today!
So join in CmdrTaco and applaud the KDE team for their work in putting a friendly face on Linux.
Well, they have long expertise in graphic design, through Corel Draw. They definately know their graphics at Corel. Furthermore, they don't need to "build a GUI". By using Debian and KDE, they are piggybacking on the work of others. I am sure that the GUI will be XFree86, with KWM and KDE running on top of it. While my personal preference is GNOME, a preinstalled KDE system should make for a very pleasant introduction to Linux.
----
Open mind, insert foot.
Red Hat, SuSE, Caldera, Slack and the others are all *cool*. But Debian represents the best future for all operating systems development. A vast, collective, unbiased effort to build an operating system foundation. This foundation then becomes the optimum starting point for a company or other entity to build a custom solution upon. Debian is the one distribution which most closely mirrors the development model of the Linux kernel itself.
Either Debian, or an effort like it, will eclipse Red Hat, not to mention Microsoft, and become the great fuel source for the network computing fire. Look for NCs, server appliances, and other 'preconfigured' solutions built upon it. Not to mention plenty of packaged software. And look for other kernels than Linux as well.
It definitely seems to me that if you want to be able to radically shape or reshape a distribution, you start off with Debian.
-- Mike Greaves
Your point about the Qt license is well made, but Corel can avoid trouble by making KDE a seamless, albeit non-free (in the GPL sense) add-on.
Even Debian offers non-free code, they just keep it separate from GNU/Linux.
As for the O/S being tightly bound to the kernel, this is simply not true (and the biggest reaason to separate the names of the two): the core GNU O/S code runs on either a Linux or HURD kernel. Furthermore, you could replace the GNU O/S code with equivalent BSD code and have a BSD/Linux system. From a technical point of view, there is a good deal of sense to such nomenclature.
We've just become accustomed to thinking that the distribtion bundler has done more "work" and thus deserves greater "credit" than the source of much of the code common to all distributions.
Finally, its the Free Software Foundation and not the free software federation. They do not fight internally: ESR (and open source) are quite distinct from RMS (and free software). The GNU Project releases code when it's damn good and ready, and of extremely high quality, I might add. The HURD is very much a worthwhile, and difficult, project, though I suppose only a hacker would appreciate the inherent beauty of it.
RMS's views are strong, and I don't agree with all of them (in particular that any distribution carry a GNU/Linux moniker), but they serve a very useful function of setting the standard by which all compromise must be measured. And yes, this necessarily means that they might not always be practical or convenient.
In Liberty, Rene
Actually, RPMs are in some ways superior to DEBs, in other ways inferior. A couple of things missing from the .DEB format:
What makes the Debian package management stand out is that it utilizes its features a lot more than, say, RedHat. For instance:
I use both. Just my opinion tho...
/etc directory and unwilling to learn. It's possible to screw over redhat by messing up your rpm's badly, tho it's never happened to me -- you have to try pretty hard.
:). Many many many choices. While in RH install it's a good idea to go in detail and choose each individual package you want, in Debian it's a good idea to choose one of the preconfigured options. 3500 odd packages is it? Deb is way better than RPM, and can upgrade your system automatically, fixing all dependencies etc. as it goes. It's beautiful. Debian has no nice graphical config tools built in, but many of us prefer it that way.
RH: simpler install (largely because you don't need to figure out dselect, and there are far fewer packages to choose from). Overall a good distro, but you're pushed to use their graphical configuration tools -- which aren't bad per se, but can be annoying to those used to hacking config files. But the graphical network configuration, system configuration, services, etc. tools can be a real timesaver to someone not familiar w/the
Debian: Approximately equivalent package-wise to RH with the rufus rpm repository also in the distro
Question: in apt-get a security hole? How does it guarantee it's not fetching evil packages? Is it only because you implicitly trust the servers you set in your conf file? I've wondered this for a while...
There's also a Reasons to Choose Debian document on the Debian website.
Each environment has its own widget set (KDE is based on the C++ Qt library, GNOME is based on the C GTK library). There is no reason you can't have apps from both environments on your screen at once, but the point of each is to create a unified and consistant look & feel. You defeat this if you use both together.
By unified, consistant look & feel, I mean the same widget sets, but also communication between running apps. For example, if you're running KDE, and you use the control panel to modify the color settings of the environment, those changes will affect the entire environment, including apps that are currently on screen. But the changes wouldn't affect non-KDE apps. The opposite is true as well; GNOME changes to affect non-GNOME apps.
I think the big reason for the flamewars surrounding these environments is that having a unified environment makes it look like you're trying to eliminate apps that are not part of that environment. When you've got an all-KDE desktop, and then you introduce any non-KDE app, it's not gonna look right. It won't take on all of KDE's settings and things. So people feel like KDE is trying to claim exclusive rights to your desktop or something. I think the flamewars were really pointless and non-constructive. But the developers of both projects are attempting to resolve the issues so that KDE and GNOME can interoperate happily, and Troll Tech (the company that makes Qt) has modified its license to be more compatible with free software, so the flamewars should really be over at this point.
noah
This isn't my site, but it does a pretty good explanation:
A Redhat User's Introduction to Debian
Of course, as I type this members.xoom.com is down, so I can't guarantee that the link is still active. Basically, Debian's DEB package format is technically superior to the Redhat RPM format. Because of that, the Debian "apt" package-managing tool rocks.
Also, because Debian is completely non-commercial, they don't have the "support obligations" that Redhat has. So, Debian is blessed with the largest number of packages of any distribution out there. Let me clarify that...I'd wager that there are more RPMs on the whole than there are DEBs, but the majority of those RPMs are built by third-parties...people like you and me. Because packaging in general is a little tricky, and because there's no central point of coordination between the packagers, packages that _should_ work together sometimes don't.
Debian's different in that respect, that since they don't have to provide commerical support, they can basically include anything they want in their stock distribution. However, they make absolutely certain that every DEB package they maintain works perfectly with every other component in the system. Of course, if you regularly download packages from their unstable distrobution, you'll run into bugs from time to time. But, since Debian also maintains an awesome bug database, those bugs are likely fixed up within a day. Such is life in the unstable tree.
On the flip side, Debian probably requires a little more knowledge about your system than Redhat does...there aren't any GUI tools for handling things like your networking/printing/etc in Debian like there is in Redhat. Also, the install (while not insanely difficult) is not as "pretty" as the Redhat install.
Personally, I feel that Debian has the most advantages for someone like me...college student, experienced with Linux, blessed with a T1 connection. It is so easy to remain on the bleeding edge with Debian it is almost sinful. Of course, it's appropriate for plenty of other Linux users at the same time.
"UNIX" is never having to say you're sorry.
Let's take a quick break from the KDE vs. GNOME/Debian vs. Red Hat vs. Slackware festivities I know this article is going to generate.
IMHO, Yet Another Linux Distribution is not just a Good Thing, it's a GREAT Thing. Why? Because it brings us one step closer to operating systems becoming a commodity. That means no more OS tax when you buy a computer. I imagine a future in which my children laugh at us and say, "You guys paid HOW MUCH for an OS? And you didn't even get the source code with it? And you couldn't customize it or fix it yourself? I guess you all smoked crack back then, huh?"
So, bring 'em on! Let every company from Adobe to Zenith release Linux distros. Their development costs for this are minimal (probably quite a bit less than a writing a new product from scratch), so they have very little to lose.
"What about standards?" I believe that distros which break standards will get killed in the marketplace. People won't buy a distro on which nothing runs. This is NOT the traditional model, remember? In fact, it's probably closer to a "free market" than anything we've seen in software.
When I can walk into a grocery store and buy a Linux distro -- THAT's world domination!
Save the whales. Feed the hungry. Free the mallocs.
it's funny, laugh:
Yahoo News : Strategic Alliance Between Corel, KDE and Debian to Advance Development of a New Linus Distribution
Yes! The new Linus will be 6'2, blonde hair, blue eyed and *ahem* Canadian!
What are the differences? Why should I choose D over RH? (this is not a flame war ignighter just for my education).