Slashdot Mirror
Corel Linux Beta Program
Gameaholic writes "Corel is currently looking for beta testers for the upcoming Corel® LINUX® operating system. Corel LINUX is a Linux distribution specifically designed for desktop computer users. It is based on Debian and includes KDE as well as new applications and enhancements from Corel. " The battle for the desktop continues.
Ok, I'm all for yet another distribution... and I think Corel has the punch to pull it off. What I really want is a distribution that is friendly, simple, and pretty enough that my mom will go get it, install it, and run it.
:)
Right now we have several niches... Slackware for the "I want to do it all myself" hardcore type, redhat and mandrake for the middle of the crowd bunch who either don't have the time or inclination or just plain want a "push button" install but still want a nice hackerish system, and debian for the long-haired suspender-wearing "here's a nickel, kid, buy yourself a better computer" crowd that wants an easy to build, clean system with all the power and a lot less glitz. What we still don't have (although redhat and mandrake seem to be trying to get there) is a distribution for our moms. Maybe Corel can fill that niche, maybe not, but at the very minimum anything they do to move towards that is good for the linux community as a whole.
Best of all, if Corel just manages to pull it off my mom just might quit calling me and asking me to troubleshoot her windows problems.
-- Gary F.
CORL has been fairly steady at this price too.
I am sure the stock would go up upon the distribution release. It probably won't jump like an IPO but I expect 400% rise over time. That is only about 20 bucks a share.
More interesting is what microsofts reaction to all of this will be. Perhaps they will target distributions rather than Linux as a whole with FUD. Or, as I think, what if they bought into a distribution? That way they could play both sides of the fence.
Bitcoin pyramid: Join here: http://www.bitcoinpyramid.com/r/1427 it's FREE!
LAUGH
Are you smoking crack or what? Debian package management suite is and was far superior to anything that redhat had. dpkg/dselect/apt, never break and are pretty much rock solid. You can sync your system with ftp mirrors with just 2 commands. Hell you can upgrade the whole system with apt-get dist-upgrade command from ftp/http/cdrom/whatever. dselect and apt also take care of dependencies and conflicts automatically. There are other benefits too, these are just a few that I got from top of my head.
RedHat LAGS in this area, sorry.
Similar, yes (there's one ports.tar.gz or pkgsrc.tar.gz for the OS), but it does lead to different results. For instance, the stuff in ports is not treated as an integral part of the system in FreeBSD, so each package in the ports subsystem can be updated on an as-needed basis by the port maintainer. That means if you need to keep some non-core thing updated, it's easier to do that with *BSD.
Of course, I've heard rumblings about solving the problem Debian has had with staleness by releasing packages tested for 2-3 months as ready to go into the stable distro. That would be a Good Thing, imho.
I would think that the installer would be a important item that needs beta tested. If so, it would only make sense to get users that want Linux and Windows to co-exist on the same machine. (A bare drive install being somewhat of a no-brainer.)
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
It doesn't sound too good when _one_ individual owns the trademark of a community effort. I would like to see Rob Malda as the owner of the trademark as there are far more Linux users participating on Slashdot than on the kernel mailing list.
Corel management does not understand Linux, GPL, etc. Corel understands making apps that sort of work under Windows. You have to remember where this company comes from. For Corel revenue is releasing an updated product every year, and hoping everyone upgrades. They haven't figured this Linux thing out. They are jumping on Linux, because someone told Cowpland it was cool, and he could have his own OS, just like Bill Gates. Cowpland and Burney need to figure out why Red Hat has been successful, and why so many people use their distribution. Being in Canada I believe they have the ability to bring people in from just about anywhere in the world. They need to hire people who have contributed directly to linux effort, and listen to these people. Try to understand what the OpenSource movement is about. Compare the philosophies of Linus, RMS, ESR, and others who are the voices of the OpenSource movement, before proclaiming themselves leaders in the Linux market. If you were to ask how the "Cathedral and the Bizarre" model can be merged with traditional commercial application development models he'd be stumped. And we look to this company to lead the Linux desktop market? Come on. Maybe if they did their research there wouldn't be a closed source limited beta release with screwed up requirements, and they wouldn't look so foolish in this forum.
Naw... they are just sloppy and the people putting the web site together don't realize you don't need an operating system to run an operating system, or that you can have a PC that does not run windows.
Just need to encourage developers to recompile their apps in Linux. But what I would like to know is... when a windows app is compiled with WINE, is it just as good as if it was full ported to Linux?
AussiePenguin
Melbourne, Australia
ICQ 19255837
Jeremy
Melbourne, Australia
Jabber Australia
If you read carefully (I'm sorry, I'm a real bastard for choosing my words very finely and carefully [which is why I often look like a total idiot if I post -anything- when I haven't slept enough], or at least trying to), I never really said that Linux was fragmenting.. yet. We are, however, highly, and I mean highly, fractionalized. Can you really disagree with that? Everyone has their favorite distro. Some have uses for different distros, but for most of us, I'm pretty sure we stick to one distro or another.
I also think the more contributions the better. All I'm saying is that we should be careful, and not repeat the same mistakes. It took a lot of hard work and chance to pull this off so far (I don't really remember thr last time a free OS captured the public's attention like this), so it would be good not to screw it up. :)
~ Kish
I cannot be the only person out there, who buys
all the parts separately and builds his own PC.
The hard-drives usualy do not come with Windows,
although I know that you can purchase HD with
Linux already on it (VAR, I believe?).
Once a friend wanted to dome a favor and tried
to install some Windows on my PC for me, but then
he was unable to do it. The boot disk never
recognized CD-ROM - and the Windows were on CD.
So, that's why I do not have Windows on my
machine. I am not proud of it, I am actually
sorry for it, because my PnP sound card setup
runs only on Windows.
In turn I installed Linux on his PC and set it
up in less than 2hours.
Petrus
AussiePenguin
Melbourne, Australia
ICQ 19255837
Jeremy
Melbourne, Australia
Jabber Australia
LAUGH
Are you smoking crack or what? Debian package management suite is and was far superior to anything that redhat had. dpkg/dselect/apt, never break and are pretty much rock solid. You can sync your system with ftp mirrors with just 2 commands. Hell you can upgrade the whole system with apt-get dist-upgrade command from ftp/http/cdrom/whatever. dselect and apt also take care of dependencies and conflicts automatically. There are other benefits too, these are just a few that I got from top of my head.
RedHat LAGS in this area, sorry.
From the brief overview it seems that Corel does not seem to get the Linux thing - their forms are geared at windows, and they seem to treat the GPL as something to be worked around instead of an essential feature.
And I had hopes of Corel getting Linux after they decided to go with Debian... pity. Hope my impression is wrong though.
You may be right, but one thing to know is that wall street has already been notified that Corel is betting on Linux. At 5 25/32 (NYSE closing price) Corel's stock price is 3 X higher than its 52 week low of 1 9/16.
They're package management system has lagged behind Red Hat's due to lack of developers for a while.
Has it? Is there a feature in RedHat's system allowing you to automatically update from a server? (I honestly want to know, I'm not trying to start a flameware here). That feature is one of the major reasons I use Debian.
I don't belive there is a need for this feahttpture to be rolled into the rpm codebase. autorpm is quite good at pulling updates from a distribution company web site automaticaly. It's quite good at keeping an rpm based system up to date from any number of mirrors ( handles mirror rotations and such).
With other utilities such as rpmfind and the very useful rpm database at rpmfind.net, an admin of an rpm based system has all the tools they need to manage the system.
OMNSHO, a system to act as a front end to all three would be an even better boon to the community.
--
James Michael Keller
"Linux is not our destination, it is simply the open road to tommorow"
I got through! I had to hit the back and submit buttons a couple of times. But I'm registered now. Now, if they'll only select me!
Among the FAQ's is:
I suspect this one falls into the old "RTFM" category.
D. Keith Higgs
CWRU. Kelvin Smith Library
My office has been taken over by iPod people.
How good is it? Does it automatically do the security upgrades that are official from redhat's site. I remember ages ago when I used redhat some of the security stuff (putting Xwrappers or something) required a fair amount of hand installing.. i.e. it wasn't just rpm -i (or -u or whatever it was) packagename. It would be nice to have these things select particular distributions from the www.rpm.org as some of them seem more stable and properly configured than others. Also does redhat have a package listing/ftp manager yet i.e. some sort of ncurses/graphics based list of all the current packages w/ descriptions off of various ftp/http sites which we can run search/find/grep etc on and then have it automagically install that new package and its dependencies from the appropriate site? Sort of like a nicer, easier to use version of www.rpm.org (This is one of the other sooper nice features of debian that converted me over a while back. I'm not trying to start a flame war w/ debian/redhat either, i'm really curious because i'd like to switch back to redhat actually (5.1 was the last one I used) as they are doing (imho) a much better job getting releases out.
-avi
So much for me previewing, IIRC it's ftp and / or mirrors of them, not web sites as I typo'ed above.
--
James Michael Keller
"Linux is not our destination, it is simply the open road to tommorow"
Because they are a closed-source company, who is trying to ride the open-source roller-coaster.
meanwhile I am gettin the error, "document contains no data"
Mofo page is busted.
Opinionated Law Student Strikes Again!
"Cathedral and the Bizarre"! hahaha...I love that!
dylan_-
--
Igor Presnyakov stole my hat
Look at their Beta Requirements:
[...]
Windows® 95, Windows 98 or Windows NT® (4.0)
[...]
WHY ALL THE CAPS? Hmmmm... let me see... Corel DRAW Corel PHOTOPAINT Corel SCAN ...Corel LINUX
Has something happened? Did thet German law firm get their trademark?
And rightly so? Don't get me wrong, but Adobe are a bunch of pricks, there software is way over priced for the amount of stuff you get, It's cheaped to get the whole corel suit that just get adobe photoshop. And most of the features in corel photopaint are better that photoshop anyway.
It's Kinda like saying Micro$oft has won the PC OS war against linux, and rightly so.
The beta is going out now and the final release is is planned for December? There's optimism for you.
Freedom's just another word for nothing left Zulus
corel photopaint8, 266, win98 SE, 10 seconds draw to 8 secs to load.
Get ur facts strait before you start flaming.
Why didn't Corel just stick to graphics apps? Seems like they'd have less to worry about that way ;)
In my mind, Corel doesn't understand what makes Gpl software do so well. They want to have an inhouse beta programme and not release source code until the final release date? What makes Gpl tick is having the source code out in the hands of countless devlopers before it is 'released.' If only they were to do this, I think they would find Corel Linux to be alot better than it would be otherwise.
As for myself, I wanted to download Corel Linux when the beta came out. I am not a Linux guru, nor am I a computer idiot either. But I am annoyed that they are doing this and I think that I am not alone.
Cowpland (sp?), I am hope you are listening. Look how easily people have been alienated by Redhat for who-knows-what reason, Corel is walking a dangerous path.
my PnP sound card setup runs only on Windows
Personally, I prefer to stick to 'genuine' Creative Labs cards (they are better supported even under Windows -- or so my Windows using friends say). I have been able to successfully get a couple of generic clone sound cards working under Linux, the first being a "Digital Research Labs" (free after rebate from CompUSA) which uses the ESS 1869 chip set. I used the isapnp utilities to initialize the card, and then the RedHat sndcfg utility could be persuaded that it was a SoundBlaster and it worked. The second card is an old (pre PnP jumperless) Aztech Sound Galaxy 16, which I was able to get working with the OSS drivers supplied with SuSE. As far as I can tell most sound cards can be made to work with Linux with a little bit of research. Being impatient, its generally easier for me to just get a Creative Labs card...
Wine can be used to recompile Windows applications to run on Unix. They work as well as the windows application binary running under the WINE emulator, really.
/lib/ld-linux.so.2, libpthreads, libX11, etc.
Wine is not really an emulator, it's just a very very different implementation of
-- I avoid spam by accepting only OpenPGP encrypted or signed email at this address. Clear-signed, RFC2015, heck, even
According to their FAQ, they won't release source code until they make their final release. Doesn't that violate the GPL? I thought you always had to release source if you released binaries...
The cake is a pie
I get lots of coldfusion errors.
Something about a templage on E:\
Ikes!
Jim
Over the next few years, I think we're going to see several Linux distributions do this - look at Caldera and their install program. Caldera released their code only after its product had been on the market for a few months. ITs only a matter of time before REdHat holds its innovation tight to its chest until its had time to propagate as a RedHat technology.
But the thing I see people overlooking is the fact that this is most likely a limited beta program. From the site:
Ok so now everyone on /. is rushing in their forms, etc. You have to pause and think that Corel more than likely doesn't want too many geekmeisters like most slashdotters testing the thing. Yeah, there will be openings, but I bet that they are more interested in useability testing and interface bugs than security right now. What i'm attempting to drive at here is that their server is probably being swamped by the /. effect and thus making it difficult for johnny aolScriptKiddie to sign up for the program. now i'm not saying that johnny is any better at using linux than the general reader around here, but hey, this might be a way to pull johnny out of his stupidity as an AOL lamer and maybe get him on a decent OS and possibly let him learn a few new things too. I guess what I'm saying is that, from the perspective of the general advancement of linux, this story shouldn't have been posted: simply because of the tendancy /. has to flood sites with eager people.
I don't know that Corel is having any problems, although I did read someone's post about having script errors on the beta submission page... I'd have to guess that they are feeling some strain.
So for linux's sake, don't slashdot Corel!! :-)
just my $0.34
(oh, and sorry about the italic tags. This post is not lynx compatible. :-)
From a motherboard manual, error beep codes: S-L-L-L-SS: Speaker Error
You get all puffy chested and proud when you say you own no copy of Windows, don't you?
Hire a lawyer, then.
Maybe it's time the GPL was tested in court.
Someone holding RHAT could buy 16 shares of CORL for every one of RHAT. Even at its current price, Corel is still a bargain. Earnings for CORL are out on monday and should be 9-14 cents a share which will be second profitable quarter in a row. Corel had a few bad years digesting WordPerfect and knocking heads with Microsoft but it used to be a $20 stock when it just had CorelDraw. With a Linux distribution, office suite and graphics program (plus their Windows cash cows) they could do very well.
OK, they made a few boo-boos regarding forms and generic requirements documents. Please consider that the office staff don't necessarily understand Windows or Linux, they've been given boiler-plate copy by someone who does, and they'll have to get new boiler-plate now.
They'll also have to comply with existing software licenses - which means if any Beta tester asks them for the source of an already GPL-ed program that Corel is distributing, Corel will have to give it to them. It might take a bit of explaining to get this through to them, but the Debian folks can handle that quite well. If Corel wants to put the GPL on any entirely new stand-alone software, it's Corel's choice when they do that, and they have the right to hold back the source until the GPL goes on it.
Expect some growing pains as a formerly windows-centric company ventures into Linux. Give them a little time.
Bruce Perens
Bruce Perens.
IIRC, WINE can be configured either to use existing Windows .dll's that are installed on the machine, or to use its own native versions. I believe one of the goals of the WINE project is to re-implement the non-free Windows libraries, just as LessTif freely re-implements Motif.
I heard something a few months ago about Corel contributing resources (manpower?) to the WINE project, but haven't heard anything about this in quite a while.
Address-collecting spam robots don't know how to crack ROT13. Do you?
Yes indeed they are. In fact WWW.linux.corel.com still has job listings for people to work on their WINE input. Corel sees WINE as a significant aid to their desire to produce LINUX ready products.
That's just Netscape's way of telling you that the server's overloaded. Keep trying, and you'll get in.
Are you smoking crack or what? Debian package management suite is and was far superior to anything that redhat had. dpkg/dselect/apt, never break and are pretty much rock solid. You can sync your system with ftp mirrors with just 2 commands. Hell you can upgrade the whole system with apt-get dist-upgrade command from ftp/http/cdrom/whatever. dselect and apt also take care of dependencies and conflicts automatically. There are other benefits too, these are just a few that I got from top of my head. RedHat LAGS in this area, sorry.
I haven't used a debian install before, so I'm not going to get into which is better with debian folk. However just because rpm's own codebase dosn't have those features is irrelivent. Other packages handle those functions you belive it lacks, work just as well doing the same things. They don't replace, but work with rpm. Rpm handles the package databasing, installing, removing, etc. Autorpm has all the networking code to go out and check the ftp servers and download anything new - and if you set it to - update the rpms. It's especially good when you point it at redhat's update dir on the ftp server, so when I read something on bugtraq or redhat-list about a patched package update -- it's already on my system.
Rpmfind handles finding and meeting dependencies. It too, simply uses the rpm system - vs bloating rpm itself with functions.
The problem with automagickal download and installs is it only works when your system is rolled in a consistant basis. Ie BSD's ports collection system is great - it will download and install anything needed to install the package you needed in the first place. However that only works because the entire system is set up to do version checking for libraries and such. It's also a source based system. If your dealing with binaries - as most people using rpm do - you get into all sorts of problems.
If you always use say --sources for your rpmfind call, and recompile the src.rpm files all the time you get the same effect.
The downside is not every package is going to be up on an ftp server in rpm format. I think what rpm really needs is a much better source/binary rpm packaging system. More exactly a front end that generates .spec files. Rpm handles the generation just fine. That way if you can't find anything but tarballs of the latest and greatest file you - or the developers or packge mantainers - could create a standard .spec based on a valid template. Something where you could move around and tag files as documetation, binaries, etc and pick the paths. And output a valid .spec file.
That wouldn't help for when you have to create patches against the source Makefiles to add in rpm environment vars, but even that could be automated by such a system looking for hard coded paths in Makefiles and such.
--
James Michael Keller
"Linux is not our destination, it is simply the open road to tommorow"
AFAIK Wine uses its own DLLs if you don't have the native Windows DLLs present, or don't want to use them....
--
Not really, it is mostly just a simple statement of fact. I imagine a lot of (for example) Mac owners could say the same thing. Although, unlike them, I have had to go out of my way to keep from buying any copies of Windows (like buying mainly only used hardware or building it myself). It would be a much bigger feat for a Mac owner to be able to say they had no copies of MacOS, since it is even more difficult to buy Mac hardware w/o MacOS than it is to buy PC hardware without Windows. It wouldn't be much of a statement if I said I owned no copy of OS/2 or BeOS, or whatever, since it is easy to buy hardware without them. If it weren't for Linux and/or the *BSD's, I probably wouldn't own any x86 PCs.
| People who care won't like it unless it's GPL.
What you mean is people won't like it unless it's free. If Corel is writing applications that aren't derivative from GPL, like a word processor, they're going to look for a profit model, so they might release the source, but not the rights to redistribute it.
It's interesting the line that's being drawn. They're not making Linux for the open source crowd. They're making a platform to lure 'normal' desktop users, so they're borrowing some conventions from the Linux world, and keeping others to keep in business.
Kevin Fox
Let's not forget Oracle does this for its beta test programs, too.
I can't wait till at the DBMS vendors become open source and we get some open source ODBMS.
I'm glad that Redhat has all those things (and much more!), but that still doesn't explain why you claimed that Debian needs help when you've never used it.
/etc/apt file change (clearly documented and very simple).
In fact, Debian's package system IS highly superior to Redhat's. Redhat's package format has some things which Debian's doesn't, but the system itself is SO much better it's not funny.
You can completely upgrade an entire Debian system from one release to any later release with a pair of commands and a
You can even order apt to get the sources and compile them for you and then install the result (although this is brand new).
Everything's automated, and what's even more amazing, everything's automatic. It works! The first time I ran apt it was to upgrade from a seriously outdated and somewhat hacked-about 1.2 system; the upgrade went entirely flawlessly, and I'm still running the result.
Redhat is a pain to upgrade in comparison. You have to boot into an installation program.
And that's not even counting the programs which display available programs for you -- Debian's had those for FAR longer than Redhat.
I don't want to sound anti-Redhat -- they're a GREAT distro. However, to say that Debian need to learn from Redhat in packaging systems is to reverse the situation.
Yes, some people at Corel devote a lot of time on WINE. I know Gavriel State is one of the leaders of the project, and he gave a small lecture at the Ottawa Linux Symposium about it!
"Code free or die!"
Corel as of late has become VERY known for making flaky, embarrasing panic decisions that make them lose a lot of money. While CorelDraw is still a very nice product, everything else Corel has been up to has been super losers.
Everything Corel does seems motivated at trying to take a shot at Microsoft (ex. the whole Java fiasco that was full of huge pronouncements followed by a heavy dollop of reality). The net result has been a very poor bottom line and a steadily fragmenting product line with little or no direction.
Ah well, this will be quite humorous to watch.
That's just silly. Requiring windows would make their potential user base a subset of what it was before. Sure, this would mean every customer they had was a windows user, but it doesn't mean they'd be getting any more windows users that way, just less non-windows users.
Kevin Fox
looks to me like they cant handle all the requests for beta testers because their application process is not running very smoothly...
To me, from what I saw here, the screenshots shown for the installation and stuff look like they're running in MS Windows. I could be wrong though as the only X window managers I've used were icewm, AfterStep and fvwm.
My guess is that they want to keep tabs on what's happening with the testers, not just get flooded with email from 10000 different people with "It doesn't work" type bug reports that are pretty much useless in the testing procedures. Keeping the pool of testers somewhat small at first allows you to keep in touch with them and make sure their problems are being dealt with.
Well, they could only distribute to people who agree not to redistribute. This doesn't violate the GPL. Of course, surely some zealot will think it does and break his word.
Care to post a link to a source where I could verify that for myself? After all, Linux is under the GPL, not the BSD license.
- yet another sleep-deprived post.. yay! -
~ Kish
Who really cares anyway?
In Netscape I click on it and get an error message saying that the document contained no data! This is my first experience with Corel Linux. I am disappointed already.
I thought Slashdot types were supposed to be pretty smart, but wake up here. That "Minimum Requirements" page is just a generic link that they have on all their beta-testing page. It's assuming that you're testing a Windows program (which 95% of Corel programs are). Sure, maybe somebody could have updated, but let's maybe talk about something else, which is actually relevant?
wanna play quake? or quake? or maybe quake? how about just plain old quake? well there is no real chose right? Lets all play quake. Quake?
--
I don't think your idea makes much sense.
/.ed. Would you be mad if there was overwhelming interest in *your* upcoming product?
Wouldn't Corel want the the largest possible pool of people to choose their beta testers from? And when they pick those beta testers, will they want "AOL lamers" who have no previous experience with Linux with which to evaluate the beta, or people who have actually used linux before?
I don't think they'll be mad at all if their servers are
I'm running debian (slink) w/2.0.38 kernel. My real problem w/ debian is that it starting to be only usable w/ regards to packages w/ potato because the official slink packages are *hopelessly* out of date. Luckily several alternate apt sites are starting to show up to keep us w/ debian which is nice. The only option to have a semblence of updated software seems to be to run debian w/ potato.. but this is *so* unstable that there is no guarantee that your machine won't magically stop working. I've killed my system w/ a defective upgrade on potato once which is why i swear by slink. I'll give you an example, according to -devel for the moment rsh has been removed from potato because it got split out (or something) from netstd and the other package is sitting in incoming. So this means all the potato people for the moment dont have their rsh scripts working.. This sort of volatility makes unstable an unusable branch but for the brave *imho*. What debian has going for it other than being a bunch of cool kids, is their package manager.
-avi
The main Corel servers are very unfortunately running WinNT. I know this because I work in MIS at Corel. Linux.corel.com is, of course, running off of Linux. It's in the plans for us to switch alot of our system to Linux, but unfortunately other things have to take priority over non-essential upgrades. Hopefully it will happen soon.
Ever since CorelDraw 6 (Corel's flagship product) CorelDraw's quality has been going down the drain. Every version tops the previous in the bloatware category. Things that used to take 2min on a 486/66 take 4min on a Celeron 366.
If the quality of Corel Linux is similar to CorelDraw I think, no - I KNOW I'll pass.
Kept getting error messages saying : "Document contains no data" They are using Windows NT machines to let people register for a Linux beta?
So yeah, there has to be something made clear here: part of the reason Debian works so beautifully is that the distribution itself consists of ~3000 packages maintained by various people, all held to the same standards.
:)
:), the first thing I do is a
... I do :) in like 4 months, since there hasn't been a working version of gtkglarea. Unlike RedHat, there's no rufus repository with tons of builds of different versions of everything. On the other hand, in my experience (ran RedHat for a long time) a lot of stuff on Rufus didn't work because it was impossible to meet its dependency requirements, since there was no central control over the type of machine it was built on. In Debian, the latest version of each package in the Stable or Unstable (woohoo unstable!) trees is always built to work with the latest of everything else. It's only because of this that the auto-installed dependency thing works at all.
... let me set up a masquerading ppp line machine in about 3 minutes (of course less 45 minutes toying with isapnp to get the bloody pnp modem to work :). I just answered the config questions, gave it the network info, phone number, account, and password, and BANG! it worked. Hehe, way easier than doing the same thing years ago under Slack 3.2 :)
:) It's pretty ugly, and not to be approached if you mind rtfm'ing ...
The result is that for 99.5% (at least that's the number on my system) of stuff you want, you use the distro's official version/build, which is guaranteed to work perfectly. On my system, I have ~530 packages installed. There are only 3 that are not native Debian packages -- the only 3 things I've found that I wanted that weren't available. So I downloaded the rpm and installed 'em with alien
It's kind of a similar philosophy to BSD, in that the OS consists not just of a kernel and a set of basic stuff, but of everything. In a BSD this is true because everyone's running THE official BSD -- no distros. In Debian, there's the same kind of mentality. By comparison, RedHat's distro is sparse (granted most of the difference is in packages that very very very few people are interested in).
Whenever I find out about a new program I find I need (happens all the time, this is Linux after all
dpkg -l "*progname*"
to see if there's already a Debian package. Exactly 3 times, there hasn't been one. If Debian wasn't behind on processing developer applications (they're focusing efforts on catching up with bug reports) I'd have already built debs for these apps.
Sometimes the system doesn't work so well: as an example, there hasn't been a working version of XTraceroute (maybe you don't consider that essential
The result is impressive.
I've run a lot of both distros. I came to the conclusion Debian was superior because it has everything in a compatible, working version. That makes my life a lot simpler. In addition, Debian packages have Config scripts that make setting up a lot of stuff stuff easy even if you're not familiar with the specific config file formats
Man, that was way offtopic. I do intend to try Corel's stuff tho. I hope the license on their config stuff is good, cause Debian's idea of a "user-friendly" install is, the "voice" of the person who asks you various questions and tells you what's going on (in text mode) during the install, is pretty chatty and likable
Where do you get your news from? Either this is the biggest flame bait I have seen so far. Or.. you have been so far removed from the Linux scene that you've confused packaging systems between Debian and Redhat. Seriously... you should try something before making offhand comments about it. :)
One reason why Debian was chosen over RH was due to it's superior packaging system and dependency hiarchy. No other system is as stable and as advanced as the Debian GNU system. I could go on for hours talking about this, but I suggest you go over to debian.org and read before spreading anything that might be linked to falicious comments
Have a good one.
the only problem with corel, is uncertainty over Word Perfect. Now that star office is free, will people keep buying Word Perfect. Without profiability from WP, Corel stock will dive...
I myself think we need more software support in the way of applications.. not in the way of more Linux distributions. Ugh. More GPLed drivers also good.
I already have trouble tracking all of the Linux distributions we have now (actually, for the most part, I don't even bother any more). It's getting to be almost as bad as the fact that we have something like 80 or so flavors of Unix. Do we really need to fractionalize even further? I'm all for choice, but when fragmentation begins to occur on a widespread scale, that's not neccesarily a good thing.
Isn't fragmentation the entire reason why Unix fell to Windows in the first place (seems like a good thing to keep in mind since Linux is "a UNIX-type operating system")? While we may not always be able to make the BSD folks happy (I like the three flavors of BSD [yes I'm ignoring BSDI because it's commercial, of course] about as much as any other free OSes), it would be nice to have a little bit more coordination among the different distros. It would be sort of annoying to see a lot of software crop up that only runs on a specific distro. I mean, I like Red Hat and all, but I don't think I have too much use for software that is specific to Red Hat (remember.. not everything that is going to be released for Linux is going to be GPLed or whatever, which would make it easier to port like crazy if we really want to if it was).
Besides, when there are so many different choices (a la 80 flavors of Unix), the average end-user becomes rather confused about what to get and so chooses whatever is popular (which is why I doubt Red Hat will lose its popularity lead any time soon.. popularity only tends to breed even more popularity in this industry because you can use your popularity as a leverage.. people go for what's hot, after all). A little bit of consolidation couldn't hurt.
At any rate, I don't think it would be a good idea for me personally if I decided to buy software from a company whose caps lock key gets stuck when they are typing in the name of their product and neglect to fix it, IMHO. The only places I tend to see all caps are in places where the author apparently doesn't want you to read the all caps in order to see what is really written there (like, say, legal statements, licensing agreements.. the really important parts of them, anyway). Seems like a product name would be an odd place to test out that particular technique.
Laugh. It's funny.
- yet another sleep-deprived post.. yay! -
~ Kish
Back way back when... Corel purchased the ailing Wordperfect Suite. When they did this, Microsoft began looking at them as a competitor instead of a partner. As a result, Corel lost it's status as a Microsoft development partner and Microsoft stopped sharing advanced coding information with Corel. I think that Corel took this a little bit personally...
And that is why you dont upgrade.... I just did a little reformating, and away I went with Potato: and it works great! apt-get dist-upgrade does wonders...
(Note: this is a reprint of this comment. It is more on-topic here.
The good things about Debian are that it is technically sophisticated and stable (even the so-called "unstable" versions are very stable), and that it is developed by thousands of hackers which means there are more packages and newer versions. (There are currently... 3944 packages in potato.)
The bad things about Debian are that it takes way too long between stable releases, and there isn't a GUI for install, package management, and configuration. Hopefully Corel's contributions will fix all of the bad things, making the perfect free operating system!
(Note that currently the Debianistas are undergoing a crisis about their organization and personality issues and many are dissatisfied with how things are done. I considered mentioning this chaos in the list of "bad things about Debian", but I thought about it and realized that all of the hundreds of packages that I use still work great and that from my perspective as a Debian user the only thing I can legitimately complain about is the lag time between stable releases and the lack of idiot proof, pretty GUI tools.)
(Also note that I said "the perfect free operating system" instead of "the perfect free Linux distribution", because Debian can be layered on top of any suitable kernel, in theory. Work is already progressing on Debian-GNU-Hurd. Anyone want to build up a Debian-OpenBSD for me? :-))
Read all about it in the Corel's Linux Distribution white paper or visit linux.corel.com for news and job openings...
Zooko
(whether they know it or not).
I am seeing a lot of posts here to the effect "Corel Linux is designed for newbies, and so Beta Testers should be newbies." While I can see the angle these people are coming from (and i suspect Corel agrees with them) may I beg to differ?
I think that Corel Linux should have a large number of Wizard level Beta testers. Certainly a lot of newbies need to test it to, but I think at least half of the users should be experienced Linux users.
Why? First, because It is not impossible for an experienced user to construct a simple interface. If it is, we are all doomed. Bluntly, an experienced user who is bothering to consider user interface issues will come up with BETTER suggestions than a non-experienced user, simply because of his wider experience.
Second, Experienced users might actually fix the bugs!. An novice user is unlikely to fix a bug, even if it's just a missing entries on the start menu! Certainly, any non-transparent bug will not be diagnosed in a meaningful way.
Third, An experienced user will do a better job of reporting the bug. C'mon -- how many of us have gotten help desk calls to the effect of "It doesn't work right".
Finally, a non-experienced user will accept bugs that an experienced linux user would not. People who've never run Linux before are used to rebooting their computers three times a day!!! They will accept bugs that I would report (and likely fix).
For the reading impaired: I am not saying corel needs no novice users -- I'm just saying that's not ALL they need.
If Corel Linux is going to be a success in the market they are aiming for, it needs to be much better than windows. Making it better from a novice users point of view is going to be an uphill battle -- the things novice users care most about (pretty pictures) are already reasonably well done in Windows. Corel need all the help they can get if they are going to compete.
-- Slashdot sucks.
DOH! Looks like they could fix their beta test minimum requirements section.
Love the generic (and incorrect) links on the side of the page linked to above - specifically "Minimum Requirements". Guess I don't meet them,
as I don't have "Windows® 95, Windows 98 or Windows NT® (4.0)" installed.
Even the actual form is rather silly. "TSRs"? "Windows version"? "Type of documents you produce"? The first two are pointless for evaluating
a Linux product and the third's probably cut from a form about Wordperfect. I really hope Corel's actual distribution is a lot well thought out than
their web site advertising the beta test is.
Still, the FAQ link is somewhat encouraging, though there are potential problems with this:
| Will Corel be releasing the source code for applications it has created such
| as the Corel File Manager?
| Corel will be making the source code available for such applications. The
| exact terms of the license under which the source code
| will be distributed has not yet been announced.
People who care won't like it unless it's GPL.
-- Rick
I am wondering why a Beta Test has to be closed to only a few chosen applicants? Is the spirit of open source to allow everyone access to your code for peer review?
...if you assume they have a windows based installation program that they want the beta group to test. I don't know if that's the case, though.
--
Fuck the system? Nah, you might catch something.
Of course it requires windows! That way for each beta tester they get that is one LESS windows user out there.
It's brilliant!
Now lets see we need about 80 million beta testers......
Bitcoin pyramid: Join here: http://www.bitcoinpyramid.com/r/1427 it's FREE!
Gnorpm has some of the features you are interested in. It grabs the updated "official" packages list from a redhat server and will display list of available packages. This is not to say that it makes full use of rpmfind. It appears to list only RH official packages -- so the rest is up to you. It does not automatically download & install dependencies. This is a major major pain with rpm. I have experienced the incredible ease of use of FreeBSD's ports and packages system and I truly wish enough people would see the value of this that they would ask for and help code this kind of function for RPM. I understand Debian has something similarly reliable. But I never got far enough with Debian to try the new packaging gizmo. Dselect pretty much stopped me in my tracks. That and for some weird reason I could not get my very plain ps/2 mouse the recognition it deserved.
Sorry, sometimes I just feel motivated to motivate others to put some weight behind their comments. Thanks. :)
~ Kish
They haven't released any binaries yet. It's still in-house. That's means it's not released. Circular logic, but true. Until they DISTRIBUTE it, the GPL does not kick in. You may not like it, but tough, that's the GPL. Even though the beta testers may not be Corel employees, Corel Linux has still not been released.
When Corel puts the distribution up on a generally accessible server, or begins selling it, then they have released it. As long as Corel employees or its contractors (including beta testers who have to fill out an application first) are the only ones with access to the programs, they are not released.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Umm, that only updates the available packages list. I think you would want to follow with 'apt-get upgrade'.
Lets toss all the code away go back to whatever else we were doing...
When you know enough to read the FAQ/Docs
"But this doesn't sound as if Corel is truly dedicated to the GPL"
Pardon me for asking, but why should Corel be "truly dedicated" to the GPL? This is strange term to use, and one usually reserved for religions, political causes and spouses. The closest of the above would be a political cause (because the worshippers keep telling me it's not a religion).
I'll ignore the question of why the cause should be an individual license and not Free Software itself, but ask instead "why should Corel follow your cause?" Aren't they allowed to have their own causes? Aren't people allowed to think differently than you without arising the suspicions of the citizens committee? And most importatnly, why is no one is talking about possible violations of the Artistic license, or the QPL, or the MPL?
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
It's possible they have some kind of bug reporting tool that's written for Windows. I can see why they wouldn't want to take their developers off something useful to rewrite a program they already have.
I can see why a lot of potential beta testers would be more inclined to use Linux, but I'm sure there are people that use both Windows and Linux.
Then again, I could be wrong.
Bug ridden, terrible tech support, messy! Ug, and I might have to even try it out.
"Ah, IPv6, cant wait to tracert my wife."
I've noticed a lot of posts commenting on their beta test requirements. In paticular the windows requirement. I don't think it's a typo, or an out of date page. The Corel distribution is "specifically designed for desktop computer users."
I think really what they mean is that it is meant for people migrating from Windows desktops to Linux. So, if you're not running Windows now, they won't be able to guage the friendliness of the migration. Let alone if you don't even have Windows, you won't run into configuration problems if you're a Linux wiz who wants to go mess with Corel's config files.
The same applies for Macs.
Joseph Elwell.
I hope Corel throws some coders Debian's way. They're package management system has lagged behind Red Hat's due to lack of developers for a while.
I sure hope they help the whole community *and* themselves with developers, rather than trying to make only proprietary add-ons that duplicate competing (free or commercial) versions. Muscle like Corel's got could easily fractionalize demand/enthusiasm.
"There's so much left to know/ and I'm on the road to find out." -Cat Stevens
I know the merced port of the Linux kernel is under a non-disclosure agreement.
On a related link, saw a quick blurb about corel linux in GCN (Government Computer News, I do computers + commo gear atm.. so I try to keep up on these things) http://206.144.247.65/vol18_no28/news/523-1.html here. (Too lazy/tired atm to make it a link) Has some errors (what's the Debian Linux kernel?) but good to see some exposure in the government mags... the print version has a screenshot of one of the installer screens, but the link doesn't seem to.
This sig left intentionally blank.
Corel is a familiar name to most Windows users, definately the most visible software company (besides the recent marketing of RHAT) to jump in with both feet. Seeing them get serious about Linux could be a VGT in winning some converts. I think they're on track... a beta now, a release before the EOY... most of the work has already been done by those of us using Debian GNU/Linux (on which CL is based). I would guess the 'beta' part would be the installation and package management. Debian is fantastic 'under the hood,' but the face is pretty ugly. If Corel could beautify the interface on apt and the installation, that'd be marvelous. Imagine this: a five CD set, with CL, CorelDraw/Linux, Corel Office/Linux, for $99. Think a lot of people would jump at the chance to have practically all the software they'd ever need for $99? I'd be quite interested in that. Linux needs Corel Draw, and could use a great distro that isn't RedHat. It'll make RH, Caldera, SuSE, and the rest better. Competition is good. And Corel gets points for using the fantastic Debian package system, allowing for painless software installation and upgrades, something the other commercial distros sorely lack.
Come on, what better way to test it than to dump it on an ftp site and let people try the distro? Even Red Hat drops their alphas/betas out there as a preliminary to actually releasing a burn.
Well it appears, as they are using the name Linux that they are releasing a distrubution of a GPLd software. So one, they can use the license given to them properly or they can try to skirt around it by finding loopholes and what not. Hopefully this is not their intentions, but I was just simply pointing out that they arn't following the licensed they choose for themselves by making a linux distrubution. (and no I would not consider myself a GPL fanatic, accually I'm not all that concered personally as I still primarly run M$ windoze. But I do believe, by personal feelings that all software that interoperats with other software should be open for inspection. All driver specs should be open so that the hardware can be used to its full potential. And that all file type artitecture should be open (aka wordprocessor document formats, graphic formats etc.) So that anyone can compete on a level playing field. Is this too much to ask???!!
What kind of newbies do you want testing Corel Linux? Would you want me: the learns-about-debian-from-a-friend, installs it himself and is currently figuring out how to recompile a kernel newbie...? Or do you want the MacOS/Win casual user who just types WPs and etc? I doubt Corel is making an OS for the latter... Windows is indeed good enough for this first group of people, and more economical as well. Consider the time it takes to install your typical linux distro... I know that Debian takes long enough! :) Although Linux is free, time is money for joe-shmoe desktop user who doesn't really have time for some of the odd admin-duties that Linux requires sometimes... not to mention learning BASH, X, or reading the FM... or setting up Netscape with the correct libraries because Debian's libs are just a tad different.] I know my mom doesn't want anything to do with the above...
Just think about how much effort has to be put into a complete operating system. Making a single application is one thing. But to put together hoards and hoards of scripts, applications, UI's is very time consuming. Sure, Corel is basing their dist on Debian (? I'm not really sure), but even still they're likely gonna tear a lot of stuff apart and put it all back together, make their own installation wizard, boot loaders, custom X apps, port some of their existing programs to Linux... and the list goes on.
This is intended to be a system that people will use on a day-to-day basis, so you can't expect them to pull an M$ move and release it with boatloads of critters.
"The voices in my head say crazy things"
There is Redhat, which is what most of those other distributions are based on, and appeals to the end user.
There is Debian, which appeals to the advanced user/hacker.
And there are few other distributions like Slackware, which is slowly being replaced by debian, and Stampede, which is still in alpha stage.
So the way I see it, the more contributions to linux the better. Espically coming from a major player like corel, and if you've seen what they've done with their distribution (i saw the demo at LWCE), you'd say the same. I think that we should all support corel, because they're taking a real chance by putting their money into linux.
BTW, their KDE improvements and their Windows Explorer like thing are really cool.
...
Bitchslapped? Give Rob a bitchslap from bitchslapped.com.
That will totally cinch it for me. Newbie in waiting.
Many of their KDE apps are modified and hacked and are under the GPL. Those must be released.
When Wall St. gets wind of the fact that Corel is coming out with their own Linux distro, will it's stock (which is currently at something like 5 3/4) suddenly become really really valuable? I mean, even if the distro ends up sucking ass, won't it increase like gangbusters just on what RHAT did?
I for one am betting it will; I'm taking some of my profit from RHAT and putting it into CORL and crossing my fingers -- the worst that can happen is I'll have to pay less taxes next year.
Hopefully Wall Street is as much on crack as I think it is, and I'll see ya'll while I'm flying over in my private jet. =)
----
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
I don't know about any of you, but if I'm accepted into the beta program I'll broadband the distro so we can all have a look. I know it approaches warez, but I'd rather a distribution like this get banged on by a large number of the community rather than a chosen few.
Posting Anon because I want in the program.
Doesn't WINE require a Windows install (and therefore license)? Is there a possibility that Corel is or would include WINE with a Win License in order to create a distribution that runs Windows apps as well?
:)
And by the way, if not, who is? Anyone? Or shall I get my hands dirty?