Slashdot Mirror


Mandrake 7.0-Beta Ready for Download

Thanks to Gael Duval for letting me know that Mandrake 7 is up and ready for download. They sent over the press release, which I've posted below. Essentially, it's ready for "geeks and testers" and includes many new features.

December 22, 1999 - MandrakeSoft is very pleased to announce that its new Linux distribution is available, only for geeks and testers who can't wait to discover all the new killer features that have been introduced. This beta version (NOT FOR PRODUCTION USE) includes:

- New perl/gtk based graphical installer Drakx, including support for many languages and the DiskDrake partitioner (lets one change the size of Ext2, FAT... disk partitions).

- Use of supermount (integrated in kernel 2.2.14) in order to suppress the need to mount and unmount for most removable medias (cdrom, floppy, zip): Mandrake easier to use than ever!

- Several security levels are available. They let you use your Linux box like a jail (extremely high security, restricted use), or like certain very common proprietary OSes (very poor security, no constraint in use). The default security level, medium, is the security level found in most standard Linux distributions.

- Improved desktop integration with new tools like DrakConf and rpmdrake that let the user manage its Linux-Mandrake box like a charm.

- New hardware configuration tools like lothar and XFdrake

The new distribution has to be tested by many people to detect any problem that would not have been found internally.

Hackers, Geeks, Nerds or simply curious users, just download Mandrake 7.0beta, have fun with it and report all the bugs! For this, just see http://www.linux-mandrake.com/en/oxygenbeta.php3 and read the instructions!

The Mandrake Team.

314 comments

  1. That's pretty funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You weren't serious with that post were you? I mean -- I can't stop laughing.

    How about this for a real answer -- Rob and Co. are bigger Linux advocates than *BSD advocates. No mystery. No big deal. Linux has a high "what's this all about?" factor right now. That means more page hits, more eyeballs on banners, and more profit. There's nothing evil or conspiratorial about it.

  2. Re:mandrake 7 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actualy it was so the Power pack and MacMillan version numbers match.

  3. Re:Graphical Installer is a must... by bmetzler · · Score: 2

    If Linux is ever going to be accepted by the masses as an alternative to Windows, it must have a graphical installer, and must, on the surface, appear to be as user friendly as a Mac.

    Woah!! Wasn't Windows 95 accepted by the masses before it had a graphical installer?Isn't it true that W2K still doesn't have a fully graphical installer?

    However, a graphical installer is something that's beneficial to Linux, no denying that. But that claim that Linux *needs* a graphical install to be "accepted" is largely without merit.

    -Brent
  4. Re:Not everything bleeding edge is good by Malc · · Score: 1

    Calm down. Calm down.

    Did I say anything about this release? Obviously I realised it was a beta release. Only fool would expect it to be stable.

    I was making a point about Mandrake distros in general. There are a large number of vocal Mandrake users that claim it's the bees knees. I was trying to point out that that isn't necessarily the case.

    Finally, I didn't say "don't use the 7.0 beta distro". I just expressed an opinion. Whether you use it or not is your prerogative.

  5. Re:Cool! by Col.+Panic · · Score: 1
    I also enjoyed the upgrade from RH 6 to Mandrake 6.? - highlighted directories and automounting of my dos volumes by default. Nice.

    Have fun :)

  6. Re:Graphical Installer is a must... by bmetzler · · Score: 2
    We all lose.

    Nonsense. There's nothing forcing us to use Linux till the end of days. It's like the early American settlers. They explored new areas, and as others followed them and it got crowded, they moved on. We to will move on as the purpose of Linux changes.

    FreeBSD is starting to look nice... And there is always the Hurd. Or maybe there'll even be a new kernel to hack with. Never look back.

    -Brent
  7. Re:Graphical Installers - A Step Backwards? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Installation is irrelevant. You get a professional to do it, either at the factor, or from your IT dept.

  8. Re:Nifty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    Yes but I wonder what that actually *means*? Does it choose to allow you to install or not install certain packages? Does it make inetd services not available by default? Does "most secure" just mean putting "ALL:ALL" in /etc/hosts.deny? What reason is there for not choosing most secure? Does anyone have actual details on this, I'm pretty curious as to what they mean by this feature...

  9. Re:What is wrong with you people? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    sure there are many more tragedies, but at least most people don't make fun of them. also, i know it's ONLY four people, but it's four PEOPLE. sure, i don't know them, and it's not gonna change my life or your life (i'm assuming), but that doesn't mean it's right to laugh at it. to put it in a stupid-cliche-scenario-saying: imagine that those four people were your only family (or something like that)...would you like it if people laughed at it?

  10. Re:Rage Fury? by pixel_ · · Score: 1

    it does support the Rage 128

  11. Re:Why Mandrake? by Col.+Panic · · Score: 1
    In addition to the reasons listed above - Mandrake is *cheaper*.

  12. Re:Graphical Installers - A Step Backwards? by lydikitty · · Score: 1

    I've had difficulties with graphical installers as opposed to text based ones myself. For instance, my first recent install of Linux (in 3 years) was Mandrake 6.1, primarily text based. I found that it gave me more options in regards to configuring my partitions, lilo, X, etc. Then I picked up a cheap Caldera Open Linux cd and I didn't have nearly as many options. When configuring LILO a second time, it didn't recognize my other linux partition, thus I had to go back and recongfigure LILO manually, It also didn't give me the partitioning power I needed at the time. I'll likely stick with fips, fdisk and linuxconfig from now on. I may however decide to try the new mandrake install, as I am pleased with the 6.1 distribution. Just my $0.02.

    --
    meow
  13. Funiest thing Ive read today... by wharfrat · · Score: 1

    This post was very Onion-esc.... Though I have to admit it should not be in this section. Post it on the main page!!!!

    1. Re:Funiest thing Ive read today... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I submitted as a story but I guess the boys at the compound are getting a little PC, now that Andover is signing their checks.

  14. Re:LCD != GCF by mcrandello · · Score: 1

    Thanks, I'll use GCD from now on. Of course they do have a point about the pejorative implications.. ;)


    mcrandello@my-deja.com
    rschaar{at}pegasus.cc.ucf.edu if it's important.

  15. Re:It should be sold pre-installed ... by Planetes · · Score: 1

    Generally most problems are fixable in Windows after enough re-installs. The nice thing about Linux (with or without a gui installer) is the fact that usually it's fixable without reinstalling.

    --
    Planetes
    "One World, One Web, One Program" - Microsoft Promo Ad
    "Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer" - Adolf Hitl
  16. The betrayal of Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    BeOS and BSD are still geeky, but Linux isn't. Linux is being turned into a corporate cash cow. All these companies are trying like hell to shed every last iota of geekery from Linux. That's why people call it Winix once corporate handlers have had their way with it. They know that to sell systems, they must target idiots who couldn't do anything on their own. Blame RHAT. Blame LNUX. But the writing is on the wall. Time to jump ship? I don't know. Maybe SlackDeb has a chance for us real programmers.

    1. Re:The betrayal of Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, no one would even think of basing a business on BeOS. Idiot.

  17. Re:First time Linux user... by jpowers · · Score: 1

    It really will run on anything, so it comes down to what you're willing to spend. Whatever you get, make sure you don't get a winmodem in it (that's standard on just about any PC you can buy retail.)

    It's a little slow this week in tech support land. E-mail me some more details on what you're trying to do with this. I set up little single purpose linux servers all over the office using computers we were going to throw away anyway...

    Jpowers

    --

    -jpowers
  18. Re:Tasteless. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah I guess it is funny to be an asshole nowadays. Too bad the assholes are never the ones buried under earthquake rubble.

  19. kissing up to noobeys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why do we care about noobeys and nongeeks? They've never cared about us, so why should we care about them? We don't need them. We can walk away from this nonsense.

    1. Re:kissing up to noobeys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The answer, my dear élitist Schweinchen, is that anybody who cares about money cares about "noobeys", as you so analphabetically put it. And money is all investors care about. I'm sure you can apply transitivity to reach the obvious conclusion.

  20. Re:Why Mandrake? by Zurk · · Score: 1

    you forget that mandrake has a tendency to ship with PRE-ALPHA software (Gnome/kernel etc) which makes the system completely unstable for use as a server -- its a bleeding edge development distro. RH also has a new update tool and desktop switching is much improved. personally i use redhat since its stable and reasonably secure when updated -- altho that might not be a requirement for everyone.

  21. Re:Marketing numbers vs. real life ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    A friend of mine (brilliant but not into computers much) was amazed at how well put together Mandrake 6.1 was when she saw it at my place this week. "What are you running on your computer?" she asked. "That's Linux, with KDE." "Whoah! I didn't think Linux was so slick!"
    Windows victims never did understand the difference between a kernel, an operating system, a shell, a window manager, a desktop manager, and a GUI.
  22. Re:Graphical installers.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    MDK 7.0 can be installed by network MDK 7.0 use framebuffer or VGA16 Text installs are available too

  23. Re:Why Mandrake? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What is "desktop switching" -- virtual screens? And what do you mean by "server" -- something used by more than one person?

  24. Re:Graphical installers.. by seaportcasino · · Score: 4

    What I don't understand, is why can't we all have one or two common graphical installers instead of one for every distro? So much labor is being wasted as each company tries to create their own version of graphical linux installation nirvana. If there was one or two, then we could all pitch in and help and progress would be a lot faster.

  25. Re:Tasteless. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The funniest part of this whole thing is that all those points were wasted on something that is neither on-topic or THAT incredibly funny. Probaby the best troll ever seen on slapdash.

  26. Hardware by Col.+Panic · · Score: 1
    I'm running 3 Linux boxes (aside from laptop)-

    P!!!@500 with 128Mb and 16Mb Nvidia TNT - it rocks, 'nuff said

    P166 with 88Mb and 2Mb S3 - firewall, adequate in all ways except video, which is unnecessary for the box's function

    K6II@400 with 128Mb and 1 Mb S3 - Apache 1.3 web server - also runs great except the gui, which again is unecessary for the box's function.

    One thought - video cards - check for drivers before you buy the latest and greatest card. Matrox is supported. Have fun!

  27. Kernel 2.2.14? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Am I missing something here? "finger @linux.kernel.org" shows that the latest stable version is 2.2.13. What gives?

    1. Re:Kernel 2.2.14? by ghazban · · Score: 1

      In mandrake-6.1, they used a 2.2.13-pre kernel. As this is just a beta, I'd guess that they'd be using a pre kernel, which isn't so bad for a beta release, but I believe that a full release _should_ use a fully released kernel version.

    2. Re:Kernel 2.2.14? by Ian+Schmidt · · Score: 4

      Well, 2.2.14pre16 or so is actually more stable than 2.2.13 final (there've been a LOT of stability and security fixes by Alan Cox and others in the 2.2.14pre series). I've said it before and I'll say it again: I trust AC's "pre" kernels more than most people's finals :)

  28. Re:Graphical installers.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You have choice :-)

  29. Cool! by Signal+11 · · Score: 1
    This is just too good of news. I was planning on tossing out my rh6 installation and going with Mandrake this weekend. Now I got a whole new batch of bleeding edge (bleeding as in "I'm bleeding more than you are!") software to work with. My, what a nice christmas present.

    Thanks Mandrake!

    1. Re:Cool! by mcrandello · · Score: 1

      I have to admit I was very impressed switching from RH6 to Mandrake 6. For the most part the packages are all compatable, more recent and aside from dosemu not finding my floppy drive (a downgrade fixed that) seems to be completely on. Have fun Hemmoraging on the holidays :)


      mcrandello@my-deja.com
      rschaar{at}pegasus.cc.ucf.edu if it's important.

  30. Re:some nice specs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then give it to me for Christmas :-)

  31. Re:Graphical Installers - A Step Backwards? by Noel · · Score: 1
    Ever been asked a question that made you think about something that you wouldn't have otherwise? That'd be an insightful question, now, wouldn't it?

    ;-P

  32. Re:No Image file? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To quote William Shatner: "It's gonna be BIG - Really BIG!" That's why no iso yet. Care to overburn an 80 minute CD_R?

  33. Re:Graphical Installers - A Step Backwards? by lydikitty · · Score: 1

    I think "modern" linux gui installations have already made a giant leap to being more user friendly, as long as one has a stable computer. KDE is so much like windows, it's almost sickening. I just think that there are many levels of Linux, many dimensions of use.

    I've installed Caldera and Mandrake on my machine with less problems then my Windows (tm) install. I think that Linux should be an option for those seeking alternative, and if it's easier for people to get set up so they can use it as they please, so be it.

    Without a doubt I agree that if there is going to be a GUI install program that there should be a text based install with the distribution as well. I want options and I want to be able to configure every aspect of it to my hearts content...

    I realize that though Linux has gone far in the way of user friendlyness, it is still primarily a geek interface. Perhaps it always will be, but I want people to have options. There is freedom in Linux. I can make my Linux install anything I want it to be. It takes a lot of work, but for everything I do, I learn something new.

    I do realize that Linux is sort of a "trend" these days, it has made the stockmarket explode and the evil empire think twice. If it lasts, it lasts, if the trend dies away and people go back to their limited windows desktop, so be it. I just want people to feel like they can switch, instead of intimidated by it. Ultimately a gui interface all the way makes them feel comfortable.

    --
    meow
  34. Graphical installers.. by cowmix · · Score: 2

    Wow.. every distribution seems to have a graphical installer now. Does anyone know which one works the best?

    1. Re:Graphical installers.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are not agree on technicals choice. MDK 7.0 installator is written in Perl/GTK, RH in Python and Corel in I_don't_know. Who knows? It seems to be a WM.

    2. Re:Graphical installers.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If RH 6.0 had it, MDK too. Now, if your card is not yet supported and if it compatibles with Vesa2, MDK 7.0 use framebuffer. It's slow but you can use X.

    3. Re:Graphical installers.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What I don't understand, is why can't we all have one or two common graphical installers instead of one for every distro? So much labor is being wasted as each company tries to create their own version of graphical linux installation nirvana. If there was one or two, then we could all pitch in and help and progress would be a lot faster.

      The usefulness of the installer is one of the key selling points to some distro's, as text-based installers are one of the things keeping some people/companies away from Linux - the manager thinks if it ain't pretty, then it I can't be easy/useful/cost-effective/some combination of the above/some other wierd leep of logic.

      There-for the company that comes up with the most comprehensive, easiest to use, compatable, reliable and pretty installer will have an advantage in the commercial end of the market. Hence they don't want to share that part of their work with other distro's if they can avoid it.

      Not quite the open-source mentality we all hope will win through in the end, but I can see why things are going this way. I used the text-based alternative last time I installed RH61 - I may give Mandrake graphical jobby a try if I finally decide to move over.

    4. Re:Graphical installers.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No Linux installer I've tried so far is anything less than infuriating. They're just plain lousy designs, and half the time, they're broken. For example, Mandrake's current one (6.0) has the clunkiest scheme for browsing packages ever devised. It takes forever to find what you want, and that's only if you already know what any of that shit really does. The descriptions are only useful if you're already familiar with Unix. For example, how many newbies have a whole host (pun intended) of internet services running on their desktop/surfing machine, because it looked like that's what they needed to surf the web and pick up their email with Netscape (Hmm... sendmail, yup..., and ftp... yup)? And, what good is the "update" feature, if it doesn't show which packages are already installed, or could be updated? Even Microsoft and Netscape can do this, over the web even. Get the guys who designed Amazon's website to do an installer. Or the guys who do Windows CDs. Or even the guy who wrote fdisk or pine.

    5. Re:Graphical installers.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I don't care about installation. That only happens once. So what if it takes a bit of brain?

      What they really need to work on is group sysadmin stuff. How do I add 500 accounts every trimester? How do I install something on all machines at once? How do I run automated security scans? Etc.

      I've got to spec out a undergraduate Unix lab, and I want to put Linux on there, but the other advocate on our staff wants BSD instead. He says that it's much easier to automate everything with BSD. And I tell him that it's the same with Linux because Unix is Unix. And he says, no, the Linux stuff is all a pain in the butt because of RPMs. I don't know what to say. I run Linux at home, he runs BSD. Our servers are BSD. But the undergrads are going to be more used to Linux.

      I think serious, industrial-strength, real-world Unix admin issues are a hell of a lot more important than this whole install issue. It's a red herring if you ask me.

    6. Re:Graphical installers.. by whoop · · Score: 2

      As for Mandrake, it will install kdelibs properly this time around. There was a problem with the kcmclock pack getting installed before kdelibs. But it's all better now.

    7. Re:Graphical installers.. by Gurlia · · Score: 4

      Hmm, is it really such a good idea to have graphical installers? At least IMHO there should be a text-based fallback. I've seen graphical Linux installers fail (Corel being one, on newer video cards), which is really a shameful turn-off for people who are switching to Linux for the first time. Now, if only there was a text-based fallback, everything would be OK -- so even if the installer encounters some strange video card released just a day ago, it won't barf but simply fall back to a text-mode installer that at least gets the base system installed, then the user can worry about configuring Linux to work with his video hardware.

      (No, using VGA16 does NOT guarantee anything... at least in Corel's case, the X server simply segfaults on the ATI Rage 128 even in VGA16 modes. Text-mode is virtually a 100% guarantee: why not be prepared for the worst when it doesn't cost that much?)

      --
      mikre he sophia he tou Mikrosophou.
    8. Re:Graphical installers.. by uh · · Score: 1

      Mandrake's definetely looks the nicest from the ones I've seen pictures of. RedHat's is pretty bland and takes a little bit to get loaded. Their text installer works better and looks nicer than their graphic installer. They really need to work on that.

    9. Re:Graphical installers.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think serious, industrial-strength, real-world Unix admin issues are a hell of a lot more important than this whole install issue. It's a red herring if you ask me.

      Finally, somebody talking sense amidst this 300 post beauty pageant!

    10. Re:Graphical installers.. by tarp · · Score: 1
      One word: Ports system.

      --
      WorldServe Consulting

    11. Re:Graphical installers.. by AstroJetson · · Score: 2

      I haven't used any (graphical) installers other than RH, but I know that it does in fact fall back to the old text installer if something goes wrong with the graphical one (like funky video h/w, eg). I can't speak for the others, but I'd be surprised if they don't as well.

      --
      Admit nothing, deny everything and make counter-accusations.
    12. Re:Graphical installers.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would like to see a choice right after putting in the boot disk->Graphical(reccomended for first time/convenience users) and->Text Based (for custom installations), but other than that i think a graphical installation is a *great* thing.

    13. Re:Graphical installers.. by geocajun · · Score: 1

      uhh... you can type 'text' and the boot screen to get the text installer in redhat...

    14. Re:Graphical installers.. by technos · · Score: 2

      Text mode is a 100% guarantee!

      Had to install Linux on a dozen headless boxen. Drop in a videocard for install? No way! Just recompiled the bootdisk kernel so I could use a serial console. Took me an hour to make bootdisk mods and recompile. It would have taken an extra fifteen-per-machine it would have taken to swap in/out a videocard, (or the HD for 'cloning') not to mention the broken 'warranty' seals.

      I wonder if you can bind the graphical installer to another Xserver? Hmmm.. . .

      --
      .sig: Now legally binding!
    15. Re:Graphical installers.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just a not on the corel install. The new versions have great installers. The only problem i have encountered was with the video card. But it still lets you boot into command line mode where you can fix the problem. I think you should replace your 1.0 version of corel for one of the newer ones.

    16. Re:Graphical installers.. by FreakyGeeky · · Score: 3

      I don't think everyone is ready for graphical installers yet. I think they need to be improved before they're unleashed upon the masses. Here's some problems I've noticed with the installation of a few distros:

      Red Hat 6.1:
      The graphical installer doesn't list all of the available packages. It also failed to correctly configure X on my computer. The fallback text-installer in 6.1 does configure X properly, but it is missing the F1 package descriptions! Ouch!

      Mandrake 6.1:
      Text install only. Descriptions are there, and everything works as advertised - until you get it running. For some odd reason, that distro doesn't install kdelibs! I always need to install it by hand. This is my favorite distro.

      Corel Linux:
      Just tried to install 1.0 last night on a spare machine. The GUI installer doesn't work with my mouse. I have a Logitech FirstMouse+. That shouldn't be a problem, but it is.

    17. Re:Graphical installers.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Man, and people still pretend these aren't different operating systems.

    18. Re:Graphical installers.. by jpowers · · Score: 1

      That problem with Corel... I had the same thing with the last 2 Mandrakes. The driver for this video card was just finished recently (Riva128ZX), but they didn't have it (at least not a working version). Redhat 6.0 had it, though.

      Moving to SuSE anyway...

      Jpowers

      --

      -jpowers
    19. Re:Graphical installers.. by LeeHarveyOswald · · Score: 1

      Out of all the graphical installers i've tried (RedHat, Corel, Storm). RedHat is still the best in my opinion. It defaults to the text install on my old machine (which has a funky video card) with out crashing it. The other two killed the machine so i couldnt even install. LHO.

    20. Re:Graphical installers.. by belbo · · Score: 1
      At least IMHO there should be a text-based fallback.

      The 'old' installation tool is still included in Mandrake 7.0...

      Best wishes

      tom

      --

      --
      "Just believe everything I tell you, and it will all be very, very simple."

  35. Re:Tragedy !!! Please Read by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's damn funny:) Quakes dont kill people, buildings kill people.

  36. Re:Waiting... by AME · · Score: 1
    But why the new major number? We are right on the verge of a whole mess of new-version products. Why is it that the 6.1->7.0 jump happens just before the new packages arrive, and theoretically contains mostly incremental package changes while we expect 7.0->7.1 to include the long-awaited new product lines. This doesn't make any sense to me.

    On the other hand, it is Mandrake. So they might actually be shipping all that stuff now. We've all suspected that they have a time machine in their shop someplace...

    --
    "I have a good idea why it's hard to verify programs. They're usually wrong." --Manuel Blum, FOCS 94
  37. Re:Graphical Installer is a must... by PurpleBob · · Score: 2

    The thing is that Windows doesn't need pretty installers, since most people don't install it. It comes pre-installed on their computer.
    --

    --
    Win dain a lotica, en vai tu ri silota
  38. Re:Waiting... by bmetzler · · Score: 2
    but despite my impatience I wish they would wait until after Xfree 4, KDE 2, the new linux kernel, mozilla, and other things are released. This would give them plenty of time to test things like the new partitioners and installer.

    Development will never "stablize". There'll always be a new and improved version coming up. It has been the tradition (I think) for distributions to be updated every 6 months. This gives you a reasonably up to date distribution. Distributions are supposed to be collections of the last 6 months progress, not the next six months.

    In 6 months if the newest versions of the software are out, and have been fully tested, then they will be included, else there'll soon be a new version. If distributions wait for a fully developed Linux suite, we'll be waiting for Linux, just like we've waited 4 years for W2K. And no one wants that.

    -Brent
  39. Re:Graphical Installer is a must... by Tower · · Score: 2

    Hmmm... I think you really do lose some of the power if the interface isn't perfect...
    example: make menuconfig is *far* more navigable and easy to use than make xconfig. hands stay on keyboard - tab, space, enter, and the up/down arrows are all you need to *quickly* get around (and F1 is close for descriptions). xconfig doesn't allow you to scroll through choices with the arrow keys - you *need* to use the mouse. That alone slows things up considerably...

    If graphical installers tend to follow the same methods, it makes it more difficult for people to install - especially is you have a new mouse that doesn't have direct BIOS support... what will you do then?! Hmm, I can't seem to navigate this install... graphical installs tend to take longer if you actually want to change anything than simple, text menus... in almost every example I can think of...

    "Out, Out! Demons of Stupidity!" - Dogbert

    --
    "It's tough to be bilingual when you get hit in the head."
  40. Re:Supermount? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've tried it in Mandrake Cooker. It's a little scary - put the CD in the tray, push the button and ... HEY! It's already mounted! Very cool.

  41. Waiting... by Pike · · Score: 3

    I am a Mandrake user and have been waiting for a good new version of their distro for a while... but despite my impatience I wish they would wait until after Xfree 4, KDE 2, the new linux kernel, mozilla, and other things are released. This would give them plenty of time to test things like the new partitioners and installer.

    I welcome the new ease of setting things like security levels during the install...I don't mind using command line tools and text files for configuration, but those howto files would be wonderful documents if only they worked on my computer :-)

    1. Re:Waiting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm guessing here, but I imagine that 7.1 will have all those, plus improvements on the new goodies in 7.0

    2. Re:Waiting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But why the new major number? We are right on the verge of a whole mess of new-version products. Why is it that the 6.1->7.0 jump happens just before the new packages arrive,

      Because it is the version number of the distribution as whole; and it has indeed changed a lot to have a new major number: new installer program, new management tools, new way of supporting locales, support for asian languages, new way of dealing with removable media to name a few.

    3. Re:Waiting... by Rupert · · Score: 2

      You could wait forever to get the latest version of everything. Development cycles being what they are, one distro is going to be the first to ship a 2.4 kernel, one is going to be the first to ship XFree86 4.0, and so on. What would be nice is if the installers & configuration tools the distros are developing could stabilize enough that when a major new version of some part of the system (kernel, X, browser, etc.) comes out it only requires a minor change to the distro. That way those of us who don't like tweaking with things we don't understand can have all the new stuff in our favourite packaging faster.

      Rupert

      --

      --
      E_NOSIG
  42. Re:Waiting for Godot by bmetzler · · Score: 2
    If they waited for Mozilla to be finished, you wouldn't have a new version of Mandrake for another year or two.

    Oh, come on. The development cycle of Mozilla is open. You can go to mozilla.org and see how the project is progress. Certainly it won't be another year even to have a distributable copy of Mozilla.

    I think we may even see Mozilla bundled in distributions early next year. Before July-like.

    -Brent
  43. Re:Graphical Installers - A Step Backwards? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    do they really offer any additional functionality?

    Yes!
    If you have ever had to deal with 16bit encoded asian languages you would understand.

  44. stormix is debian based by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have not tried it yet(it just came out), but stormix looks like a verry nice polished up version of debian.

  45. Re:Stormix Linux2000 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    www.stormix.com Sad, that /. ignored this brilliant company:(

  46. POSTING DOESN'T SAY WHAT MANDRAKE *IS* by billstewart · · Score: 1
    This happens so often. Somebody announces

    "NEW VERSION OF FOOBAR - 7.0.2! DOWNLOAD HERE"

    and the web page doesn't say what FOOBAR IS - it only says that it's better than FOOBAR 6.3.7 because the frobulatror is now tweakable and the incompatibility with ZORGLOB 2.1 or FooBSD has been fixed, along with that annoying memory leak.


    So we know that MANDRAKE has a new Graphical Installer. That's Nice (or Not Nice, as some respondents prefer), but there's no mention in the lead story about WHAT MANDRAKE IS. It's possible that it IS a graphical installer, but it's pretty tough to tell from the download page.


    So, folks, remember that your new version announcements will not only be read by people who are intimately following your cool developments, but by people who've never heard of your project. A good sentence or two of background and maybe a home page pointer can work wonders.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
    1. Re:POSTING DOESN'T SAY WHAT MANDRAKE *IS* by RPoet · · Score: 1
      So, folks, remember that your new version announcements will not only be read by people who are intimately following your cool developments, but by people who've never heard of your project.

      Huh? So one would have to follow development of Mandrake "intimately" to know it's a distribution of Linux? Should they perhaps also explain what Linux is, in case someone isn't following Linux development intimately? Hello? Even if you'd never heard of Mandrake, it would have taken you no more than a minute to find out the basics, even from the link provided.

      --
      "Oppression and harassment is a small price to pay to live in the land of the free." -- Montgomery Burns.
  47. Notice... by jallen02 · · Score: 1

    That this was not posted until it was READY for download.. Which means /. most likely waited to appease everyone who complains about 'rumors' and early stories.. Bleh. Good job, keeps the crap outta a discussion.

  48. Re:Possible reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Does XFree86 provide more complete support for internationalization than the console?

    Yes.

    I think character sets and fonts are a non-issue,

    They are an issue too. On text console you cannot use other than charset limited to 256 chars (on normal PC hardware at least); to display in Japanese for example you need to switch to graphical mode.
    Also, in text mode you are limited to fixed width and one font only. Having different fonts sizes can greatly improve readibility, and some languages are very bad served by fixed width fonts as the letters they use change a lot in wide.

    but X probably has more complete support for complex input methods than an off-the-shelf kernel.
    Also, bue giving that all that is needed to be typed at install time is in ascii anyway, that is not an issue, IMHO.

  49. Re:Graphical Installer is a must... by bmetzler · · Score: 2
    The thing is that Windows doesn't need pretty installers, since most people don't install it. It comes pre-installed on their computer.

    Another aspect most people ignore. Especially a certain journalist on USA Today.

    -Brent
  50. Re:Maybe Slack/Deb? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And try to get an early release while you're at it! Maybe Linus has one of the old pre-one kernels hanging around. Any Debian/Slackware release from around 95/96 would do for you "real programer".

  51. Re:Graphical Installer is a must... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Exactly. Thankyou for proving to me that the Linux crowd is indeed elitest. I was worried that it might take over the desktop market (because I can't stand it) but now you've set my mind at ease. It appears Linux is something that is to be kept among the elite computer crowd and not shared with the "masses" (if I understand you correctly, and I think that I do because you've made yourselves very clear). The masses can't handle it, they're ignorant and they should stay that way. It is not a revolutionary operating system that will be built by-the-people for-the-people, it is, instead, an OS that is built by an elite group for them and them alone. Making Linux more user-friendly, then, should not be a priority. On the contrary, making it more cryptic so that its users are revered for their computer skill should be what it's all about. Is that it?

  52. Re:Graphical Installers - A Step Backwards? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    his question certainly didn't fit your criterion. We devalue the meaning of words when we overuse, or in this case, use without justification.

  53. Re:What is wrong with you people? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm guessing these shitheads probably would. Maybe there is a metamoderator with a more well-adjusted sense of humor for the folks responsible for +3.

  54. Re:Graphical Installers by napir · · Score: 1

    Even Redhat's text-based install is screwed up in 6.1. At least on my system, the installer attempted to mount all the partitions on all the drives it could find, not just those in /etc/fstab. Now, they decided not to include NTFS support in their install disk kernel, so it wouldn't mount my w2k partition. And then apparantly it doesn't know what to do when a mount fails, so the entire install process dies with a fatal error. Screw this, I'm doing a net install of debian when I get back to school.

  55. Re:I prefer "make xconfig" myself by Tower · · Score: 2

    I'll agree with the other poster on this thread that the text screen redraws almost instantaneously on my card (an old S3 ViRGE -4MB), and incredibly quick on my Matrox G200...

    I don't *hate* xconfig... it's just (IMHO) harder to move around in - the improper options don't dissapear (a really nice feature of menuconfig), and my biggest gripe is still the scrollbar issue. I don't need to use them in Netscape, IE, or any number of other X/Windows apps that have them. Using a UI as intended is not a valid goal, unless you have designed / altered the UI yourself. Ever used Lotus Notes (MUST DIE!!!)? I can't even *imagine* how that was inteded to be used from a UI standpoint.

    I love graphical manipulation and mice and all that stuff, but I have gone against people who use on xconfig, and head-to-head ounavigated them using menuconfig. It is a cleaner, easier, more appropriate interface.

    If xconfig was modified to be properly keyboard navigable, I wouldn't switch to a console to configure the kernel... It may be easier for those who have never done a kernel before, but trying to view the explanations takes longer, making choices takes longer - if you make the y/n selection with the mouse, you then need to move the mouse to scroll the window (see comment about choices not dissapearing), and in text mode you'd have several other choices made already...

    The point is - if you know what you want in your kernel, it *is* quicker to navigate via the keyboard - hands don't move - no wasted time. That's all.

    --
    "It's tough to be bilingual when you get hit in the head."
  56. Re:Graphical Installer is a must... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At least we don't spell "élitist" the way you did, as "elitest". Go back to your pictograms, child.

  57. Re:Why Mandrake? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have used Redhat, Suse, Corel and Mandrake. By far Mandrake is my favorite distro. Why? It's compatible with Redhat which is the most widely used distro. It's compiled and optimized for Pentiums, and it does feel fast when you used it. It has the most up-to-date versions of almost every application including the important ones like the kernel, Apache, Perl, PHP, Python, KDE, Gnome, Netscape, Gimp, etc ... And if your apps are not up-to-date, Mandrake has even provided its own update tool that lets you download new apps and install them automatically with just one click. Painless update without messing up other apps. Although KDE is the default desktop, Mandrake lets you easily switches to Gnome or other desktops. Mandrake improves little things like color texts, a well-tuned Apache server with mod_perl, php already configured, etc ... Overall, Mandrake seems to be well-tuned without dumbing it down.

  58. Re:Graphical Installers - A Step Backwards? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, step backwards in some ways. The best way to do it would be for someone to develop a fairly simple installer ENGINE that could run most any command line utility. It would take a common installer profile file format and do the entire install from that.

    Now, a GTK front end could be put in to make a nice graphical install, or you could do an easy network install or other automated install, all using the same nice simple installer engine...

    The same engine could rerun parts of an install too if you needed, say some stuff gets trashed. Now some of that is RPM's function, but RPM doesn't do everything you need.

  59. Re:Tasteless. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Probaby the best troll ever seen on slapdash

    I think you're right. At latest check, the original slashdot story has generated 156 comments. a good 1/3 of them are underneath this thread. Truly the work of a great hacker.

  60. Re:Graphical Installer is a must... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We've already had a nice rant on while the E-word is a form of politically correct bashing. Why don't you just shut the fuck up instead?

  61. Re:First time Linux user... by sharkey · · Score: 1

    Print serving for Win95/98/NT/2000 using Samba works very well for me on an old 486DX2/66 w/32 MB RAM running RedHat5.1. 1 caveat: If someone sends a LARGE print job to it, ie. over about 30 MB or so, it tends to time out, and I have to clear the queue manually. We do this once in a blue moon, so I haven't done much looking into fixing it. File serving for NT is fairly fast. Encrypted passwords, share level security. I use it to keep my files on.

    Star Office is a memory hog. P-200MMX w/32MB RAM running the RH5.1 version of AfterStep was "go get a beer and drink it while opening your resume" slow. Doubling the memory helped, but it is big. I'd hazard a not-to-experienced guess that you should look at a machine that'll run MS Office 2000 w/Assistant fast to run Star Office on.

    --

    --
    "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
  62. Re:Ummmm..... Death IS funny. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or maybe like a clip in this stupid ass "Banned from television" tape I just got, where a young woman comes face to face with a commuter train. Would have been cute except that the train was going like 70 mph. And whats even worse, her body shoots through the air and hits the cameraman. HAHA :)

  63. Re:Why Mandrake? by LocalYokel · · Score: 1

    Compared to Slackware, it's sexier, much easier, and better engineered (esp. if you don't know exactly what you're doing, which covers just about everyone).

    Compared to Red Hat, see all of the above, then add faster. Slackware can be much more optimized than Red Hat by several other measures. Of course, it doesn't work at all on Athlons, and the boost is not especially noticeable.

    Love? Depends on who you ask, and how you feel about Linux in general. If I could only use Linux on my desktop, but had a choice in distros, Mandrake would be it. Then again, if I could pick anything, it would be NT -- it works for me, and I know its ins and outs.

    IMO, Mandrake is fantastic, if only because it fixes a lot of what's wrong with Red Hat, including KDE, but much more these days. The only problem is that Red Hat generally stinks, and Mandrake can't/won't fix it for compatibility reasons. I'm especially irritated with the verbose (and usually redundant) use of ".bash_profile", and its mucking around with ISSUE files at startup with rc.local, which leads to my own question:

    I've worked on BIND and Apache servers, but haven't had any interest in Linux for my desktop until recently. Are there any distros based on Debian or Slackware that do KDE as nicely as Mandrake, or would I have to spend HOURS doing it manually, and DAYS figuring out new concepts and config files?
    --

    --

    --
    E2 IN2 IE?

  64. Re:Graphical Installers - A Step Backwards? by HiThere · · Score: 3

    There are many advantages to having a large customer base... e.g. companies support you with drivers for their hardware.

    OTOH, it is certainly possible to get too comitted to gui-ness. It seems stupid to cripple the text installer just because you've added a graphic installer. I never set things to boot directly into X Window, because I've sometimes had trouble getting X Window set up correctly.

    Still, there's no sense in trying to deny that when the gui's are working well they normally save a lot of time and effort. And there's always the terminal window available for those commands that aren't cleanly implemented.

    The real problem is not that graphical installers are available, but that sometimes text-based installers aren't (or at least appear to have been crippled). I'm all in favor of making things shiney, smooth, and easy to use. I'd like it if my wife could use Linux. But be sure not to cripple it in the process of making it shinier!

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  65. Re:mandrake 7 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A lot of open source projects never even make it up to 1.0 because either 1) they're abandoned or 2) They're never declared "post-beta"

    I think a vast amount of non-open projects end up the same way [certain stats back me up on that one] - the state is just more visible [rather than more common] in open-sourse software! Although commercial projects are more likely to fail due to finances and open-source ones due to lack of time/inclination [or the thing acheiving what the original auther wanted, so he/she doesn't bother improving it any more]

  66. Re:Graphical Installer is a must... by Tom+Christiansen · · Score: 1
    Hmmm... I think you really do lose some of the power if the interface isn't perfect... example: make menuconfig is *far* more navigable and easy to use than make xconfig. hands stay on keyboard - tab, space, enter, and the up/down arrows are all you need to *quickly* get around (and F1 is close for descriptions). xconfig doesn't allow you to scroll through choices with the arrow keys - you *need* to use the mouse. That alone slows things up considerably...
    Sounds like you could have been a signatory to my Extreme Keyboarding article. :-)
  67. Re:Supermount? by NP · · Score: 2


    It's a thingie by Stephen C Tweedie (ext3 ...)

    ftp://ftp.linux.org.uk/pub/linux/sct/supermount/

    I quote:

    "Supermount is a pseudo-filesystem which manages filesystems on removable media like floppy disks and CD-ROMs. It aims to make management of removable media as easy as it is under DOS."



  68. Re:Why Not? by HiThere · · Score: 1

    Why Not? Because the manufacturers all make very carefully sure that it won't cause any problem with windows. If they put anywhere near as much effort into making sure that Linux worked well, then there wouldn't be any problems (to speak of)... well, no problems except all those drivers that are each done in a different way, but that could be hidden behind a public/published API.

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  69. Re:How good is Mandrake? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Is it on the whole buggy, or stable?

    I've got a Mandrake 6.1 machine with over 70 days uptime. Installed. Booted it. It has been up ever since.

    Is it bleeding edge, recent-but-trustable, or dragging behind for maximum stability?

    Mandrake is generally bleeding edge, but if you stick to the release versions, (instead of the beta versions), then you have a decent chance of not bleeding to death.

    Does it generally get upgrades and bugfixes faster or slower than RH and Debian? How much are updates released to track the "state of the art"?

    Updates are about in lockstep with Red Hat. Don't know about Debian

    How does the number and scope of packages compare to Debian and RH?

    More packages come with it pre-configured (and Pentium optimized) compared to Red Hat. This is why I use Mandrake, so I don't have to (for example) try to figure out how to compile the Apache and PHP3 tarballs and get them working together. Don't know Debian.

    Is it pentium optimized?

    Most definitly. Every Mandrake package is Pentium optimized and they claim a 5-30% speedup, compared to Red Hat style 386 optimization.

  70. Re:How good is Mandrake? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    (Missed this one.)

    Does it have any "left out to soothe the braindead newbies" bits?

    Not at all. (I'm referring to Mandrake 6.1) I haven't looked at the new 7.0.) If you are familiar with Red Hat, consider Mandrake to be similar in scope and feel to Red Hat, but having newer releases on most of the packages, more packages, more oriented towards KDE than Gnome, and Pentium optimized.

    This is possibly an oversimplification, but if you are familiar with Red Hat then you have the general idea of what Mandrake is all about.

  71. We needed to catch up to Solaris! by John+Ratke · · Score: 1

    Solaris went from version 2.6 to version 7!

    It's basically just a form of marketing. Gotta keep up with the other guys, or try to exceed them for a little while.

    Given this news, I bet Redhat will go to version 7 too.

    I'm just happy to have a new cutting edge distribution about every 3 months :)

  72. Re:Why Mandrake? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And what do you mean by "server" -- something used by more than one person?

    He probably means a box that is designed to sit powered on 24/7, serving various types of request from accross a network, as apposed to a desktop machine which in many cases [I know not all, before someone jumps at me and says 'my box has been up for x hundred days] is powered on for a few hours a day and doesn't do anything particularly demanding [unless you count Quake et al.]

  73. Re:Graphical Installer is a must... by CrAlt · · Score: 1
    I did not just say Linux, I said Linux,*BSD and any other Unix. I don't think making it more dumbed down should be the MAIN priority. Things like keeping it stable, fast, and portable should be. To win the desktop the OS would have to be all things to all people and whould have to be full of eye candy and such. In the end it would just end up a bloated not-so-stable pile of 1' and 0's that I could get preinstalled on 99.9% of PC's NOW.


    And by all means if you "can't stand it" then don't use it, it's not like anyone cares what you use anyways.

    --
    I have to return some videotapes...
  74. Re:Graphical Installers - A Step Backwards? by IntlHarvester · · Score: 1

    The average friggin' moron will be just as friggin' moronic as he is today

    It's a lost cause, pal. People are always going to be morons. But that doesn't mean you should deny them access to certain tools. In fact the goal should be to make computer systems more accesible to the morons (without dumbing them down for the non-morons).

    Look at this way: From an engineering standpoint, developing a complex, hard and expensive to administer Unix system is boring. It's been done a hundred times, and will be done a hundred more times.

    The Linux vendors, on the other hand, are attempting something that's never successfully been done before in the history of consumer computing -- they are trying to build a system which meets the needs of both the Dumb User population and the Unix Wizard User population. If they pull it off, it will be one of the greatest engineering feats of all time.
    --

    --
    Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
  75. good security practice by Firehawk · · Score: 1

    Means knowing the limitations of your own box.

    Sure, you can design a safe to be more secure to thieves than the next safe, but if you leave the keys (or the combination) nearby or rattle it off to people ...

    Security needs to be taught, not put into a slidebar.

  76. Re:Why Mandrake? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Corel is Debian based with KDE

  77. Yes, selectable security levels a good idea! by John+Ratke · · Score: 1

    This is one of the great things about Linux in general. Every distribution is free to bring in new features and tweaks to appeal to the users. And if they are good ideas, they will catch on.

    I think a selectable security level is a great idea. The trade off is decreased usability for increased security. I can see tons of uses for this setting. For example, setting which services are running. (The default Redhat installations have a lot of things running and it is really scary.) Also setting whether or not to create a non root user account, and setting who can mount drives and access devices.

    A really secure installation might not even have telnet, and instead go with ssh. It could have tripwire setup for use too! And it could have tcp/ip syn cookies on. It could log all odd port connections (somehow?) The posibilities are endless! I know how paranoid I am. And I'm not the only one!

    The only possible problem I see with it is that it adds another variable to examine with bug reports. Certain problems may only happen with certain security levels, and this adds some complexity to things. But maybe I don't know what I'm talking about and it will all be manageable. (I hope so!)

  78. Re:Graphical Installers - A Step Backwards? by bmetzler · · Score: 2
    Am I the only person who doesn't like them? Obviously, they are prettier than the standard text / ncurses based installer. But do they really offer any additional functionality?

    Actually, yes they can. Pop-up windows, better text layout, organization of the screen. You have much more flexibility with graphical, then with an 80x25 text screen.

    I'm the first to admit that I have never extensively used a GUI installer - but for those of you who have - what did you think? Does moving to (g)tk really improve the installation experience? Does it make it easier to install? Does the install ever fail? Or am I just paranoid?

    Yes, yes, yes, and yes.

    A graphical layout does improve the process. As a mentioned above, you can do a lot more on-screen with a graphical interface, then a text interface. In doing so, it makes it easier to install. Consider for instance having help in a window along side the options, whereas you have to hit to see the help in a text interface because there's not room to have both.

    The install fails, not only do to things like trying to run X on a monochrome screen, but regular failures that happen with a text-based interface. ie user-error. But hopefully a graphical interface will provide the extra hand-holding to help prevent some of these errors.

    -Brent
  79. Re:Graphical Installers - A Step Backwards? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This must explain the rise of the graphic novel. So much more "user friendly" then the old fashioned "test based" story telling interface.

    Actually, sarcastic mode off, it probably does explain America's Funniest Home videos.

  80. Re:Graphical Installer is a must... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh hey! Nice comeback. You really nailed me on the spelling there. Ouch!

  81. Re:Graphical Installers - A Step Backwards? by bmetzler · · Score: 1
    It would be nice, however, if more distros supported GUI install AND text install for 'expert' users.

    Which ones don't?

    -Brent
  82. Re:mandrake 7 by John+Allsup · · Score: 1

    For the most part, the version numbers uniquely identify each release of the software, with some form of ordering on the numbers so that you know that one version is newer than another.

    However, the orderings are a little arbitrary, (e.g. Linux 2.3.0 is in some sense older than 2.2.13...)


    John
    --
    John_Chalisque
  83. Re:Security. by randombit · · Score: 1

    It's up to v2.6 now. I think you'll enjoy it. It's like a breath of fresh air.

    Yeah, I ordered it on a whim when I got RH 6.1 this November (?). I joked with somebody that RH 6.2 must be coming out shortly, as I had finally ordered 6.1 (it's pretty traditional around here that as soon as someone orders a CD of something a new release comes out - sometimes new releases come out before the old CDs even arrive). But no, instead OpenBSD 2.6 came out and foiled all my plans! :)

  84. Re:Graphical Installers - A Step Backwards? by mitchy · · Score: 1

    A GUI installer means I now have to find a mouse when I install another server... Plus, as no intellingent person would desire to run X on a server (especially running headless), it is even more of an inconvenience to install Oracle 8i (needs X *and* java).

    D'oh!

    So I have three different servers here that I have to put X and java on just to install a database. It has become so bad that I keep a laptop around running X just so I can ssh to the headless server for the java-based install. Icky.

    Naw, I'll just use MySQL -;^>=

    --
    "The mind is a terrible thing to, um, uh, oh bollocks." -- Me
  85. Re:Graphical Installers - A Step Backwards? by HiThere · · Score: 1

    The 6.1 installer did seem to have a lot of rough edges. But my personal gripe was the install job that I got for KDE. I picked a KDE workstation, and it came up Gnome. Not that I dislike Gnome, but I wanted KDE this time around.

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  86. One complaint about installers. by anatoli · · Score: 1
    I have a videocard and a soundcard which are both fairly common ISA PNP cards. isapnptools recognizes them all fine. Why on earth installers don't use this information to configure X and sound? Why they insist on asking me stupid questions about clockchips and how much video memory I have?

    Moderate this down (-1, Stupid)
    --

    --
    Industrial space for lease in Flatlandia.
  87. Re:Graphical Installers - A Step Backwards? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Having a big screen, windows, etc, does NOT mean to discard the keyboard! This is where all Unix GUI programs fail miserably compared with Windows, which, because it started on DOS and didn't have mice, knew the importance of the keyboard for a speedy and intuitive interface. The Unix people are spaced.

  88. This is exactly why they think we're arrogant by jsm · · Score: 2
    First of all, just having a GUI doesn't make an OS "Windows-like". Having a lousy GUI that crashes is what makes an OS "Windows-like". A good GUI can be great. (In case it matters to you, I've been programming for 20 years.)

    Second, don't you have any non-technical friends? Relatives? Listen to any music made by non-geeks? All of these people benefit from easier-to-use computers. If they spent all their time learning computers they wouldn't have any left to make music, etc. The price of admission to technology should not be understanding the format of makefiles. I would like everyone I know to reap the benefits of Linux and not be trapped in Windows.

    If the only people you know and care about are geeks, I highly encourage you to get out more. There are more worlds out there than you can imagine, and a lot of those people are really great. And smart enough to teach you a few things, too.

  89. Re:Graphical Installer is a must... by mcrandello · · Score: 1

    I don't think this is neccesarily true. It seems that the different distros are striking into different directions and trying to offer things that the other distros don't provide. This is good. As long as there is still compatability, it would be nice to have at least one "point and drool interface" Linux. While the companies are always going to feel the need to pander to the lowest denominator, they also seem to be listening a little more to what the users want. and if one company dumbs their version down too much, another one will be happy to pick up the flag. IMO that's the beauty of Linux, and Free Software as well, we won't have to be in a position where one big company makes it all, and dictates what we'll be looking at.

    An added bonus, Linus reviews can come up with a little difficulty slider on the side, like the hotness indicators on jars of salsa. After the newbie thinks he's doing pretty good with Slug-Linux, then it's time for Caterpillar-Linux, that allows him a little more access and provides a few of the more esoteric/text based programs, all the way up to "Hurt-Me-Plenty-Linux," for power users, server admins, and people who feel the need to outgeek everyone else. If done right, it not only allows the different Linux companies to co-exist, but encourages it.


    mcrandello@my-deja.com
    rschaar{at}pegasus.cc.ucf.edu if it's important.

  90. Re:Graphical Installers - A Step Backwards? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I installed RH 6.0 with the graphical installer, until I got to the disk druid thingy. I couldn't even figure out how to work the damn thing, not even with maddog's dummies(tm) instructions.

    fdisk? Well hell, that's an intuitive piece of cake. Sailed right through it.

    Of course, your milage may vary and what is intuitive to me may be influenced by the fact that I began programing on an IBM 360 with a typwriter for an output device.

    Hey, I've got an idea, why don't we give up spoken language? It's hard to learn, it's forked all over the place so you have to learn dozens just to find out where the bathroom is and it's old technology. Let's just all carry around backpacks full of universal pictograms.

  91. What about upgrading over the network? by $Bob · · Score: 1

    This is a problem I just ran into recently, is there any way of upgrading an old machine to the new libs/progs/features/etc over the network?

    I could just copy all of the RPM's to the computer, install them, then call that installed. What would work better is if the installer ran without booting into single user mode or being at the console.

    _ _ _

  92. Re:Why Mandrake? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Blech. I never turn any of my computers off. (23 of them). I would hate to have to go turn one on (or drive to turn one on) just because I wanted to use it. I don't turn my phone or its answering machine off when I'm not using them either. They have a life beyond me, and I want them ready when it's time to deal with them.

  93. Re:Graphical Installer is a must... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ah yes, this is what I LOVE about the Linux "community". Quote from above: "Why the bloody hell do we CARE about the masses? I really mean this one." Unquote. A revolution led by knee-jerk, paranoid, over-defensive responses. Why do we care about the masses? Because the "masses" are people. People build Linux, that is the whole POINT of open source. Ooooh! But maybe now you feel like you're finally, FINALLY part of some sort of elite club. Accepted. Intellectual perhaps? I think not. All I can say is, think before you post. Linux must find public acceptance. Distros must become easier for the common computer user to install (and use) or it will fail in the desktop market. (it may even be to late to compete in this market, but we'll see).

  94. Where's the source!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    With Mandrake, can I
    $ cd /usr/src/bin/rm
    $ vi rm.c
    $ make
    or is this not a developer-friendly Unix distribution? Why don't any of these Linux novothingies come with source, simply arranged and easily accessed? It costs nothing in terms of space.
    1. Re:Where's the source!? by Zurk · · Score: 1

      becuase your source code compiled and installed breaks the package management databases in a lot of these distros.

    2. Re:Where's the source!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      That's a terrible, terrible excuse. Without source, we might as well be Windows drones.

      GIVE US YOUR SOURCE, YOU EVIL RHAT!

    3. Re:Where's the source!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've got your gangsterisms wrong. It's not "evil rat". It's "dirty rat". The right phrase is: "GIVE IS OUR SOURCE BACK, YOU DIRTY RHAT!"

  95. Re:Graphical Installer is a must... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're so wrong. Public acceptance doesn't matter. It only matters whether it's useful to us. The general public doesn't need Linux, and shouldn't be allowed near it. They'll ruin our reputation, because it will piss them off by catering to intelligence.

  96. Re:Not everything bleeding edge is good by humphrm · · Score: 1

    Point taken, I'm Zen.

    Sorry I might have over-reacted a >bit, your original post just sounded a bit more whiney.

    I tried RH (forget the version) once, and found Mandrake to be orders of magnitude better. BUT, I also use TurboLinux, Debian and Solaris/Intel on other machines. They all have their plusses and minuses.

    --
    -- "In order to have power, I must be taken seriously." -Mojo Jojo
  97. Re:I love Mandrake! by Orion · · Score: 1

    Overall I have to agree about Mandrake. It's a pretty slick system (I started using it after it appeared that Redhat was going to charge $70 for their box set).

    I wonder if it is a good move to fall out of sync with Redhat version numbers though. One of the things I like about Mandrake is that it was built on top of Redhat. Although that doesn't appear to have changed, the version numbers make things a little harder to remember.

    Oh well... it's not a big deal anyway. And it does appear to merit the increase.

  98. Re:Graphical Installers - A Step Backwards? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The best OS installer is BEOS. X on linux is crap. heck X is crap come to think of it

  99. Mandrake and Redhat by SurfsUp · · Score: 2

    Gee RedHat thet's a great product you've got there. Let's see here... I'll take it, revamp and improve it and then I'll outsell you using your own product. But seriously...

    Perhaps you meant it as a joke, perhaps not. I certainly support the idea of a new, small, energetic group striking out on their own. But I do not support the concept of plagiarism. Please tell me I'm wrong about this, but many of the Mandrake docs appear to be Red Hat docs with no changes other than every occurance of Red Hat being replaced by Mandrake. If this is true then it's very wrong. If it's not, then I apologize for even suggesting the idea.

    --
    Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
  100. Quake3 + Mandrake by The+Sith+Lord · · Score: 1

    Just something I thought was pretty cool: Running Quake3 on Mandrake 6.1 yeilds a 0.3fps boost over RedHat 6.1!

  101. Re:Graphical Installers - A Step Backwards? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I find one logical flaw in your argument. You are applying "survival" ideas that don't apply to the enviroment. Linux is not a commercial product. Yes, it is sold. So is water. So is air. They are packaged, as is Linux, but are not commercial.

    Linux has not just survived up until now without becoming "user friendly" but thrived. I don't see any reason why Linux should become any *less* popular than it was, say, a year ago.

    Linux needs to be *used* to survive. FOTRAN survives. COBOL survives. Heck, even APL survives. Why? Because they are used. They don't need to SELL to survive. They don't need the exponential growth of infinite proportion that a commercial software OS or language needs to survive.

    Linux will have survived as long as there is one geek sitting up in his mother's attic at four in the morning going," Oh wow man!"

  102. another dist version by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    arghhh someone should built a small distro around e16,vi,apache,gcc 2.95 no crap like tex etc.

  103. Re:Graphical Installer is a must... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What is this mysterious "desktop" and what do you mean "win"? My desktop runs Unix. All my friends' do, too. Are you trying to make nontechies use Unix? Why?

  104. Re:Graphical Installer is a must... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    aaah. "...useful to us." Oh ok. Who are "us" that you refer to exactly. Or is that you and yourself? you and your hand?

  105. Re:It should be sold pre-installed ... by ransom · · Score: 1

    Its not really a "dusty old lumox" so to speak. It doesn't have as much hardware support, true, but its getting better with every passing release. OpenBSD seems extremely secure and clean and great for programmers wanting to get something done (I see it as the Debian of BSD, or vice-versa). FreeBSD (Maybe comparable to RedHat or SuSE) is more popular, easier to install, etc etc etc. NetBSD... well, I don't know about NetBSD so I won't touch there. I've installed it on my system once (though, for lack of room on my permanent HD I had to use that HD for an mp3 storage area) and it seemed OK. Don't knock it. If you do you're missing a great opportunity (and maybe getting an opportunity to be flamed by Tom Christianson ;P sorry Tom couldn't help myself)

    If you think you know what the hell is going on you're probably full of shit.

    --

    If you think you know what the hell is going on you're probably full of shit.
    jdube is who I am
  106. Re:First time Linux user... by jued0001 · · Score: 1
    I guess I want something I can use as a file server (my two current machines run Win 98 SE), and I want to be able to play with Linux. Become more familiar with it. I'd like to be able to use it for connecting to the Internet, maybe try out Star Office. Who knows, I'm new to this... =]

    _______________________

    Mello like the Yello, but without the fizz.

    --

    _______

    I just wish I could c:\format Internet

  107. Re:mandrake 7 by alexsh · · Score: 1

    Interestingly, I noticed that they are fucked up exactly the other way around. There's a lot of software that's entirely useful, but never reaches the 1.0 level. Licq is at 0.71. WindowMaker is at 0.61. Telnetd is at 0.14. lpr is at 0.46. And do you know what's the latest version of the ext2 filesystem in the kernel? Well, 0.5b. Funny, isn't it. :-)

  108. Re:Why Mandrake? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's what a nice update tool is for. By the time Mandrake is released, the final releases of the software are out too. All you have to do is to use Mandrake's update tool to upgrade them ... painlessly.

  109. Re:Uses Glibc 2.1.2 ? by whoop · · Score: 1

    Looking at the ftp dir, there's glibc-2.1.2-9mdk.i586.rpm. So I would guess, yes.

  110. Words are dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Hey, I've got an idea, why don't we give up spoken language? It's hard to learn, it's forked all over the place so you have to learn dozens just to find out where the bathroom is and it's old technology. Let's just all carry around backpacks full of universal pictograms.
    Haven't you ever driven around in Europe, crossing many national borders? Haven't you noticed how much easier the pictograms are than words in a language you don't know? It's same with computers. Today's computer use is getting away from words. They're too confusing. Why? Lots of reasons.

    For example, it's a lot easier to understand a picture than a bunch of words. Your human brain has learnt pictures for 3 billion years, and words only for a few thousand.

    Another reason to get rid of words when using computers is that, in America at least, three different phenomena are conspiring to replace them with pictograms:

    1. more and more people are getting computers, including people whose VCRs keep flashing 12:00 (shouldn't that be 00:00?)
    2. literacy continues to plummet, nearly in free fall; people can't read, or follow directions that are given in print
    3. computer companies' stockprices are continuing to soar to stratospheric levels; they need to keep this up or the whole American economy will die, and then the whole world's
    Put all those together, and you can see why there's no choice but to ditch that archaic text-based interface and replace it with a spiffy new pictographic one where people never have to read a word and don't have to remember anything, especially not anything that's word-based. Our publics' mind just aren't optimized for words anymore. They just see the pictures and point and it just works. Try getting your three-year-old to use a computer. Whatever can be done to make it available to a three-year-old is what we have to do to all computers. Otherwise, expansion will sag and everything will self-destruct. You can't get computers into the inner cities or into hillbilly country if you expect people to be bookworms to handle it. The three-year-old's pictorial interface is the way of the future. It's our only sane choice.
    1. Re:Words are dead by Ozric · · Score: 1

      I try not to learnt too much in one day. :)

    2. Re:Words are dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am gripped by euphoria contemplating a computing world whose accessibility is restricted to three-year-old's level.

  111. LCD != GCF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    While the companies are always going to feel the need to pander to the lowest denominator

    Wrong. You mean the greatest common factor.

  112. Re:First time Linux user... by jpowers · · Score: 1

    Fileservice for Win98SE can be done with SAMBA, which is not too heavy-duty a process. Staroffice runs on the same machines MSOffice does, usually needs a little less juice, though it will use whatever you give it. Maybe look to buy a new machine and run linux on the old one. If you'd rather go cheap, head over to
    http://www.deepspacetech.com

    and get one of their dual 133's (used). I've bought a few of them and they're old workstations with big cases and SCSI and stuff, they kick ass and everything works. $150, with a good monitor for another $150. Ethernet built in (tulip) but no modem, though. Again a warning about not using winmodems.

    If you do any math or database stuff, I'd get SuSE 6.3, which is easy to install and comes with like 6 discs of free apllications, including Staroffice. If not, whatever Mandrake is out whould work, since it's easy to install and comes with a licensed copy of Staroffice. Either one is about $50 at the store. Get them from linuxmall if you can wait for shipping, because they'll send you a free copy of another distro with your order (RedHat 6.0 is a good bet for the free one.)

    Jpowers

    --

    -jpowers
  113. Re:mandrake 7 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    lpr is at 0.46.
    Why, why, why aren't they using the tried and true BSD versions of these? I am so tired of running into idiot bugs with these standard internet daemons, just because they're gratuitously nouveaux. Can't we please have a distribution that uses robust, time-tested daemons?
  114. Re:Mandrake is cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mandrake is a complete piece of trash. It's made to be like windows, which means a) its going to suck and b) its going to draw in stupid windows lamers who think they're l33t. There is an advantage to the dumbing down of linux users... the people who use superior things like slackware and debian will be getting rich off the lusers who will never learn the inner workings of linux because they were stuck in a stupid lame GUI world that Mandrake puts them in where everything is seemingly automatic. Long live the console! All linux is becoming is a version war of who can make a better "GPL" proprietary system that doesn't work. People work on version numbers, not quality. How the hell did Mandrake get to 7.0 and it hasn't even been around for long? Now Redcrap will go to 7.5 to draw in people thinking it's a whole new version. Gah. And it will have more population-dumbing futilities. Grrr.

  115. Re:It should be sold pre-installed ... by ransom · · Score: 1

    I completely agree. If all you needed to do when you first booted Linux was to type in a couple characters into a GUI and have it ready for network / internet use people would use it a lot. Maybe the iMaccers would be placated if there was an "internet box" for Linux (please don't hurt me for saying that). In fact, if everything you can do on Windows can be done on Linux (and so far the vast majority of it can - - tho we need wore games and better DVD support) and maybe a brainless way to recompile the kernel (something like Window's 'critical update" that just patches the kernel without editing much, or, gives you the choice to edit it in a friendly GUI environment) this would be a plauible idea. Until then, however, we must remember that just because some things are easy for us it is not easy for the run of the mill brainless user. Also sysadmins at my school like the "easy" way to take care of Win (not really easy OR secure but the pretty colors make it seem so). Basically I think that when Gnome gets to be maybe 3.0 or so mainstream people will break away from Windows.
    In this whole speech, we have forgotten the BSDs. Other fine OSes, which, with a little help in the hardware and GUI department, could go maintstream. Yeah, I've forgotten many other OSes but touched on the main ones so that's all that matters. Hell, maybe someone should make a Be or Mac - like desktop (not just theme), everyone (or most everyone) would be happy.
    Then again I could be talking out of my ass and be moderated down big time ;)

    If you think you know what the hell is going on you're probably full of shit.

    --

    If you think you know what the hell is going on you're probably full of shit.
    jdube is who I am
  116. Re:Why Not? by bmetzler · · Score: 2
    While I have never used a graphical installer for linux (still have Mandrake 6.1) I have installed windows 95 & 98 a gazillion times on a multitude of systems, and never once has their installer had problems as far as graphics/video are concerned. Why not? If they can do it using the same stupid hardware before they've even picked out a specific video driver, it seems to me the Linux people could do it too.

    Installers use base configurations. Linux has no more problem in this area then Windows does. I don't think anyone is claiming that the installer is failing to load in graphics mode. Okay, there are a few bugs. But the problem is not that it "can't" be done.

    There are 2 problems people point to with graphical installs right now. One, they are mostly new development projects, so aren't really that stable yet. More time, and usage should take care of that. And second, there are times that graphical installers are useless. Can't use a graphical install on a headless box.

    -Brent
  117. Re:mandrake 7 by RPoet · · Score: 1

    Actually, I doubt there will be confusion over difference in version numbers between RH and Mandrake. Simply because RH will jump to version 7.0 as well, just to "keep up" with Mandrake. Yeah, it's a crazy world :)

    As for Mandrake drifting away from RH, I welcome that with open arms, just as long as they remain RPM-compatible with RH, which I'm sure they will.

    --
    "Oppression and harassment is a small price to pay to live in the land of the free." -- Montgomery Burns.
  118. BSD daemons for Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why should Linux contaminate itself with less-free software? The BSD daemons aren't GPLed. Linux shouldn't ship with anything except free software. This is more important that functionality or documentation. You can always fix bugs or add docs later, but if it isn't free to begin with, you're forever screwed.

  119. Oh dear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    RHAT? LNUX? Methinks you have just created the new M$ meme for Linux :(

  120. Re:Graphical Installers - A Step Backwards? by lydikitty · · Score: 2

    I feel that is a limited way of looking at the situation. It has already begun... Linux has hit the mainstream, and though the mainstream corrupts, some things are inevitable.

    There will always be options for Open source users. There will be options as far as operating systems (Linux, FreeBSD/NetBSD/OpenBSD collection, etc.)... and distributions... Redhat, Caldera, Corel, etc for the User friendly atmosphere. And Debian, Slackware, etc. for the geeks/power users, etc. Right now Linux is being marketed as the "new" alternative to Windows (tm), when in reality Linux isn't new at all.

    Windows (tm) converts want gui installs, they want things to be as easy as they are in Windows (tm). Some Windows (tm) converts I'm sure are also willing to learn the depths of Linux, others are not and simply want to do their word processing and check their e-mail (if they even know that much).

    Old school Linux users will be skeptical, that's a fact, as it is with any issue of this nature.

    I am not a Linux guru, I would never claim to be, but I am a participant and an open minded observer and I think that the Linux community shouldn't completely shun the inevitable, otherwise they are alienating themselves and people who are open to learning more about the power of Linux. Be a teacher instead of keeping your knowledge to yourself and not accepting those who aren't as well learned as yourself.

    The reason I use linux is that I'm very inquisitive, I like to try new things, gain as much knowledge as possible, experiment, learn. So for me Linux is something to experience. I am a newbie, but a newbie who is learning more and more each day and digging into the foundation.

    Alright, I'm finished rambling. Say what you will.

    --
    meow
  121. I don't like X. by bnolan · · Score: 1
    I have never used a proper x config with e or kde or gnome or.... but I still don't like it. It's a clunky old beast. I would rather:

    The console with really good graphical console apps. Eg:

    gifview `find / -name babes.jpg`

    Would pop-up a nice image viewer over my console, hit ESC and it goes away.

    gecko www.slashdot.org

    Would pop-up a slimmed down navigator so I can do all the fun console stuff but still have graphical tools, without big heavy x.

    I like cdialog also. That's cool.

    Ben

    --

    :wq

    1. Re:I don't like X. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Either you're a troll and belong in a zoo, or you're a fossil and belong in a museum.

  122. Re:Graphical Installers - A Step Backwards? by stewart.hector · · Score: 1
    I agree with you up to a point, but, do you want Linux to become more popular? A major desktop O/S? At the moment it is not, it won't attract the average windows user while its image is one of "hard to setup","hard to use".

    Linux will need to become easier to use to survive - why do you think Windows is popular - attractive, and easy to use for the average user. At the moment Linux is doing well, but needs to improve. GUI interfaces will attract non geeks. Otherwise, linux will remain to be a geeks platform.

    Therefore, giving a GUI installer goes a small way towards the goals that i've said above.

    By all means have two installers, a text based and GUI installers...

    --
  123. Re:Graphical Installer is a must... by Tower · · Score: 2

    Well, I just went and looked at it...

    Keyboard Zen, huh? 8^D

    I like it - though I was (and still am) better with half keyboard / half flightstick pro in Descent (I/II)... but a couple'a extra hat switches are good like that...

    And I think most of the commands in emacs are intuitive... sheesh... *^)

    --
    "It's tough to be bilingual when you get hit in the head."
  124. Re:Graphical Installers - A Step Backwards? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That IS what a majority of people do with Windows anyway. Personally I'd rather install FreeBSD for the first time all over again than NT-Server for the first time all over again...You know what I mean....

  125. Re:Graphical Installers - A Step Backwards? by pdwalker · · Score: 1
    So, "Linux needs to aim towards non geeks"? Bullshit.

    The fact of the matter is, is that companies such as Redhat, Mandrake, Corel and all the others have to target a larger audience in order to grow. There are many more non-geeks than geeks.

    If the Linux community wants to see futher support from the commercial hardware and software vendors, then they must see that Linux can and does reach a much larger market. In the end, it is good news for both geeks and non geeks alike. I know that I want to have my hardware supported under Linux. If the price for this is graphical installations, then so be it!

    At the end of the day, geeks who are opposed to graphical installations will continue to use and support distributions that support text based installs. That is the nice part about having a choice.

    - Paul

  126. Re:Tragedy !!! Please Read by jcurious · · Score: 1

    do the words: pure hack value.. mean anything to you?

    not everything that is built is done for usefulness...

    check out some of the apps that have been ported to aalib (ascii graphic lib)

  127. Re:It should be sold pre-installed ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    In this whole speech, we have forgotten the BSDs.
    Why does every Linux thread need to drag that dusty old lummox in? Can't we just let it die?

    Listen: the answer is that no vendor is shipping with BSD, and for many good reasons. It is only usable by hackers, not people who'd pay money. Nobody who'd buy a system could handle BSD. It is dreadfully old technology; would you ship with Windows 3.1? There's no commercial supplier. And of course, there's nobody to sue.

  128. I love Mandrake! by Roofus · · Score: 1

    I've been using Mandrake since 5.2 (about year now). I've tried several different distrobutions, and Mandrake is my favorite. It's got all the compatibility of Redhat, yet overall I find it's just much more polished.

    When I first read the headline, I wondered if this really deserved a jump all the way to 7.0, but looking at the new features, Gael has managed to put a shitload of new stuff in there.

    Sweeet :)

  129. BSD should NOT be sold pre-installed ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nobody ships BSD because there's no consumer in his right mind that's going to want a computer where ls isn't in colour, or where you get some crapware like twm or fvwm as a Windows manager. You need to have something new like KDE or Gnome to be worth having, and BSD doesn't seem to like them (or is it vice versa?) since none of their freeCDs ship with anything modern and intuitive and powerful like that.

    1. Re:BSD should NOT be sold pre-installed ... by chewbca · · Score: 1

      last time I checked.. WindowMaker ran on my BSD laptop.. and they have quite an extensive array of ports of major open source software.. not to mention support for linux binaries..

      and it's more secure out of the box.. outperforms linux as a network server..
      as for *needing* kde or gnome..

      see http://www.freebsd.org/ports/

      'nuff said..

      --
      -- "This is my sig... there are many like it but this one is mine"
    2. Re:BSD should NOT be sold pre-installed ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      it's more secure out of the box.. outperforms linux as a network server blockquote> How is that different than saying "outperforms linux"?
    3. Re:BSD should NOT be sold pre-installed ... by chewbca · · Score: 1

      because most of the time Linux peforms well for most applications.. but it isn't optimal under heavy network load. So *BSD is good for ekeing out the best performance on the same H/W when you anticipate a high network load.. (see yahoo.com)

      --
      -- "This is my sig... there are many like it but this one is mine"
    4. Re:BSD should NOT be sold pre-installed ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh yes. Psychedelic ls is the critical-path usability criterion. No wonder Linux advocates are so laughed at.

  130. Re:Tragedy !!! Please Read by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is something funny about people getting killed, you asshole?

  131. It should be sold pre-installed ... by aUser · · Score: 1

    Most Windows installations are on the PC already, when you get it.

    That's why most people don't think it's difficult to install: they've never had to do it.

    Windows is actually not easy to install, graphical installation routines or not, because as soon as you run into a piece of hardware that is not supported or mistaken for another, you probably will not be able to fix the problem (it becomes a graphical black box).

    Unfortunately, not that many PC vendors seem to interested in selling Linux pre-installed hardware ...

  132. Re:Why does this have a score of 2 ??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you're just mad because you don't have a sense of humour. someone should moderate you down.

  133. Mandrake is cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    I have tried Red Hat, Slackware, Suse, Corel and Mandrake. I just love Mandrake. It's compatible with Redhat (which seems to be the most widely used distro). It's compiled and optimized for Pentiums, and it does feel fast when I used it. It has the most up-to-date releases of almost everything including the important ones like the kernel, Apache, Perl, PHP, Python, KDE, Gnome, Netscape, Gimp, etc ... And if your apps are not up-to-date, Mandrake has even provided its own update tool that lets you download new apps and install them automatically with just one click. Painless update without messing up other apps. Although KDE is the default desktop, Mandrake lets you easily switches to Gnome or other desktops. Mandrake improves on little things like color texts, a well-tuned Apache server with mod_perl, php and other modules already configured, etc ... Overall, I find Mandrake to be well-tuned without being dumbed down.

  134. Re:Why does this have a score of 2 ??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    read the moderator guidelines, stupid. he wasn't moderated up. he has the +1 option.

  135. Re:Graphical Installers - A Step Backwards? by randombit · · Score: 1

    What's a big install run these days of a full working Linux system? Slack 7.0 was a hair under a gig... and you've got more things at your fingertips than any newbie could imagine for a installing just their operating system.

    On RH 6.1:

    /dev/hda6 1.4G 1.1G 283M 80% /

    My box has a hell of a lot of stuff installed too: gcc (C, C++, ObjC), GNOME, KDE/QT libs (for Kdevelop), Emacs, GIMP, LaTeX, Netscape 4.7, Quake, kernel and SSH sources, etc etc. Anyway, way way way more stuff than comes with Windows. Part of the space comes from my files and stuff as well (my ~ is 300m, for instance).

    And RH is considered a fairly fat distro (not without cause, IMO).

  136. Where does one obtain the supermount patch? by John+Allsup · · Score: 1

    Where does one obtain the supermount patch?
    John

    --
    John_Chalisque
    1. Re:Where does one obtain the supermount patch? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3

      ftp.mandrakesoft.com/pub/chmou/kernel-2.2.14-super mount.patch

  137. Re:Graphical Installers - A Step Backwards? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Operating systems and distributions? They're the same thing!

  138. Change from Debian? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm currently using Debian, which I like, but am considering changing distro (mainly cos of Debian's slow release cycles). What could I expect from changing to something like mandrake? What's it like for upgrading the distro (apt-get update/upgrade type thing)?

    1. Re:Change from Debian? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're coming from Debian, I don't think you would be happy with Mandrake. Any BSD is more like Debian than Mandrake is, because it's based on a commercialized, dumbed-down distro from RHAT.

  139. Re:Nooo!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dude, it's a beta... wait a little while :)

    Install 7 when they release the full version.

  140. Re:First time Linux user... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Maybe this will give you an idea. I run a Linux server, that runs the following services:
    • 2 webservers
    • 2 FTP servers
    • Telnet server
    • SSH server
    • NFS server
    • SMB ("Windows") file server
    • used to host an IRC server
    • d.net client
    • web proxy server (junkbuster to be specific)
    • e-mail server of course (used to run a mailing list)
    on a K6-166 with 16MB of RAM. There are about 5 or 10 people who use it reguraly (daily or semi-daily) plus the 100 anon FTP connections and web connections. I have between 8 and 9MB RAM free and between 99.5% and 100% CPU free (dnetc is niced, so it doesn't cause any problems with responsiveness). Even with the IRC server running, it didn't use up more than 8MB RAM and 1% CPU (mind you it was a relatively small IRC network). If you want my opinion, this server is vastly overpowered. Even on a 386, it would be able to saturate the cable modem, still with loads to spare...which is nice, because people telnet'ing in still expect a lot of responsiveness :). Unless you're doing some very odd CGI stuff, or you're trying to run Slashdot, a 386 with 8MB RAM should suit your needs. I'd recommend a 486 with 16MB just to be safe, though. The only time the load average (similar to CPU usage) goes way up on the server is when I'm sending buckets of data (50MB or more) over NFS. For some reason you never find that problem with other network filesystems (FTP, SMB, etc.). Anyway, as I'm sure anyone will tell you, only "desktop things" use up obscene amounts of CPU and RAM. Servers use shit.
  141. Re:Graphical Installers - A Step Backwards? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    RH is considered a fairly fat distro
    If you want a tiny distro, go for NetBSD.
  142. Re:Nifty by randombit · · Score: 1

    Does "most secure" just mean putting "ALL:ALL" in /etc/hosts.deny?

    I've never understood why that didn't come default on every distro. Sheesh! Hmmmm... maybe time to install that OpenBSD 2.5 CD I got a while back..., the default (in)security of most distros (mostly aiming at RH here) just sucks. Anyone else see that possible linuxconf remote root exploit on Bugtraq a day or two ago? If that's for real, a whole lot of people are really screwed, since linuxconf is set up by default on RH. Oops. :)

    Personally, this sounds really stupid to me (though I don't know the details either). My bet is that it's to comfort former-Windows-using newbies - "Why do I have to type a password to use my own computer?!?!"

    Nothing is going to replace good administration practices for making a machine secure. I am tempted to call this stuff snake oil - security does not and never will come in a magic bottle, nice and gift-wrapped. I, for one, am downright suspictious [like I'm not suspicious of everything :)]

    I'll be interested to see the details, I looked for a link about it or something on the Mandrake site and didn't see any additional info (and I'm too tired to download the source and read it right now).

  143. Re:First time Linux user... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's because "desktops" are crap. If you want the most out of your system, pretend you're a Unix user, not a Windows user. It costs about 100x less memory.

  144. Re:Graphical Installers - A Step Backwards? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hi RMS!

  145. Re:Tragedy !!! Please Read by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yes! it isn't for you? how sad :(

  146. Mother Nature Released Under GPL by Signal+11 · · Score: 2
    Associated Press -- God announced that Mother Nature has been released under GPL. Richard Stallman of the Free Software Foundation has been calling on God for some time now to free the API used to control Earth. In a complete about-face that suprised religious pundits and ZDNet, God released the entire weather source under GPL. It is hoped that the bugs in the current version of Earth can be repaired by legions of hackers across the world. But not everybody is cheering.

    ID Software released it's controversial Quake mod hours after God released Weather, and the script kiddies have been causing widespread mayhem in California. Due to a programming bug, California slid into the ocean. Munge, of l0pht industries, has been calling for "ethical hacking" of the weather infrastructure.

    Even slashdot, a nerds for news site has not gone unaffected. It's servers were attacked by a huge distributed Abundance of Service attack (ASS) causing torrential downpours which have flooded out a three county area surrounding the "Geek Compound".

    Additional news to follow...

    1. Re:Mother Nature Released Under GPL by ghazban · · Score: 1

      Hmm. Posted to another story, or a slashdot bug. Who knows? Too bad, it was a pretty good read (+1 Funny, -1 offtopic) *sigh* =]

    2. Re:Mother Nature Released Under GPL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      gee. this is original. *yawn*

  147. Re:Athlon by whoop · · Score: 1

    Recently I've purchased a couple new CPUs. First, I had a K6-2/400. It is very nice for workstation-type things, but I was compiling more and more and wanted more power.

    So I bought a K6-III/450. That was a noticable difference on compiling things. I'd say about 25% faster compiling kernels and such.

    Then I went all out and bought Athlon/550. Wow. This thing now compiles at least twice as fast as the K6-2/400. With my simple kernel config, I went from about 7 minutes down to about 2.5 minutes. Now, if only the motherboard makers would finally come out with SMP boards, that would be perfect.

    And all of this was done with a single Mandrake setup. Just pop in a new motherboard/CPU and boot back up again.

  148. Re:Nooo!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    efficiency and progress are ours once more

  149. mandrake 7 by stewart.hector · · Score: 3
    is there really any point in releasing a new version instead of an incremental release, say, 6.2

    I could understand Mandrake 6, new kernel 2.2.. Mandrake should really wait until kernel 2.4, XFree 4 come out at least, which isn't too far in to the future - as well as new drivers, such as those from Creative... OK, you get obtain them anyway, but its much nicer being able to install new drivers with a new version of Linux instead of hunting around on internet.

    Do the new features really justify a new version number? It implies a major release, but to be honest, I can't see that it does...

    --
    1. Re:mandrake 7 by Foogle · · Score: 2
      Did it ever occur to you that the versioning system in the Open Source Community is a little fucked up anyway? It doesn't make a difference to me... Remember when Slackware jumped up 3 whole version numbers just to make themselves look competitive? And what about Emacs? They're on what, 21 now? A lot of open source projects never even make it up to 1.0 because either 1) they're abandoned or 2) They're never declared "post-beta".

      I guess what I'm saying is: Does it really matter? How much information do version numbers convey to the Linux-world anyway?

      -----------

      "You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."

    2. Re:mandrake 7 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They are just trying to keep up with Slackware.

    3. Re:mandrake 7 by jpr1 · · Score: 2

      i agree with you about holding off on the version jump, but for different reasons. one of the selling points of mandrake is that it is compatible with redhat of the same version number, so this is gonna mess that up... it will be confusing when they say "okay so mandrake 7 is compatible with packages for redhat 6.2, etc." but then again there has been alot of work put into mandrake and it seems to be splitting away from just being "redhat with kde as the default x environment".. check out the new tools on their site for this release. i think maybe version 7 should be held off till 2.4 and Xfree 4, and actually the drivers from creative are already in this release ;)

    4. Re:mandrake 7 by Octorian · · Score: 1

      Actually, with 7.0, I get the feeling that Mandrake is drifting away from RedHat. In the long run, I get the feeling that Mandrake may become a totally independent RPM-based distro. Honestly, that may be a good thing. RedHat seems to be pulled in all directions. In fact, I didn't switch from Slackware to RedHat until RH 5.1, and then I only switched because everything worked "out of the box" with RedHat.

      Before 5.1, RedHat was so horribly broken that it would barely even startup. Making it useful required a week of rewriting all the config files. Heck, I even think the local-loopback network device wasn't active by default! This meant that half of the X stuff wouldn't run.

      Once we have XFree86 4.0, KDE 2, and the 2.4.x kernel, Linux will really have something impressive to show for the desktop.

    5. Re:mandrake 7 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But we don't NEED more operating systems! It just makes it harder to keep your sysadmin staff up to speed on all of them, and harder to write code that admins them.

  150. Re:Tragedy !!! Please Read by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pure hack value has nothing to do with a link to a story about a natural disaster on Java. It's a (tasteless, imho) joke, and certainly offtopic.

  151. the difference between kernel, OS, etc by timothy · · Score: 2

    In fact, my understanding of the differences between the things that AC lists is not as good as it should be, though I recognize that all of these are valid, independent concepts ...

    Kernel, OS and shell I'm OK with --

    But I have trouble picturing the diff., for instance, between a window manager and a desktop manager. I've had it explained, but like many things (like the rules of baseball), I'd have real trouble clearly distinguishing them to someone else. Can anyone recommend a site where these things are really well spelt out? ("Dummy" book level is just fine, thanks.)

    And I'm mostly a Mac victim rather than PC, but your point is still valid ;).

    timothy

    --
    jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
    1. Re:the difference between kernel, OS, etc by Midnight+Coder · · Score: 1

      kernel:
      http://www.its.bldrdoc.gov/fs-1037/dir-020/_2936 .htm
      A module of a program that forms a logical entity or performs a unit function. Note: The most vulnerable portion of code in a secure operating system is a special case of a kernel.

      operating system:
      http://usvms.gpo.gov/findfact.html
      A software program that controls the allocation and use of computer resources (such as central processing unit time, main memory space, disk space, and input/output channels). The operating system also supports the functions of software programs, called "applications," that perform specific user-oriented tasks. The operating system supports the functions of applications by exposing interfaces, called "application programming interfaces," or "APIs." These are synapses at which the developer of an application can connect to invoke pre-fabricated blocks of code in the operating system.

      shell: (Ambigous)
      http://www.idiom.com/about-shell.shtml
      The word "shell" is a generic term for the command interpreters used on unix.

      Window Manager:
      http://www.rahul.net/kenton/txa/nov95.html
      The window manager is responsible for controlling important attributes of top level application windows, including size, position, stacking order, colormap focus, and keyboard focus. Your X client may request certain values for these attributes using the protocols defined in the ICCCM.

      Desktop Manager Probably meant.

      Desktop shell:
      http://www.rasterman.com/e.html
      Enlightenment will become a desktop shell - that DOES NOT mean it's a full desktop - that does NOT mean it's a window manager - it's inbetween. It handles things outside of applicatons (filemanagement, application launching and management etc.). I'm excited about trying to create a good desktop shell.

      Which brings up:
      Desktop Environment
      http://www.kde.org/documentation/faq/kdefaq-2.ht ml#ss2.1
      KDE provides a complete desktop environment, including a file manager, a window manager, a help system, a configuration system, uncountable tools and utilities, and an ever increasing number of applications, including but not limited to mail and news clients, drawing programs, a PostScript and a DVI viewer and so forth.

      GUI:
      http://www.pcwebopedia.com/Software/User_Interfa ces/GUIs/Graphical_User_Interface_GUI.html
      A program interface that takes advantage of the computer's graphics capabilities to make the program easier to use. Well-designed graphical user interfaces can free the user from learning complex command languages.

  152. Re:Tragedy !!! Please Read (Off topic) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I know this is a joke - its funny and I laughed. But, I can't help but notice the irony that you describe C & C++ as being "safe technologies" when in fact they provide almost no safety (from a programming langauge theory point of view) and Java insures that a Foo is a Foo and won't let you treat a NotAFoo as a Foo (amongst other safety features).

    Still, your post was funny - though OffTopic - I had to point out the irony...

  153. Prefessor Xavior needs to recruit Mandrake! by Lord+Kano · · Score: 2

    Mandrake's like Bishop.

    Gee RedHat thet's a great product you've got there. Let's see here... I'll take it, revamp and improve it and then I'll outsell you using your own product.

    But seriously, I absolutely love Mandrake. I have Mandrake 6.0 and RedHat 6.0 and there is no comparison. I've got RedHat 4.2, 5.0, 5.1, 5.2, 6.0, and 6.1 and as much as I like it, Mandrake is just more taylored to my liking.

    LK

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    1. Re:Prefessor Xavior needs to recruit Mandrake! by Augusto · · Score: 1

      Mandrake would be more like Rogue , no ?
      Absorbs the RedHat distro and looks better :)

      --

      - sigs are for wimps.
    2. Re:Prefessor Xavior needs to recruit Mandrake! by Lord+Kano · · Score: 2

      No, Rogue takes away one's powers. Bishop can (for lack of a better description) copy, redirect and improve.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  154. Re:Graphical Installers - A Step Backwards? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You poor guy. You passed up a perfect change to use thriven in a sentence! When will you ever get that chance again? :-)

  155. Graphical Installers - A Step Backwards? by nconway · · Score: 5
    More and more distros are beginning to use graphical installers - Caldera, Redhat, Corel, SuSE, and now Mandrake.

    Am I the only person who doesn't like them? Obviously, they are prettier than the standard text / ncurses based installer. But do they really offer any additional functionality?

    By switching to a graphical installer, you introduce the signficant possibility that, for whatever reason, X won't load. I have heard tales of GUI installers refusing to start, and rebooting the machine without any explanation. Graphical installers are inherently more complex than text-based ones, and thus more likely to have bugs.

    I'm the first to admit that I have never extensively used a GUI installer - but for those of you who have - what did you think? Does moving to (g)tk really improve the installation experience? Does it make it easier to install? Does the install ever fail? Or am I just paranoid?

    1. Re:Graphical Installers - A Step Backwards? by clutchcargo · · Score: 1

      i agree...i use mandrake on one of my boxes, and i really like it, but a completely graphical installation seems superfluous...the installation of 6.0 & 6.1 are both extremely easy to use. i've installed caldera, which has a completely graphical iinstallation, and i did not like it at all....caldera boots by default into xdm!....that is entirely too graphics-oriented...anyway, with mandrake being as easy to use and install as is, i do'nt see the point in adding a grpahical installer...i know this isn't very articulate, but seeing a completely graphic installer(i.e.caldera) make me queasy....i don't like this trend... on another note, one thing i really like about mandrake/redhat is the easy upgrade feature...that is really handy...

    2. Re:Graphical Installers - A Step Backwards? by clutchcargo · · Score: 1

      after reading another post, i definitely agree that there should be an option between graphical and text-based installs....good idea

    3. Re:Graphical Installers - A Step Backwards? by stewart.hector · · Score: 2
      It makes it more attractive to non geeky users... if they see a GUI installer, they'll think its easier to install rather than a text based system.

      Text based installation systems usually give the impression of an outdated, user unfriendly program / operating system.

      Remember, linux needs to aim towards non geeks.. therefore if such users see an attractive installation, they'll think its easy to install and use, based on their usage of Windows.

      OK, it may not add towards better installation functionality, but its the presentation that counts.

      --
    4. Re:Graphical Installers - A Step Backwards? by tobyl · · Score: 2

      RedHat's graphical install definitely needs some work. When selecting individual packages to install, you can't navigate the tree/package list using the keyboard.

      In addition, they actually crippled their text-based install when they added the graphical one. I decided to reinstall RH6.1, to change my paritioning scheme, and figured I'd use the text install and save time. I found that while you can use the keyboard to navigate the RPM tree, you now can't hit F1 and get a package description - you've gotta go graphical for that.

      Blech.

      Personally, I'd like a text-based install that lets me use 80x50 mode. Much easier to select packages that way.

    5. Re:Graphical Installers - A Step Backwards? by geocajun · · Score: 1

      I know where I work all the MS lovin linux bashers were in awe when they saw the RH graphical install for the first time. It does serve its purpose, and you can always use text mode install if you don't like it

    6. Re:Graphical Installers - A Step Backwards? by Anonynous+Coward · · Score: 2
      Well, there's a pretty standard baseline VGA standard you can rely on to be supported even with the newest video cards. As long as the X server used for the graphical installer sticks to this, everything should be just as smooth as using text-mode.

      It would be nice, however, if more distros supported GUI install AND text install for 'expert' users.

    7. Re:Graphical Installers - A Step Backwards? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can tell you why all these different operating systems have menu-and-mouse installers: it's to hook the public who don't have a professional sysadmin on staff and are afraid to type. It's also so that their operating system makes a flashy demo fir for a tale told by a marketroid, full of chrome and sparklers, simplifying nothing. [Apologies to Billy the Bard]

    8. Re:Graphical Installers - A Step Backwards? by IntlHarvester · · Score: 1


      If there was something wrong with text installers, people would be scared away from Windows 2000, which does it's initial setup in text mode also.

      The bad taste in my mouth comes from RedHat's (and Mandrake's) old text mode install program. The color scheme is hard to read and the keyboard navigation is confusing. Not critical problems, but it does make it seem harder than it really is. And if you are going to rewrite the installer to correct these problems, you might as invest in a GUI version.
      --

      --
      Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
    9. Re:Graphical Installers - A Step Backwards? by Salant · · Score: 1

      Especially red hats, I went with the custome install, the first time I tried installing, it by default didn't install lilo, the second time I saw why there is a base packages section which for some reason none of the packages were selected. They included lilo, chmod, chown, find, just about all the basic commands. I don't know if its just this one disc (and yep its from Red Hat, not downloaded and burnt) but it was quite irritating especially when you can't use the keyboard to quickly select packages, and while you can group select the packages with the mouse, you can't mark them all for installation. Once again I'm considering not dual booting. And not not with linux/w*98 I had redhat/debian. The more "adnvanced" redhat gets the more debian appeals to me. If I wanted a pretty os that didn't work I'd go with windows.

    10. Re:Graphical Installers - A Step Backwards? by MISplice · · Score: 1

      Graphical installers can be very decieving. Under Caldera 2.3 the Graphical Install is very nice and actually looks better than X. Is there something in the installer that has better compatability than the X server?

      --
      "Imagination is more important than knowledge" -- Albert Einstein
    11. Re:Graphical Installers - A Step Backwards? by Salant · · Score: 1

      If you want a reply so badly and think your so important, why not let us all know who you are so we can celebrate your wonderfulness. Bleh on AC posting I say :)

    12. Re:Graphical Installers - A Step Backwards? by nEoN+nOoDlE · · Score: 1

      I tried installing Corel Linux on my machine equipped with a 3dlabs permedia 3 card and it crashed and rebooted. Couldn't get it to run. I did try the Corel Linux cd on another computer and the graphical install was very easy.

      --
      Don't trust a bull's horn, a doberman's tooth, a runaway horse or me.
    13. Re:Graphical Installers - A Step Backwards? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why is this insightful? what the hell is insightful about asking a question. Moderators, do you stop to think before posting?

      I'd like someone to answer my question.

    14. Re:Graphical Installers - A Step Backwards? by 348 · · Score: 1
      How easy is that to do? For the "Non"Geek User. . ??

      --

      More race stuff in one place,
      than any one place on the net.

    15. Re:Graphical Installers - A Step Backwards? by jgarrell · · Score: 3

      To make this short and sweet if the graphical portion does not work you will be droped to a text based mode for the install. I have insatlled RH-6.1 on about 10 servers here at work and a few of the older compaq's video could not support it and I got droped down to a text based mode for the insatll every time. my $.02

    16. Re:Graphical Installers - A Step Backwards? by Roundeye · · Score: 5
      Remember, linux needs to aim towards non geeks..

      Is that right?

      Doesn't bother me one bit if it doesn't aim towards non-geeks. Geek all the way, IMHO. RedHat/Corel/Mandrake/etc. may need to market to non-geeks. I could give two.

      Linux in and of itself gets along just fine without having GUI installers and "looks just like Windows(tm)!" crap interfaces. If someone wants them, however they will be written and people can use them.

      The mistake people seem to make is to think that somehow if Linux becomes the prevalent operating system -- since it has been more stable, more secure, more robust, etc., than the crapware M$ alternative -- that the World Will Be A Better Place. But to do that everyone seems to believe that Linux has to offer the same eye candy, bloat, and useless processor drag that made M$ so popular to get it into the hands of the common man.

      If Linux provides all these features it will undoubtedly (IMHO) become just like windows. O.k., maybe it will be more stable, and the code will be available, but the average friggin' moron will have a drop-in windows replacement. The average friggin' moron will be just as friggin' moronic as he is today. For the bulk of the populace (the non-geeks) the world will not be a better place. What did a person like me (who is happy to have the source code, happy with Linux not being a Windows drop-in replacement) gain from all of this? A graphical installer that crashes? A desktop that looks like Windows(tm)?

      So, you say, I don't have to use those "improvements" -- which puts me at making my own distro from tarballs and CVS pulls, fine. But, if there is any benefit of a "distribution" it is first the elimination of hand compilation. If I (a self-proclaimed geek from way back) have lost that benefit then everything else is no advantage to the rest of the geek community -- in fact we are worse off for having Big Business in our once-quiet community.

      So, "Linux needs to aim towards non geeks"? Bullshit.

      --
      "Cause there's 40 different shades of black, so many fortresses and ways to attack, so why you complainin'?"
    17. Re:Graphical Installers - A Step Backwards? by savaget · · Score: 1

      I would say that they would be a step ahead if graphical installers offered more lines of text on the screen,for example during package selection.

    18. Re:Graphical Installers - A Step Backwards? by ufdraco · · Score: 1

      I noticed the same thing. What's even more irritating is that these are added in anyway--but AFTER you have painstakingly chosen all the other packages. This is hardly easy to use, IMNSHO. Don't get me wrong, it did install, and I enjoy using linux far more than windows, but this is something that seriously needs improvement.

      --

      ufdraco

    19. Re:Graphical Installers - A Step Backwards? by pi_rules · · Score: 2
      I can understand why a newbie would be so attracted to a graphical installer; but should we even be giving a newbie an easy to navigate installer? Serioiusly... if they don't know what they're doing all they need to tell the installer is what hard drive they're going to install to and let the thing take care of the rest. Oh sure, ask them what they would like to name their machine, and you should ask them to enter a username for doing non-root jobs but that's about it IMHO. Newbies don't need a nice point-and-click way to screw themselves over :) I don't know how many people I've seen ranting and raving in Efnet's #linuxhelp because they don't have gcc/header files/kernel source installed. Ideal install:
      • Insert CD-ROM, boot computer.
      • Installer searches for hard drives/partitions.
      • Installer prompts user as to where they want to install it (automatically shrink the fat32 partitoins if you have to here... I think we're finally getting reliable Linux solutions to this... but can we defrag a FAT partition from Linux yet?)
      • Ask them their networking information (DNS, hostname, dhcp server, etc if they are on a LAN/Cable Modem type situation)
      • Ask them for a username, and password
      • Ask for root password
      • Install every darned thing on that CD to keep them from screwing themselves over.
      What's a big install run these days of a full working Linux system? Slack 7.0 was a hair under a gig... and you've got more things at your fingertips than any newbie could imagine for a installing just their operating system.
      The only thing a GUI would do to help here it give them a smoother looking progress bar.
  156. Re:What is wrong with you people? by whoop · · Score: 1

    The joke is more in the CNN headline than the actual incident. It sounds like four people died trying to port Quake. No doubt the reporter isn't aware of video games or programming languages. But it's cute for a crowd like Slashdot.

    Of course, except for those anti-humor folks. In which case, it's fine to bitch about it because well, you've gotta have something to bitch about.

  157. Re:Tragedy !!! Please Read by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    tastlesness is in the, er, tongue of the beholder...or something.

  158. Sounds good by NightHwk · · Score: 1

    I can't wait for the onslaught of "I have linux7, and I want to do X, I asked my l33t_h4x0r_fr13nd@aol.com how to do it, but he only has linux 6.1, so he didnt know how to do it, can someone help me" =P
    The security levels sound cool, I like the idea of being able to install a distribution and not spend a great deal of time cleaning up gaping holes in security like one would have to do with most stock installs of many distributions. I can't wait to get it and check out all the new features =]
    Time to load up my list of favorite mirrors...

    NightHawk

    --

  159. Re:I prefer "make xconfig" myself by CrAlt · · Score: 1
    "...text screen redraws are so slow" huh?
    What are you running? A 386DX with ISA video? Even on my old DX2 the menuconfig screen redraws nice and fast.


    Guess im the only one who still uses 'make config' though...

    --
    I have to return some videotapes...
  160. Uses Glibc 2.1.2 ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does it use Glibc 2.1.2 (like RH-6.1)? Without glibc 2.1.2, I can't use Blackdown's JDK 1.2 RC3.

    1. Re:Uses Glibc 2.1.2 ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then use the Blackdown/Sun/Inprise version of JDK 1.2... I'm using it on OpenLinux (which uses glibc 2.1.1) without any problems (so far).

  161. Re:Tragedy !!! Please Read (Off topic) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    wow. someone with a sense of humour. that's like a pearl in the clambake hell known as slashdot.

  162. Re:Tragedy !!! Please Read by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Click on the link. He is neither being serious, or IMO funny.

  163. Re:The easiest installation I ever had... by Arandir · · Score: 2

    The easiest installation I ever had was with Slackware 7.0. It was simply a charm! Straight forward. Bare bones. Simple. Of course, you needed a bit of computer savvy, but you need more of it with NT/W2K. The next easiest was Mandrake 6.0.

    The worst installation I ever had was Caldera 2.2. It was the only graphical installer I ever used. I didn't like my video card, so I had to revert to Lisa. Next up was Debian (why are you installing nonfree packages by default!?!?).

    But the real key to Linux is not ease of installation. If we succeed in the marketplace, then everyone will be getting it preinstalled anyway. The real key is setup and maintenance. In this area, Slackware really shines. It's because there's no broken linuxconfs or single-minded Yast's in the way.

    Now, understand that I'm not recommending Slackware for the absolute newbie. Certainly not. But once you've got a certain modicum of knowledge under your belt, Slackware is a breath of fresh air.

    --
    A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
  164. Tasteless. by slothbait · · Score: 1

    This would be a moderately funny pun, except that it involves people dieing. In my opinion, the joke is in poor taste. I would moderate you down, but there is no entry for "tasteless" (perhaps there should be), and I don't consider this flamebait.

    At 2 points, perhaps it *is* overrated, though...

    --Lenny

    1. Re:Tasteless. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This would be a moderately funny pun, except that it involves people dieing .

      I'm sorry but I'm not familiar with that word. Can you help me out with an explanation?

      At any rate, I had a problem with the post because it made light of people dying.

    2. Re:Tasteless. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      two moderators needed. One clicks underrated and the other offtopic, and that post, as well as this whole thread become over and done with. C'mon, gang, let's put some muscle behind it!

    3. Re:Tasteless. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "dieing"? What is "dieing"? Is that more like "dyeing" or "dying"? Or is it "tool"-ing-and-"die"-ing?

    4. Re:Tasteless. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      too bad you don't have moderator points, cock goblin!

    5. Re:Tasteless. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ahahahaha. It's up to 3:funny. Unlike you, you little piece of shit, some people have a sense of humour.

    6. Re:Tasteless. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had them two days ago, actually. The only thing funny is that when I get them The stories all wind up being something I'm totally not interested in, pussy troll!

  165. What'd the morons ever do to you? by / · · Score: 2

    This talk of how lowering the average IQ of linux users by providing easier installs is both mistaken, and more importantly, misses the point: on linux, the morons are powerless to harm you.

    In windoze land, morons can be malicious by releasing viruses and blindly financing MS's efforts to prop up it stock at the expense of humanity.

    In linux land, however, all morons can do is provide a greater installed linux base that will get the attention of companies porting their hardware and software. The dominant culture of releasing quality software rather than crap is inherent in the open-source model and is not going anywhere. There is not a finite amount of development out there that we shouldn't squander on the point-and-drool crowd -- they can be incorporated into society with full suffrage and few complications. Even if such accomadations become the default, there will always be the underlying tools and flags for those with the power to wield them. If you don't want to run their software, then go ahead and don't. There'll always be slackware or something like it for people like you.

    And if you won't even let them install the thing, how are they supposed to be converted and turn from their luser ways? How many of today's electrical engineers got their start assembling redboxes from schematics they downloaded off the local phreaking bbs? You will some day reap the benefits of others' charity, and you won't be any the better off for being an elitist fool.

    --
    "If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
  166. Re:Graphical Installer is a must... by CrAlt · · Score: 1
    us= People who own a VCR that DOES NOT blink "12:00"


    Them= People who own a VCR that DOES blink "12:00" and has been since 1995.


    us= people who are now running Linux/*BSD/any_UNIX that don't mind RTFM.


    them= People who call Apple's tech support line all the time asking things like "Where the hell is that damn ANY KEY?"


    :)

    --
    I have to return some videotapes...
  167. Why Mandrake? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
    Why should I want to use Mandrake instead of some other Linux operating system? What's it got going for it? It is sexier, faster, easier, more complete, more loved, better engineered, etc? Please compare against only Linuxes, like Redhat, Debian, Suse, or Slackware. Please do not compare against BSD operating systems.

    I am an honest seeker after knowledge, and I thank you.

    1. Re:Why Mandrake? by Foogle · · Score: 3
      I use Mandrake for the same reason I flip the lightswitch 17 times every time I leave the room... If I don't, my family will die.

      -----------

      "You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."

    2. Re:Why Mandrake? by Kinthelt · · Score: 1
      I wish you luck. You'll never get a straight or correct answer. The problem is that holy wars erupt, because some people don't enjoy having something they consider sacred called 'inferior'. Take vi vs. emacs for example. Nobody will ever be able to tell you which is better.

      As for the Linuxes, they are technically all the same. The same source code, the same apps (GNU stuff). Just different compiler options, and version numbers. Some may ship with a few more applications than another, but it's nothing that you can't download at a later time. The only difference I can think of is configuration. Redhat and its derivatives put rc files all over the place, whereas Slackware (and others?) put the important ones in /etc/rc.d

      --

      "Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Dark Helmet (Spaceballs)

    3. Re:Why Mandrake? by Lord+Kano · · Score: 2

      Mandrake is essentially RedHat. They recompile the code with optimizations for Pentium family processors (there is some debate as to whether or not those optimizations actually slow down newer cpus like K62/3, Celeron, P2/3), and they tend to use a newer version of the Kernel than does RedHat.

      Also MacMillian(sp?) sells retail boxed versions of Mandrake that come with a decent set of books for the Newbie.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    4. Re:Why Mandrake? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well I have used Mandrake from their very first release. I have compared it to Redhat and Suse. I believe that Mandrake is the best distro. Why? Its completly compatible with Redhat rpm's. It is very easy to install(I can install and configure Mandrake in 20 min). They(Mandrake) are aiming at the desktop not the server room. They install KDE as the default desktop while still making sure that all the Gnome apps run as well. Mandrake has a project called cooker, which is the next release, always in the works.(anybody can download cooker and help out ) Mandrake has several projects to make configuring Linux very easy. "Lothar" and "Diskdrake" They have KDE developers working at Mandrake so KDE is set up and configured to work really well right out of the box. They provide a downloadable version of each Mandrake release for free. Overall I think Mandrake goes out of its way to make installing and using Linux as easy as they can, while not dumbing it down.

    5. Re:Why Mandrake? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Typically it contains the latest and greatest everything. It works with RedHat's .RPMs and is set up so that someone user to RH can just mosie on over (it was originally based off RH). The main advantage you start to notice when you download a new package or program, and it doesn't require you to upgrade 50 other things just to work. If you're currently using Redhat you can use their CD to upgrade it to Mandrake (I know this works up through 6.1, don't know about 7 but I expect it to). Otherwise it's YAFD(istro)

    6. Re:Why Mandrake? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why shouldn't we compare against BSDs instead of just Linuces? Heck, we should compare against the Hpuxen, the Solares, and the Irices, too.

  168. Re:Graphical Installer is a must... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nope. It's me and YOUR hand.

  169. What supermount's all about by Ian+Schmidt · · Score: 3

    Supermount lets you set your removable drives up so you can eject and insert new media at pretty much any time, just like in a well-known operating system named after a feature of your house. When new disks are inserted and you access them they are automatically mounted for you behind the scenes, with settings you've specified beforehand. Whenever you aren't accessing them the drive is automatically unmounted again so you can eject it.

    It was originally written by Steven C. Tweedie for 2.0.x, but he abandonded it a while ago. This new version was ported up to 2.2.x and cleaned up a bit by a Russian programmer in response to a request on CoSource. As one of the "sponsors" of that development I'm thrilled with SuperMount, and I think it's great that Mandrake's picked it up (hopefully they'll maintain it and/or port to 2.3/2.4). It's much nicer than Redhat's autofs hack, and it enables games with redbook audio tracks to work in Wine amongst other things. (you can't play audio on a mounted drive under Linux, which is a severe limitation for games).

    1. Re:What supermount's all about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you mean disks or diskettes? It's floppies that go in and out more, not disks.

    2. Re:What supermount's all about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope. Floppies only come out. You'll never get them in. That's what hard discs are for.

  170. Sh*t Happens, laugh at it. by gatzke · · Score: 1

    I thought this was extremely funny.

    Just looking at the headline, it fits right in with the excitement about Quake going GPL.

    And anyway, since when has /. been PC?

    Lighten up, buddy.

    ed

  171. Possible reason by dsplat · · Score: 1

    Does XFree86 provide more complete support for internationalization than the console? I think character sets and fonts are a non-issue, but X probably has more complete support for complex input methods than an off-the-shelf kernel.

    --
    The net will not be what we demand, but what we make it. Build it well.
  172. Missing Link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    Could someobody PLEASE tell me why all the BSD stories have a "related link" of Linux, but none of the Linux stories have one pointing to BSD?

    1. Re:Missing Link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Could someobody PLEASE tell me why all the BSD stories have a "related link" of Linux, but none of the Linux stories have one pointing to BSD?
      Probably because while BSD is derived from GNU/Linux (just try to compile it without gcc!), Mandrake/GNU/Linux is not derived from BSD.
  173. Re:Why does this have a score of 2 ??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I don't think he was making fun of the catastrophy. Rather, he saw a headline which viewed in this forum, would generate a smile or too. That's what it did for me. It's sort of an inside joke.

    I guess you didn't laugh a lot in your family. I don't like being near people like you.

  174. Re-root file manager to home directory by captaineo · · Score: 1

    I think the configurable security levels are a wonderful idea for bringing newbies into Linux... One more thing - how about re-rooting the standard file manager at the user's home directory? That would get rid of a lot of confusion... ("What's this? /etcetera? Hmm, must be some extra junk. Here, I'll just get rid of it..."

  175. Out of date RPMS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Great. Another distribution that is still using tcl/tk 8.0.
    I guess 8.1 wasn't good enough for them.
    I guess 8.2 wasn't good enough for them.
    I guess 8.2.3 isn't good enough for them.
    They talk about internationalization in the installer, but they won't upgrade to packages designed for internationalization?

    I can understand not putting bleeding edge versions of code out there for mass consumption, but Mandrake is starting to fall into the Redhat pit of being too conservative.

    1. Re:Out of date RPMS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There is a big problem of backward compatibility with former program TK. It break many TK program of the distro.

  176. Related topic: access for the blind by dsplat · · Score: 1

    Since this topic came up here very recently, I was just thinking about a friend who most definitely would not want a GUI install. She's blind. Should she have to buy a high-end monitor to install an OS that she will never once use in a graphical mode? Her money would be much better spent on a really good sound card and speakers.

    --
    The net will not be what we demand, but what we make it. Build it well.
  177. Nifty by Alan+Shutko · · Score: 4

    Much as I abhor major version inflation (seems to be a way to get a cheesy lead over others), it does have one _long_ overdue feature, the choosable security levels. Here's hoping it spreads into all the distributions!

  178. How good is Mandrake? by Julian+Morrison · · Score: 1

    Is it on the whole buggy, or stable?

    Is it bleeding edge, recent-but-trustable, or dragging behind for maximum stability?

    Does it generally get upgrades and bugfixes faster or slower than RH and Debian? How much are updates released to track the "state of the art"?

    How does the number and scope of packages compare to Debian and RH?

    Is it pentium optimized?

    Does it have any "left out to soothe the braindead newbies" bits?

  179. Re:Dont't talk, if you don't know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "what" you're talking about!

  180. Re:Tragedy !!! Please Read by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How dare you deride him for exercizing his right to laugh at death, you asshole!

  181. Re:Why does this have a score of 2 ??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    He was at 2 when I posted my comment, and still needs to be brought down to zero, estupido.
    Wrong. The word is estúpido. Vaya idiota!
  182. Waiting for Godot by Foogle · · Score: 3
    If they waited for Mozilla to be finished, you wouldn't have a new version of Mandrake for another year or two. And KDE2 just went into "Krash", which is still Alpha. I'd like to see a distro with those too, but I think it's unrealistic to expect people to wait on it.

    On another note, I'm pretty interested in this "security" settings system they have. Moreover, I'd like to see how they've set it up for minimal security. Does it run in single-user mode?

    -----------

    "You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."

  183. Re:Tragedy !!! Please Read by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sometimes.
    For examples, please check out the Darwin Awards.

  184. tk/tcl have been superseded by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess you haven't been following the GNU/Linux world. TK has been replaced by GTK and TCL has been replaced by GUILE in the GNU part of the world. I think you'll find the changes quite pleasant.

    1. Re:tk/tcl have been superseded by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sh1T! You mean I just wasted $20 at the bookstore for that tcl/tk pocket manual?

      (J/K) :)

  185. Nooo!!!! by OakLEE · · Score: 1

    I just got mandrake 6.1 fully working!!!!! Damn you mandrake, now i have to download this and upgrade!!!!!

    --
    The sun beams down on a brand new day, No more welfare tax to pay, Unsightly slums gone up in flashing light...
  186. No Image file? by robwicks · · Score: 1

    I wish they allowed you to download an ISO image for CD burning. Sadly, that does not seem to be available for the beta.

    --

    Logic ... merely enables one to be wrong with authority. -- Doctor Who

    1. Re:No Image file? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According from developers of MandrakeSoft there will be.

  187. Not everything bleeding edge is good by Malc · · Score: 1

    Mandrake seem to make a big effort out of releasing the latest possible versions of everything. Unfortunately this means their testing of the distribution suffers (obvious they don't have time to be thorough). They also seem to like to turn on all of the cool features by default, which is also probably not good.

    I installed 6.1 as soon as it came out, and now refuse to use it because my hard drive light stays on all of the time. They boast about having the hard drive optimisations turned on: one of the features that makes their distro better than others - perhaps this is related to my problem? Until I have the time to look into my hard drive problem, I shalln't be rebooting into Linux at all (I don't have time at the moment to intall another distro and configure it).

    My mistake for choosing a distro that was put together with obvious bad testing and a dangerous desire to try and be the coolest with the most features, etc.

    1. Re:Not everything bleeding edge is good by Anonynous+Coward · · Score: 1
      I don't see this as a drawback. If you want things to be stable, pick another distro. Thats the beauty of Linux (and *BSD) distros -- you want security? You want stability? You want all the latest bells and whistles? Pick the distro that's closest to what you want.

      Mandrake is one of those that is gunning quite a bit for the Windows desktop users...These users are used to things being a bit unstable to allow for neat eye-candy. Clearly, this is not the best choice for everyone, but its nice to have the option.

    2. Re:Not everything bleeding edge is good by humphrm · · Score: 2

      How many times do they have to say "Beta" in the press release? And with so many other stable, tested distros out there, why can't there be one on the bleeding edge with all the bells and whistles, that's clearly labelled NOT FOR PRODUCTION USE to play with?

      Great, so you refuse to use 6.1. I'll alert the media. Meanwhile, what's the point? Why shouldn't I be able to use it?

      --
      -- "In order to have power, I must be taken seriously." -Mojo Jojo
  188. Comedy = Tragedy + Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everyone has laughed at a "Titanic" joke at least once. Spare us your sanctimony, everyone dies, and yes, often the most tragic deaths end up being the most laughable.

  189. Re:Tragedy !!! Please Read by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's one thing. People doing incredibly stupid things, then getting killed in the process, and not breeding-at least they can be held up and pointed to as some sort of lesson not to do stupid things. But there's a difference between that and a natural disaster.

    Imagine if sometime in the next (last) 5 minutes of your life you were dodging falling walls, flying debris, other victims all trying to get away, only there was no away to get to. All your friends and family are going to die too, your brother, sister, children. It won't be fast either, you'll either be suffucated, buried in mud or dirt, trapped under pieces of a building with most of your bones broken and every breath you take makes the pain that much worse. Maybe you're in your car, legs pinned between your crushed dashboard and glass from the windshield all in your face, a live wire from a power line sparking against the bare metal of the rest of your car, touch anything metal and roast.

    Yeah, that's real funny.

  190. First time Linux user... by jued0001 · · Score: 0
    I've been wanting to ask this for awhile, and I guess this is my best chance. I want to learn more about Linux, but I'm not sure what I need hardware-wise. What would be adequate for a Linux machine (CPU, RAM, video card)? I'm not asking, "what is the minimum requirements I need," where I would get answers like, "Linux will run on a 386 w/4MB of RAM!" I don't care about that. I want something usable, preferably for a server at home.

    Thoughts?

    _________________________

    Mello like the Yello, but without the fizz.

    --

    _______

    I just wish I could c:\format Internet

    1. Re:First time Linux user... by Mr+Mot · · Score: 1

      Check out thispage for hardware compatibility on RedHat 6.1 Systems.

      --
      Why you say you no bunny rabbit when you have powder puff tail? --The Tasmanian Devil
    2. Re:First time Linux user... by Midnight+Ryder · · Score: 1

      The answer of running Linux on a 386 w/4MB of RAM isn't a lie. However, I can understand your frustration here - that's the minimum it's gonna run on for doing something like a very simple router (heck, boot the thing off of a floppy - no need for a Hard Drive!) What do you want to do with the machine? I know you say you want a server for home, but, is that server going to be serving web pages, running Samba to act as a Win 95 file server, running a Quake III server from time to time, etc? Give more details about what you want to do - then you can get some better answers. It's not an insult, just wanting to be sure that people know what you are looking at doing with it, so that I or whoever else can give you some really good informed answers, instead of crap answers like "Oh, that old 386 will run it fine!" Anyway - give more info, and maybe people can give ya better answers more along the lines of what you are looking for.

      --

      Davis Ray Sickmon, Jr - looking for something to read? Check out my three free novels at MidnightRyder.org

    3. Re:First time Linux user... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i have linux on 3 machines at home

      266mmx sony vaio notebook, 32meg ram.
      Xwindows runs nicely, with kde and netscape and all that stuff. apache, bind, ssh, and sendmail run on it in the background. no problems, very nice setup

      486/33 12meg ram
      my firewall/router/gateway box. sendmail, bind, ssh run in the background with no problems.. a tad slow when your running stuff like lynx. no X or anything installed. uptime is close to a year on this one without any problems other than i left it for a few months and the HD slowly filled itself up due to the logs. problem solved and it's still running fine.

      486/100 20meg ram
      my fileserver. runs NFS, Samba, FTP, ssh. does its job extremely well/fast.. X windows is a bit slow, but i don't use it on this one either.

    4. Re:First time Linux user... by bmetzler · · Score: 2
      I want to learn more about Linux, but I'm not sure what I need hardware-wise.

      As you already know, just about anything you'd probably have will suit. It just won't suit for everything :)

      It depends on what you want to do. Compile Mozilla? Pentium !!! 500, 256 meg ram, 10 gig HD. Run StarOffice? Celeron 300, 128 meg ram, 6.4gig HD. Run an apache server over your DSL line? Pentium 133, 32 meg ram, 4 gig HD.

      I'd generally pick something up in the AMD K6-3 400, 128meg ram 10gig HD range. But what am I saying. I run Linux on a Pentium 233, with 128meg ram, and 20 gig HD space. And I still compile Mozilla and run StarOffice. And Enlightenment.

      -Brent
    5. Re:First time Linux user... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like Mott said check the Rhat compatability chart first. Main thing, avoid winmodems. One of the "benefits" of Linux is it seems to like older hardware better than bleeding edge stuff. For just playing around with it and not really doing anything major I would reccomend anything over a P-90 with 16 meg/ram. 32 meg or more is better. A 4 meg video card (ATI is pretty well supported, I think it was S3 that has like 4000 entries in there...) Basically older, name brand type hardware. Any monitor that does 800x600 or better should work. This is if you're planning on running X (the windowing system) and gnome or KDE, which provides a lot of the common apps/tools in a nice graphical environment

    6. Re:First time Linux user... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      X windows runs nicely, with kde and netscape and all that stuff. apache, bind, ssh, and sendmail run on it in the background. no problems, very nice setup
      Did you notice that not a single one of the those listed critical softwares is GPL'd? Fascinating.
    7. Re:First time Linux user... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends what you want to do, of course.

      For a while I ran a web and ftp server on a 12 meg 486/33 made out of spare parts. It worked fine; the NIC was the bottleneck, not the computer. It choked only when I started hitting it with SQL queries (because of the low RAM). For a home server, a dedicated 486 is usually fine.

      I wouldn't try running X with less than 32 megs, especially if you're going to use something big like Netscape or StarOffice. You could scrape by on 24 if you avoid the big apps and don't have the "mine's bigger, mine's faster" complex.

      I'd say, for a really basic desktop machine, you wouldn't want less than a Penium 100 and 32 megs.
      (That's what my mom runs with, and she's happy.)

      On my own machine, I wouldn't want less than 128 megs, but I'm really mean to it. ;-)

  191. Exqueeze me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Probably because while BSD is derived from GNU/Linux

    What Linuxmonkey told you THAT? Try HERE for a _little_ more accurate, and very easy to read history of BSD.

  192. Re:Ummmm..... Death IS funny. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Schadenfreude. Don't you people know how to look things up? Blech!

  193. Why Not? by Pike · · Score: 1

    The solution is not to stick with text based, exclusively (keep it available though), but to make a stable graphical installer.

    While I have never used a graphical installer for linux (still have Mandrake 6.1) I have installed windows 95 & 98 a gazillion times on a multitude of systems, and never once has their installer had problems as far as graphics/video are concerned. Why not? If they can do it using the same stupid hardware before they've even picked out a specific video driver, it seems to me the Linux people could do it too.

    As for making installation easier, that depends on the actual functionality of the installer, not whether it is graphical or text-based. And as long as the functionality and stability are there, graphics will almost always add to the installation experience that us geeks relish.

    JD

  194. Graphical Installer is a must... by CokeBear · · Score: 3

    If Linux is ever going to be accepted by the masses as an alternative to Windows, it must have a graphical installer, and must, on the surface, appear to be as user friendly as a Mac.

    In my experience, I have found that Mac users are the most open minded when it comes to Linux (probably the reason they tried something different in the first place) but are initially turned off by its complexity. If you make it seem simple enough to use at first, but keep all the power of Linux accessible to them, they will slowly explore and realize what a wonderful thing it is, but this is a slow process for many people who are not geeks.

    --
    Reality has a liberal bias
    1. Re:Graphical Installer is a must... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why the bloody hell do we CARE about the masses? I really mean this one.

    2. Re:Graphical Installer is a must... by Anonynous+Coward · · Score: 1
      Yes!! You can have the ease of use while keeping the power -- BeOS (and AmigaOS before it) does a good job at this. There will inevitably be people opposed to graphical installers on Linux. These are largely the same people that write code in 'vi', don't bother to install X, and don't own a mouse.

      I don't think there's anything wrong with that POV ('if it works for me, I'll stick with it'), but clearly these people are the minority of computer users. GUIs, including during the install process, are a must for any serious OS in 1999. Lets just hope the major distros allow for non-GUI install too, just to keep everyone happy.

    3. Re:Graphical Installer is a must... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The more stupid people use Linux, the worse it will get, because companies will pander again and again to the stupidest possible consumer. We all lose.

    4. Re:Graphical Installer is a must... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're cracked if you equate people who use vi for writing with people who don't install X. Why the hell would I want to use some Microsoft Word style excuse for an "editor" just because I happen to have a mouse?

  195. ISO? Where?? by emorin · · Score: 1

    I use RH 6.1 daily, but I tried Mandrake 6.1 a couple of weeks ago to do a review and found it very interesting... Anyone knows where I can find an iso image of Mandrake 7, if there is such a thing? I also would like to download an iso image of SuSE 6.3 but Linuxberg does not have it... Any idea??

    Thanks!

    Regards

  196. Re:Tragedy !!! Please Read by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All that wind, and yet the headline in context of the poster is still funny.

    Imagine that.

  197. Gooeys and Winix, joined at birth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Without soi-disant GUI installers, Winix shall inevitably perish.

  198. Graphical Installers by mrdisco99 · · Score: 2
    I've been a stickler for Red Hat for a while now, and their latest graphical installer really disappointed me. The older ncurses-based version always worked well for me. However, this new gtk installer didn't do anything I asked it to do.

    It wouldn't set the correct LILO default partition. If I picked the DOS partition as default, it would still default to the Linux boot partition.

    The X setup simply wouldn't work. I had to run Xconfigurator or restore my old XF86Config file.

    When choosing packages to install, many of the packages that should've been checked by default weren't checked... but they installed anyway. This made it difficult to tell which packages were truly selected to be installed.

    I hope Mandrake's installer doesn't suffer from similar problems. I never had any problems with Red Hat until 6.1.


    +++

    --

    +++
    NO CARRIER

    1. Re:Graphical Installers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Instead wasting time on grafical installers, Mandrake (and not only Mandrake I guess) should rather make the old installer work: 1) If I choose not to install X, it'll still install it and ask questions about monitors, resolutions, etc. 2) It doesn't detect my network card (3c905b), which is on the list of supported cards, and I have no problems to load driver for it manually (modprobe 3c90x) with no additional parameters. Because it fails, the user has to create/edit network scripts manually... (since linuxconf makes things even worse (I mean networking settings) 3) rc.d runs httpd and ftpd BEFORE it loads network driver, which is kinda odd to me... 4) mouse doesn't work with X if 'gpm' is not loaded (which it's supposed to be laoded for the console apps, not X. 5) who needs aplletalk and ipx compiled into kernel by default ? minek

  199. Neat!! by Satsuki+Yatoji · · Score: 1

    I heard Mandrake's on of the most trouble-free to install...Nifty! Now I can go through with my plan to see if my mom will notice a switch from Win98 to Linux.

    --

    -You're wearing...A bag? I have misplaced my pants.
  200. What is wrong with you people? by mplex · · Score: 1

    This was funny, I mean come on, four people died, who cares. More people probably died while I was writing this post; 6 billion people on this planet and you people get all worked up about four people dying. I dont know but I thought it was funny, went along perfectly and the guy was just trying to throw a stick in to the java/C debate. Anyway, it's just sad to see everyone get all worked up over four people dying, there are many more tragedies out there.

  201. Supermount? by Hrunting · · Score: 2

    This is the first I've heard of supermount. Does anyone have more information on it other than the patch? It sounds like this may be one of the first truly enticing reasons for me to update my kernel (other than the desire to have the latest and greatest, of course).

  202. Ummmm..... Death IS funny. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Not that this particular tragidy is some huge knee-slapper by any means, but pain, suffering and death are often the basis of a great deal of humour.

    Case in point the german term "Frauden Shoida"(crappy phonetic attempt at spelling) which translates to "Take pleasure in the misfortunes of others"

    Or the countless "Daddy get it in the nuts" videos on AFHV.

    Or Mel Brookes famous line "Comedy is when you fall down a sewer manhole and die. Tragidy is when I cut my finger."

    Or the irrifutable Homer Simpson line "Its funny 'cause its not me"

    Its a healthy thing to try and find humour in tragic events. It keeps us sane. Its our minds way of trying to relieve the stress and anxiety caused by these events. The more you deal with it, the "Blacker" your sence of humour becomes. If you want sick and twisted humour, try asking an ER Doc if they've heard any good jokes lately.

  203. Re:Tasteless? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe some of us just don't feel that death is "tasteless." I thought it was pretty damn funny. Taste is meaningless anyway and I would be dissapointed if there was a tasteless option.

  204. Rage Fury? by aphr0 · · Score: 1

    Does anybody know if this release includes support for the ATI Rage Fury? Suse(?) released a driver for this a while ago and I'm wondering if it will be included in this distro.

  205. Security. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    maybe time to install that OpenBSD 2.5 CD I got a while back..., the default (in)security of most distros (mostly aiming at RH here) just sucks.
    It's up to v2.6 now. I think you'll enjoy it. It's like a breath of fresh air.
  206. Marketing numbers vs. real life ... by timothy · · Score: 3

    For Microsoft (and to a lesser extent, other commerical) OSes, official version names are important to a degree which they aren't in the Linux world's enthusiastic, wacky developers and distro-suppliers, or in the BSD world's Castles of Smartness. That's because the name is as much (or more) a Marketing invention than a descriptive name.

    For Microsoft, the name of the product is an important selling point. The naming structure of MS products with the ProductName (Year) format is part of their marketing scheme, and they will work toward deadlines to make things come out in the appropriate year, or at least aim for it. (Remember the release of Windows 95?). I'm not bashing this approach - it actually makes some things slightly more intuitive. It's a lot easier to know "Well, I need to have Money 2000 to exchange data with my software at work." than "Well, I need to have kernel 2.1.5 and a certain c library installed ..." To linux experts, this probably seems more marginal than it does to me, a long-time but basically shallow linux user. Most computer users stay even closer to the shallow-end than I do, venture to guess.

    With Linux distribs, they're not limited by the marketing need for a certain number, though, or at least they needn't be. Mandrake certainly isn't!

    They can release a major version (with what sounds like quite a few new features) as 7 quite legitimately. I'd also like to see the things you'd like to in an upcoming version, but there's no point in saying that Mandrake should wait until perfection is arrived at on all fronts before releasing. In fact, all those nice GPL'd things released by Mandrake will help everyone (including Mandrake) toward this goal faster than if Mandrake were to wait till it had independently solved all of the Unsolved Problems.

    XFree 4 - what, early / mid 2000? It sounds great! (And I'm lucky enough to have no graphical needs unmet as yet with 3.6)

    KDE 2 - still a while 'til it's really there, though it, too, sounds great.

    the new Kernel - soonish, ditto.

    mozilla - well, it keeps getting better, and is quite nice at present, if it meets your needs. But waiting for the "finished" product before releasing a new Mandrake ... you'd turn blue!

    All that said, I must again praise the Mandrake (and underlying Red Hat (and underlying distro makers(and Alan Cox and other kernel developers (including Linus, as the colonel of the kernel's kernel)))) team for the greatness of Mandrake 6.1.

    A friend of mine (brilliant but not into computers much) was amazed at how well put together Mandrake 6.1 was when she saw it at my place this week. "What are you running on your computer?" she asked. "That's Linux, with KDE."
    "Whoah! I didn't think Linux was so slick!"

    (Heavy paraphrase, but the spirit is correct.)

    timothy

    --
    jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
  207. k3w1t0kkin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's even worse. Most of them spell "operating system" d-i-s-t-r-o. Pure script kiddie k3w1t0kkin.

  208. some nice specs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Get an athlon 700Mhz, with an video card based on the Nvidia GeForce. 128MB of RAM would be nice, and a 17 inche flat panel. Yea. Linux would run really nice on that sucker

  209. Re:Graphical Installers-The mainstreaming of Linux by Lord+Kano · · Score: 2

    I have a serious problem with trying to "mainstream" linux, everytime something that is created for (and in this case by) a niche market gets mainstreamed it gets bastardized. Remember CB radio back in the 1970s? We had every yahoo on the interstates jabbering on about "Smokey" and "good buddies","10-4".

    I like the fact that Linux, *BSD, and BeOS are "geeky". Why? Because that alone keeps the no-nothing, keeping up with the Joneses, first 'puter losers away.

    These people will take the emphasis off of flexibility, and stability and put it on ease of use.

    If I wanted to exclusively us an "easy" OS, I have a few others to choose from. I want to POWER and STABILITY of linux to remain it's primary features.

    LK

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  210. I prefer "make xconfig" myself by DragonHawk · · Score: 2

    make menuconfig is *far* more navigable and easy to use than make xconfig. hands stay on keyboard - tab, space, enter, and the up/down arrows are all you need to *quickly* get around

    That's funny. I always use "make xconfig" because "make menuconfig" is so hard to move around in. You have to use the arrows for everything, and text screen redraws are so slow. In X, a simple point and click opens any category instantly, and you can scroll very quickly by dragging the scroll bar's elevator.

    you *need* to use the mouse.

    You also need a running X server. Go figure.

    That alone slows things up considerably...

    Only if you insist on imposing an inappropriate usage pattern on it.

    You can break any UI by treating it like some other UI. Use it as it was intended, and things almost always get better. I use xconfig because I like it better. You are free to use menuconfig if you like it better. But don't say xconfig is inferior simply because you don't like it.

    --

    dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
    I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.