Slashdot Mirror
Mandrake 7.0-Beta Ready for Download
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.
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.
-BrentCalm 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.
Have fun :)
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.
-BrentYes 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...
it does support the Rage 128
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
This post was very Onion-esc.... Though I have to admit it should not be in this section. Post it on the main page!!!!
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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!
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.
Thanks Mandrake!
;-P
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
Wow.. every distribution seems to have a graphical installer now. Does anyone know which one works the best?
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
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
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.
-BrentHmmm... 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."
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.
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
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"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
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.
Another aspect most people ignore. Especially a certain journalist on USA Today.
-BrentEven 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.
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."
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.
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?
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.
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."
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.
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
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...
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.
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.
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!)
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.
-BrentWhich ones don't?
-BrentFor 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
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!
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
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.
Moderate this down (-1, Stupid)
--
Industrial space for lease in Flatlandia.
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.
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.
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.
_ _ _
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
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.
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.
Just something I thought was pretty cool: Running Quake3 on Mandrake 6.1 yeilds a 0.3fps boost over RedHat 6.1!
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!"
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
_______________________
Mello like the Yello, but without the fizz.
_______
I just wish I could c:\format Internet
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. :-)
Looking at the ftp dir, there's glibc-2.1.2-9mdk.i586.rpm. So I would guess, yes.
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
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
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.
-BrentActually, 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.
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
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
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...
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."
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
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)
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
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"
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
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.
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"
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).
Where does one obtain the supermount patch?
John
John_Chalisque
I try not to learnt too much in one day. :)
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 :)
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).
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...
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.
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...
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
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
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?
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.
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
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...
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
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
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
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...
I am an honest seeker after knowledge, and I thank you.
becuase your source code compiled and installed breaks the package management databases in a lot of these distros.
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).
I thought this was extremely funny.
/. been PC?
Just looking at the headline, it fits right in with the excitement about Quake going GPL.
And anyway, since when has
Lighten up, buddy.
ed
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.
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?
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.
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..."
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.
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!
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?
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."
There is a big problem of backward compatibility with former program TK. It break many TK program of the distro.
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...
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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
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
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.
-BrentFor 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.
..." 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.
... you'd turn blue!
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
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
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
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
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.