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.

Comments

Graphical Installers - A Step Backwards?

[nconway]

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?

Re:Graphical Installers - A Step Backwards?

[Roundeye]

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.