This time PPC version will be finished shortly after the i686 version.
FYI, we decided to skip every second release with PPC, in order to spare a bit on developement costs. That's why there has been no 8.1 version, there will be 8.2 version, and we'll (probably) skip the next release again.
Problem with 8.1 was that our kernel team kept telling "yeah, supermount will be ready, don't worry", and we trusted them. So, supermount wasn't ready, and we had to get it out of the distro in the last minute, which resulted in the lack of the devices links under KDE and GNOME.
The fact that people have prejuduíces against mandrake distro does not mean that we have to do things the way their prejudices tell them we should...
drakxtools aren't bound to any GUI, and can be run on a terminal just as well as under X. X interface uses GTK+ because that's convenient for developers.
XFS works fine, I've used it at home since 8.1 beta 2. Same with ext3, with additional bonus that/boot partition can be ext3, and that ext2 can be transferred into ext3 on the fly (diskdrake knows how to do it...).
Don't know about Reiser, I got annoyed by it last year, and decided to skip it completely this time.
JFS was included in 8.1, but we discouradged the use because of some problems we've seen during the beta testing. Should be fine in 8.2 though.
Ahem. Don't know about the first part (shit happens), but the part about X configuration is outright false.
Moreover, proving that your assertion is false is very simple: there is a copy of our manual on linux-mandrake server... There is also a troubleshooting article on MandrakeForum, for those who are too lazy to RTFM:
http://mandrakeforum.com/article.php?sid=1354&la ng =en
It's true to a certain extent (more security == les comfort), but completely off in this particular case.
FYI, mandrake installs with no servers per default, and few mouse clicks are enough for any newbie to get a reasonable firewall.
The fact that something CAN be done, does not mean that it will be done on default instalation. Furthermore, the fact that some functionality can be made with a few mouse clicks, does not mean that this particular function is less secure than before. Usually it's even the contrary.
so install defaults at a desktop. Which is I suppose bad, because 95% of the computers in the world ARE desktop machines.
And if you decide to install a server, you actually have to press on a button labeled 'install me a server' (not exactly, but close) during instalation. Supose that's too complicated. Or amybe not complicated enough, so it's trying on more advanced users.
One of our kernel hackers spends a lot of time working on supermount. I'm not avare of anyone else working on it, but I may be wrong.
Other distros (AFAIK) aren't interested, because there is no point in putting supermount on a server.
On the contrary, it's not only unnessesary, but even dangerous. On the desktop, enabling the supermount is cool (when it works), but you know how much interest RH and co. have in desktop...
I loved the option, but unfortunately hordes of trolls who couldn't understand the concept of 'more important' and 'less important' software killed it.
On the other hand, 'minimal install' + rpmdrake will do for me.
So we have: 5467 source packges (8558 binaries), and 934 registred maintainers. I.e. 6 sources, or 9 binary packs/maintainer, rather than 1-2. Still not bad, though.
First 21 maintainer takes care of 30 sources packages or more, for a total of maybe 1000 (sources) packs. 144 maintainers care about >=10 source packs etc.
Now let's go and look at the bottom of the list:
270 maintainers with 1 pack
141 maintainer with 2 packs
...
While this is a great thing to have, the fact remains that it's the "top 50", or maybe "top 100" who make the most of the stuff, and each of these has a fair number of packs to do. Not that much different from commercial distros.
The big difference is this: When Apple decided to take a "free" code, and build some propriatery additions on top of it in order to spare lots of $$, resulting in OS X, they had two choices:
1) Start with GPLed code, and try to persuade all licencees to allow them to re-licence their code in such a way that adding propriatery libraries is OK.
2) Start with BSD code, and have no restrictions imposed to them.
Whatever people say about "Darwin", apple got a great deal out of this, and gave back next to nothing - exactly the type of situation GPL is made to avoid.
In above tread there is a (probably false) example of a difference GPL licence makes compared with BSD to a company: the company which decides to publish its code under GPL can always decide to make an alternative version of the same (or slightly altered) program under any licence they want, and earn a lot of additional $$ this way.
Everybody else is free to use the code as he/she wants, but doesn't have the possibility to resell it under another licence.
In case one publishes the code under BSD, the code is "gone", and anyone can decide to take it, add propriatery stuff to it, and publish under another licence. WDYT why Qt librqary is licenced under several licences, inclded GPL, but not under BSD?
Quite often, when talking about "Linux in companies", people concentrate on big-scale employements, "global 500" companies and such.
However, most people (90%?) work in small to medium enterprises with hunderts of "bizcases" online these days, and most of these are form small companies, schools, universities, NPOs... who simply can't afford the cost of commercial software, but can't afford the cost of a full-time linux/unix administrator either.
You thought wrong. The idea of "GNU" and GPL licnce" was exactly to offer an alternative to propriatery software, show that alternative is better and in the process "destroy the propriatery software business model.
Maybe you should take a history lesson at gnu.org site? http://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.html
The idea behind GNU software isn't "let's do something to help producers of propriatery software". Just on the contrary: the idea is: "let's do something AGAINST propriatery software".
Those who disagree are free to use software which is "freeware", or licenced under one of BSD licences, but the point of GNU licence has always been very clear: Even in the case where licence itself allows some kind of mixed propriatery and GNU-licenced software, this is clearly an "unwanted artefact" by whoever choose to put his/hers software under GNU licence, and one should not expect to be greated as a hero if doing so.
The fact that "oh so many people want to do it" is completely irrelevant, because these "oh-so-many-people" haven't written the programs in question, and thus have nothing to say about the way these should be used apart from kindly asking the author(s). Let me state this once more:
My wife came back from shopping today with a tiny version of WC seat for our son. You know, that stuff you put on a normal WC seat, so that the little boy doesn't fall in.:-)
I turned it around, and to my surprise read "protected by copyright and patent rights" or something like that. Go figure?! I REALLY wonder what's left to "inovate" on a piece of plastic meant to sit on it and shit???
Want another example? Well, I went to visit my oncle, and he showed me some wonder-medicine advertisement, which boldly stated: "This is a medicament which has been used in india for thousands of years" first, followed by US patent nr... Cool, hein?
Something is really badly wrong with both patent and copyright system...
Now, to the question "and how does this reflect to allpe aqua themes"? Well, I could agree that Apple put a lot of $$ in this design, and I could imagine that some aspects of "Aqua" interface could be protectable by copyright. I'm even displeased by the fact that someone calls his theme "Aqua", though I don't really think such words should be copyrightable....
However, IMHO the idea of owning the copyright on every GUI featuring translucent buttons is just as rediculous as patenting something which has been used for 2000 years, or a toilet seat, and should not be tolerated by the system.
Slashdot Mirror
IBM doesn't give a s* about mandrakesoft.
They have their "favorites", and they take
good care of these companies: RH, SuSE, TurboLinux.
I think folks at IBM would be quite happy to see Mandrakesoft gone.
As a SuSE user, you aren't one of the people
this is directed to, and I really
don't think you should give any money to Mandrakesoft.
Not that I would mind it if you do, but what's the point in paying for something you don't use?
This time PPC version will be finished
shortly after the i686 version.
FYI, we decided to skip every second release
with PPC, in order to spare a bit on developement costs.
That's why there has been no 8.1 version, there will be 8.2 version, and we'll (probably) skip the next release again.
Problem with 8.1 was that our kernel team kept telling "yeah, supermount will be ready, don't worry", and we trusted them. So, supermount wasn't ready, and we had to get it out of the distro in the last minute, which resulted in the lack of the devices links under KDE and GNOME.
No. "supermount" is AFAIK the only such patch.
Second-best is "autofs", but you have seen its shortcommings.
Ever heard of 'troubleshooting' articles at mandrakeForum?
Eer.. What are you talking about?
I've installed 8.0 with LVM way back, to see what's that about. Haven't tested in 8.1, but It would REALLY surprise me if it weren't there.
The fact that people have prejuduíces against mandrake distro does not mean that we have to do things the way their prejudices tell them we should...
drakxtools aren't bound to any GUI, and can be run on a terminal just as well as under X. X interface uses GTK+ because that's convenient for developers.
XFS works fine, I've used it at home since 8.1 beta 2. Same with ext3, with additional bonus that /boot partition can be ext3, and that ext2 can be transferred into ext3 on the fly (diskdrake knows how to do it...).
Don't know about Reiser, I got annoyed by it last year, and decided to skip it completely this time.
JFS was included in 8.1, but we discouradged the use because of some problems we've seen during the beta testing. Should be fine in 8.2 though.
Nop.
Those were 'alpha' images, or 'cooker snapshots'. We did quite a lot of in-house bugfixing on these before releasing the beta.
Ahem. Don't know about the first part (shit happens), but the part about X configuration is outright false.
a ng =en
Moreover, proving that your assertion is false is very simple: there is a copy of our manual on linux-mandrake server... There is also a troubleshooting article on MandrakeForum, for those who are too lazy to RTFM:
http://mandrakeforum.com/article.php?sid=1354&l
Install whatever you feel like installing, and when the machine comes up again log-in as root, and type 'urpmi openssh-clients openssh-server'
It's true to a certain extent (more security == les comfort), but completely off in this particular case.
FYI, mandrake installs with no servers per default, and few mouse clicks are enough for any newbie to get a reasonable firewall.
The fact that something CAN be done, does not mean that it will be done on default instalation. Furthermore, the fact that some functionality can be made with a few mouse clicks, does not mean that this particular function is less secure than before. Usually it's even the contrary.
so install defaults at a desktop. Which is I suppose bad, because 95% of the computers in the world ARE desktop machines.
And if you decide to install a server, you actually have to press on a button labeled 'install me a server' (not exactly, but close) during instalation. Supose that's too complicated. Or amybe not complicated enough, so it's trying on more advanced users.
Well... It's hard to make everyone happy...
eer...
And how are we suppoesd to track folks who download updates from 3-rd party ftp servers?
No.
Mandrake is about making the best possible distribution. We ship for the newbies, on a desktop, but we ship for the experts, and for servers as well.
A 65M version is obviously 'bare bones' one, and you need to know what to do with it. 'Gimme a lot of eye candy' install version is for newbies.
One of our kernel hackers spends a lot of time working on supermount. I'm not avare of anyone else working on it, but I may be wrong.
Other distros (AFAIK) aren't interested, because there is no point in putting supermount on a server.
On the contrary, it's not only unnessesary, but even dangerous. On the desktop, enabling the supermount is cool (when it works), but you know how much interest RH and co. have in desktop...
Unfortunately it doesn't
I loved the option, but unfortunately hordes of trolls who couldn't understand the concept of 'more important' and 'less important' software killed it.
On the other hand, 'minimal install' + rpmdrake will do for me.
May I have a list of your hardware please? 'lspcidrake' output would be fine.
;-)
Just to make absolute sure everything works for you in the final...
So we have: 5467 source packges (8558 binaries), and 934 registred maintainers. I.e. 6 sources, or 9 binary packs/maintainer, rather than 1-2. Still not bad, though.
First 21 maintainer takes care of 30 sources packages or more, for a total of maybe 1000 (sources) packs. 144 maintainers care about >=10 source packs etc.
Now let's go and look at the bottom of the list:
270 maintainers with 1 pack
141 maintainer with 2 packs
...
While this is a great thing to have, the fact remains that it's the "top 50", or maybe "top 100" who make the most of the stuff, and each of these has a fair number of packs to do. Not that much different from commercial distros.
The big difference is this: When Apple decided to take a "free" code, and build some propriatery additions on top of it in order to spare lots of $$, resulting in OS X, they had two choices:
1) Start with GPLed code, and try to persuade all licencees to allow them to re-licence their code in such a way that adding propriatery libraries is OK.
2) Start with BSD code, and have no restrictions imposed to them.
Whatever people say about "Darwin", apple got a great deal out of this, and gave back next to nothing - exactly the type of situation GPL is made to avoid.
In above tread there is a (probably false) example of a difference GPL licence makes compared with BSD to a company: the company which decides to publish its code under GPL can always decide to make an alternative version of the same (or slightly altered) program under any licence they want, and earn a lot of additional $$ this way.
Everybody else is free to use the code as he/she wants, but doesn't have the possibility to resell it under another licence.
In case one publishes the code under BSD, the code is "gone", and anyone can decide to take it, add propriatery stuff to it, and publish under another licence. WDYT why Qt librqary is licenced under several licences, inclded GPL, but not under BSD?
Quite often, when talking about "Linux in companies", people concentrate on big-scale employements, "global 500" companies and such.
However, most people (90%?) work in small to medium enterprises with hunderts of "bizcases" online these days, and most of these are form small companies, schools, universities, NPOs... who simply can't afford the cost of commercial software, but can't afford the cost of a full-time linux/unix administrator either.
Link: MandrakeBizcases
You thought wrong. The idea of "GNU" and GPL licnce" was exactly to offer an alternative to propriatery software, show that alternative is better and in the process "destroy the propriatery software business model.
Maybe you should take a history lesson at gnu.org site? http://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.html
GNU != freeware.
The idea behind GNU software isn't "let's do something to help producers of propriatery software". Just on the contrary: the idea is: "let's do something AGAINST propriatery software".
Those who disagree are free to use software which is "freeware", or licenced under one of BSD licences, but the point of GNU licence has always been very clear: Even in the case where licence itself allows some kind of mixed propriatery and GNU-licenced software, this is clearly an "unwanted artefact" by whoever choose to put his/hers software under GNU licence, and one should not expect to be greated as a hero if doing so.
The fact that "oh so many people want to do it" is completely irrelevant, because these "oh-so-many-people" haven't written the programs in question, and thus have nothing to say about the way these should be used apart from kindly asking the author(s). Let me state this once more:
GNU != freeware
My wife came back from shopping today with a tiny version of WC seat for our son. You know, that stuff you put on a normal WC seat, so that the little boy doesn't fall in. :-)
I turned it around, and to my surprise read "protected by copyright and patent rights" or something like that. Go figure?! I REALLY wonder what's left to "inovate" on a piece of plastic meant to sit on it and shit???
Want another example? Well, I went to visit my oncle, and he showed me some wonder-medicine advertisement, which boldly stated: "This is a medicament which has been used in india for thousands of years" first, followed by US patent nr... Cool, hein?
Something is really badly wrong with both patent and copyright system...
Now, to the question "and how does this reflect to allpe aqua themes"? Well, I could agree that Apple put a lot of $$ in this design, and I could imagine that some aspects of "Aqua" interface could be protectable by copyright. I'm even displeased by the fact that someone calls his theme "Aqua", though I don't really think such words should be copyrightable....
However, IMHO the idea of owning the copyright on every GUI featuring translucent buttons is just as rediculous as patenting something which has been used for 2000 years, or a toilet seat, and should not be tolerated by the system.