Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Debian

New Commercial Linux Distro Based on Debian 83

Posted by Roblimo from the another-player-in-the-commercial-distro-game dept.
We got a press release in the middle of the night touting Linux by Libranet, which is "based on the world acclaimed Linux release by Debian." They go on to say "Up to now the Debian distribution was a viable choice mostly for software developers and technical people. The Libranet release now brings Debian to the desktop, making it available to users with little or no Linux experience." Wouldn't it be just as easy to get an experienced friend help you install "pure" Debian and go from there? This robably won't be the last one of these we see, though.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New Commercial Linux Distro Based on Debian More

New Commercial Linux Distro Based on Debian

Comments Filter:

  • Re:Why? (Score:1)

    by aphr0 ( 7423 )
    Because many people don't want to have to spend hours configuring their software and looking up all sorts of arcane commands to simply start up their favorite email program and send a picture of the kids to grandma. It might be hard for some geeks to believe, but many people don't particularly enjoy figuring out problems on their computers. They want to turn it on and have it work.

    Configurability isn't linux's only strong point. There is also stability and rapid rate of development. Just because something isn't configurable doesn't mean it's completely shot to hell.
  • There will always be someone (or company) who believes they can do it better... and, in many cases, they can and will (at least in their opinion). So let them try. Regardless of whether they succeed or no, we will be free to choose what to ignore or not.

    This is not so much fragmentation of the community, but experimentation by the community to provide better software and services to users. In the end, the user will win.

    Note: I put emphasis on services to users because as all Linux software becomes free, it will be services that distinguish one distribution/vendor from another.

  • IIRC, Debian was always totally separate from RedHat. I know of only a few original Linux distributions (i386 only):

    Debian
    Slackware
    RedHat

    There might be 1 or 2 more (OpenLinux, maybe?), but most things seem to be based on those few.
    --------
    "I already have all the latest software."
  • oh yeah, and maybe SuSE, as well.
    --------
    "I already have all the latest software."
  • It looks like the Corel, Storm, and other such variations on Debian largely involve taking Debian, Replacing the initial installation tools with cool new ones, which doesn't disturb the rest of the distribution, and Adding some special packages, which again doesn't forcibly disturb the rest of the distribution.

    I tried Storm and nothing impressed me.

    However, I'm going to have to jump in and defend Corel.

    I'm a Corel Linux beta tester and as a result, I've been able to see a lot of interesting stuff. I can't say much in detail, but let me tell you that Corel is *making damn sure* that Linux gets hardware support for everything.

    One of my reports involved Aureal sound support...
  • pueden hacer todas las versiones comerciales que quieran de debian justamente, por encima de sus prestaciones y estabilidad, lo mejor de debian es su espiritu GNU. Y eso lo sabemos todos los que usamos debian, or lo tanto, no sera verdaderamente una version comercial de debian, sino una version comercial de linux aprovechandose de debian
  • I believe that ARM and the Hurd will not have a true "potato" release; still, Debian 2.2 will be on five architectures.

    In any event, the number one complaint about the installation process (what interface the CD is attached to) will be automated in 2.2, thanks to some clever code that's been put together in the last few weeks. I don't know how well it will cope with machines that have multiple CD-ROM drives, like my P-III at home [DVD-ROM and CD-R], but for 99% of people it will be completely transparent.
  • Interesting post, but one thing you don't
    mention is that is has been Debian's intention from the beginning to serve as a base for other distributions. For example, Bruce Perens for years wanted to base a "linux for Hams" off of debian.

    I don't look at what's been happening lately as a fragementation of Debian, but as the acheivement of a long term goal. (I just hope all these debian derivatives are of types 1,2, or 3!)
  • > I asked Libranet what this distro was about, and > they said that the main thing they changed was
    > to take dselect out of the install and instead
    > give apt-get a list of things to install.
    >
    > IMO, this is WONDERFUL.

    It sounds like a dubious modification, since
    when you install debian, you are offered a choice to pick from groups of packages to install. If you do this, you do not have to use dselect to pick what to install, and in debian potato, these lists are indeed passed directly to apt.

    So if this is libranet's value-add, it will be in Debian proper quite soon anyway. (And as usual, we talked it out and did it *right*.)

  • It's a good thing if changes that come in from Corel et al head upstream so that they as much as possible become part of Debian proper.

    Yes, their enhancements appear to be for public consumption.

    Most of their work has been on adding/fixing functionality to/in KDE. Their current base of work is on KDE 1. They tried to send all of those enhancements back to the KDE project, who refused them because they are concentrating on KDE 2.

    That's why their enhancements haven't been seen yet.

    A little more direct than my last hint...

  • Warning, another CITYOT* response (Score:4)

    by rcw-work ( 30090 ) on Wednesday November 03, 1999 @07:54AM (#1566927)
    Call it the year of the Debian clones.

    For years, Debian has maintained that it would be better for a developer to fork the distribution if you don't agree with them in a key political area (for example, the DFSG). However, it seems Corel was the only one who forked for this reason (Debian wouldn't have accepted wordperfect .debs into non-free without written permission that anyone -- like, oh, our mirror administrators -- can redistribute them).

    Perhaps:

    1. these other developers would just like their own sandbox to hack around in? This seems to be the case with Stormix, the developers have been associated with Debian for quite some time and the relationship between Stormix and Debian is fairly amicable.
    2. they want to make and sell their own branded commercial distribution? (this would include both Stormix and Corel)
    3. they want the fame of having their very own distribution?
    4. some part of debian has become technically or politically hostile to them and they wish to fork because of that?

    If it's #1, the best case would be to have the changes from their modifications put back into Debian itself, then everyone profits.
    If it's #2, more power to ya.
    If it's #3, sorry, you're going to be another also-ran.
    If it's #4, then communication with an aspect of the Debian project has quite possibly failed. Typically these things can be worked out and a concensus reached, unless it's one of those things that just isn't open for discussion (like the DFSG). And there are a LOT of things you can do without being a developer (for example, take a look at http://master.debian.org/~wakkerma/bugs/, nail a few of them, and email patches to nnnnn@bugs.debian.org)

    I'm sure there's lots of other reasons too. Whatever they are, more discussion about them couldn't hurt.

  • I agree that there is frequently a tradeoff between power and ease of use -- but in reality we are always making that tradeoff. The trick is finding the best balance between power and ease of use.

    If I give you a pile of transistors and a power supply, you've got quite a bit of power, but doing useful things requires a large investment of time and knowledge. On the other hand I could give you a simple calculator, which is very easy to use, but is very limited.

    One of the great things about having different operating systems and distros is that they allow us to choose the balance between power and ease of use to best fit our personal needs. If a simplified Linux distro enables me to use Unix instead of Windows or MacOS, where I otherwise wouldn't have been able to, that's hardly destroying the entire point of switching to a more powerful OS! On the other hand, you're welcome to use a more powerful distro if think you need the extra power more than the ease of use.

    It's just like programming languages -- choose the right tool for the job, or in this case, the right tool for the person.

    Also, while I agree that better documentation would be excellent, that doesn't make everything easier. It still takes an investment of time to find, read, and understand the documentation, as opposed to being led through the steps in a task or being able to do something because it is obvious how to do it.

    ~Brighten

  • It's hard to find a friend. I'm a research associate, live next to a CS major, and have a CS major who works part time for me. They have better things to do with their lives than help me figure out X.

    As easy as things are getting, they could be better. I was taught fortran at school, and I've taught myself C/C++ and some miserable Windoze programing with a Watcomm compiler (nice compiler!), and I've used Sun products. Still, it took me a long time to put Red Hat on my machine. Drivers for my cheap hardware killed me. Mostly what I got, I got from self help books on Linux and man pages. There is still no substitute for someone who simply knows.

    It would be nice if a company could package the help I could not find for free. From what I've read here, service is supposed to be one of the open source business models. Education is worth money. I'll be looking here for ratings.

  • The remark was mostly a reference to ``officially'' supported architectures, a la:

    This port runs stable since Feb. 1998 on many of the Apple Macintosh 'PowerMac', CHRP and PReP computers. The boot-floppies are 'in work'. Debian/PowerPC will be official released with Debian 2.2 ('potato').

    The other (more interesting) ports seem to be a little farther away.

  • It is hard to install. The latest version asks you which IDE interface, which device your CD rom is plugged into. How many people know that off the top of their heads. It also does almost no hardware detection. Definately not for newbies. Having installed all of the popular Linux and a few *BSD distributions many times I'd say that debian is the hardest for the average user (if not impossible).
    Having said all that I think it's also the most logical install procedure (install just enough to dselect the rest). Dselect of course rocks and the whole debian project is very well conceived and executed. I am looking forward to the corel distro.
  • It certainly seems to me at least that a LOT of Linux users want to see Linux invade the Windows market. That being said, I think it's clear that those users don't _want_ to read through more documentation, but want to be able to just turn on the system and point and click their way through their work.

    Of course, to make Linux appeal to those people, it almost _has_ to be over-simplified. YOur average Windows user isn't going to want to edit every file in /etc/* by hand; they're going to want a graphical interface for everything.

    I do agree with you though. I prefer to have more control and would think that a better "help" system would also be helpful. I'm kind of partial to something along the lines of Sun's AnswerBooks (a searchable HTML interface to most of the system documentation), but it has to be faster.

    What I don't agree with is that the easier interface really removes power in the case of Linux, since if you want to you could always su and edit the configuration files manually.

    In conclusion, I think the two approaches are not mutually exclusive: we should go ahead with the easier installation and configuration techniques for the novices, but also develop the documentation so that the novice can become an expert more easily.
  • It's a good thing if changes that come in from Corel et al head upstream so that they as much as possible become part of Debian proper.

    I will not be so excited about any hardware support that winds up being "Corel Only."

    (Of course, there's some components of Buy Canadian! in both Corel and StormLinux, at which point may enter certain aspects of nationalistic fervor :-) [hex.net])

  • Just as easy? Maybe, if you're a 19 year old CS major. I doubt if the majority of people out there, or even of people likely to become new Linux users, have such a friend. I mean, I'm a scientist and have lots of geek friends and I don't know a single experienced Debian user.

    In that case, no offence intended, but I would wonder at the geek credentials of your friends... When I decided it was time to do the deed and install Linux on my home PC (a Toshiba laptop) I asked all my geek friends (that's probably redundant, I'm not sure I have any friends who aren't geeks, but anyway) which distro I should install. The answer was unanimously Debian.

    Now I've been playing with computers since I was 12 (Commodore 64), and using Unix for 5 years, but my degree is in Film, not CompSci, and the most technical thing I had done up to that point was install & configure Apache for HP-UX. You do not need to be an ubergeek to install Debian, but you do need to RTMF, and read the FAQs, and ask questions about stuff you don't understand, and keep looking for the answers until you find them. It isn't hard; it just isn't self-explanatory...

    Here's my experience with installing Debian as a geek who's not a software engineer:

    Tuesday evening
    ---------------
    Right, I'm ready to try to install Linux (Debian) on my Laptop (Toshiba 440 CDX with Windoze95 on it); I've got:

    • the CD I burned with the Debian distribution
    • Linux rescue floppies (regular & tecra) made with rawrite
    • a dos boot floppy with fips on it
    • a ream of documentation, including:
    • the Debian installation guide
    • the dselect manual
    • the cfdisk docs
    • the fips instructions
    • the manual for my Toshiba
    • a faq about how to install linux on my model of laptop
    19:50

    * Backup all the files I care about from the HD; since these consist of a couple of dozen flat text files, they all fit on a floppy.
    * Go though the BIOS settings and try to disable all the stuff the debian guide recommends. Find out I can't disable the Shadow RAM. Wonder if this is important. Find out that all the BIOS settings I _do_ have access to are useless.
    * Realize that the manual for my Toshiba is useless. The index doesn't even have an entry for BIOS. There's a good chapter on how to use the mouse though... grrr...

    20:20

    * Run Scandisk. Read the cfdisk documentation again while Scandisk is running. Realize that I still don't understand it. Hope that all will become clear when I get there.

    20:30

    * Run Defrag. From Windows as instructed. Says my disk is 2% fragmented.

    20:40

    * Run fips. Create a second DOS partition
    * fips exits with the message "memory allocation error". Uh Oh.
    * Reboot Win95. It boots successfully. I now have a D: partition!
    * Double-check that I have all the necessary files for the debian installation loaded into c:\linux

    20:55

    * Boot to DOS
    * Run Install.bat
    * Stuff happens in black & white on the monitor.
    * The debian install screen comes up and asks me if I would like the display to be in colour. I tell it yes. Next it wants to set my keyboard. I scroll all the way down to the bottom of the screen to select the UK keyboard configuration.
    * cfdisk comes up. It finds the second DOS partition created by fips. After a little fumbling around, I realize that I have to delete the DOS partition and re-create it as a Linux partition.
    * I create
    /dev/hda1 primary DOS FAT 16 500MG
    /dev/hda2 primary Linux 860MG
    /dev/hda5 logical LinuxSwap 15.75 MG
    ... because it seems the right thing to do. I still don't understand the cfdisk documentation.

    21:05

    * "Writing partition table to disk".
    * cfdisk quits. Linux installation continues. Initialize the swap partition. Initialize /dev/hd2a.
    * Installation bombs out at the kernel install. The install can't find the files on c:\debian. I can't get it to mount the CDROM drive to read the files from there.
    * Try to reboot from the rescue floppy. Doesn't work. Neither does the tecra rescue floppy. Try to boot win95 "invalid partition table". Uh Oh.
    * I'm an idiot. It couldn't find the files in c:\debian, because I put them in c:\linux

    21:45

    * Reboot to DOS. restart the install.
    * Go though the previous stages of the install a second time. Choose drivers, configure the (nonexistant) network, call my machine 'ibid'.
    * Tell it to make a boot floppy. write fails. 3 times.
    * Tell it to boot from the HD.
    * Reboot. LILO starts, and fails.
    * ...that is to say LILO goes into a reboot loop... The rescue floppies do the same thing (both the regular and the tecra)... I'm beginning to suspect a BIOS setting or other hardware problem...

    22:30

    * Can boot to DOS from the system floppy, but that's all. Otherwise I am now the proud owner of a bunch of expensive chips in a grey plastic case. I give up and go to bed.

    Wednesday Evening
    -----------------
    Having spent some time on comp.os.linux.setup reading about everyone else's disk partitioning woes, I'm going to give it another shot before yelling for help.

    20:00

    * Run cfdisk again. make the Linux Swap partition physical rather than logical.
    I now have
    /dev/hda1 primary bootable DOS FAT 16 500MG
    /dev/hda2 primary bootable Linux 860MG
    /dev/hda3 logical LinuxSwap 15.75 MG

    * Re-arrange my Toshiba's hardware so that the floppy drive is in the on-board bay rather than the peripheral one.
    * Go through the debian install from scratch.
    * Creating a boot floppy succeeds!
    * Try to boot linux from the boot floppy. Same problem as before; a re-boot loop.
    * Boot win95 successfully. That's something, anyway.
    * Boot DOS. Run the DOS BIOS setup. Shoulda done this before. Disable everything in sight, including the CPU cache.
    * Boot linux from the floppy. Success!!!
    * Give root a password. I have a root password. I am logged in as root! I feel omnipotent! I can install software. I can run a webserver without resorting to a > 100 port number. Bwahahaha! (sorry - I've been using Unix for 5 years, but this is the first time I've ever been root...)

    20:45

    * Fumble blindly through dselect for a while. my friends were right, it's a royal pain. I _think_ I've got everything I need installed, but I'm sure I also have with a bunch of stuff I don't need taking up hard drive space.
    * Log out. Reboot. Log in as user. vi works. Perl is where it should be. Wayhey, I've got Linux!

    Cheers,
    ai731

    --

  • Re:Yet another distribution? (Score:3)

    by bmetzler ( 12546 ) <bmetzlerNO@SPAMlive.com> on Wednesday November 03, 1999 @08:25AM (#1566938) Homepage Journal
    Instead of making more distributions and trying to have something better than another, why not focus on a few, rather than 30+?

    That's right! I wish more companies would take that advice, especially car manufacturs. I mean, really, a sub-compact car is a sub-compact car, right? Why should we have 3 dozen different models of sub-compact cars, each with their dozen different options.

    As I read somewhere "linux will kill linux".

    Having so many model is killing the sub-compact car market. People are going back to horse and buggy, for heavens sake.

    With this many distributions, there are really no standards, and will cause many problems in the future.

    With every sub-compact car having its own peculiareties, its no wonder buyers are becoming disillusioned. Every engine is different, every dashboard is decided customized in placement, even the door locks are different. It's a real shame. Don't you think that buyers would be much more receptive if they had the choice of perhaps 2 or 3 models of a sub-compact car, and that even those models agreed on placement and engine type?

    There's my two cents.

    Mine too.

    -Brent
    --

  • ..have taken my comments any further out of context? I thought not.

    I have never been, nor will I ever be, a proponent of ``mainstream Linux''. Obviously if developers want to target the mainstream as their audience, PnP support will have to be improved. I was simply stating the (lazy) hacker solution to the problem. This is because most hackers would want an external modem, anyway. It makes it much easier to get at your modem to have it sitting right in front of you than to have to rip open your casing if something goes wrong.

    Therefore, I don't have a ``mentality'' problem, and you may want to do your homework before you go off mindlessly insulting people like you just did me. It's not very polite.

    I will concur, however, that most Linux distros install a lot of (useless) software and fire up a lot of (useless and insecure) processes by default upon setup. This would have to be cleaned up in order to market to the mainstream as well (and to save experienced users the annoyance of another extra 5 minutes to select what they want to install..). As an aside, Windows machines come with a lot more (useless) software than any Linux distro I've ever seen.

    Obviously all of these things should be cleaned up, anyway, mainstream or not, but for those of us outside the mainstream, it's not quite as pressing an issue.

    By the way.. I never told anyone to do or use anything. Do you enjoy putting words in my mouth that I never uttered? Perhaps you should learn to be less deceitful. Or to stop trying to read between the lines when everything that was stated was plain as day, with no hidden implications. Amazing concept, that.

  • Agreed; it's just as easy for us, but people need to remember something:

    WE ARE NOT NORMAL.

    The same objection applies here as applies to the frequent cries of "just update it from the internet".

    80% of the people in the US, which is arguably the most-connected country in the world (and please don't hesitate to correct me if I'm wrong on that) ARE NOT ON THE NET.

    Now, most of those don't have computers, but a lot of 'em do.

    Most people with computers don't hang out at LUG meetings, don't spend any time at all in the local computer store, and don't know where to even turn to find somebody to help them.

    They buy their blank floppies at Wal-Mart, they buy their hardware upgrades from Dell or Gateway, and they buy their software at CompUSA (blech) or another such place.

    Not only do they not meet geeks, but they wouldn't like us if they did.

    Also, a lot of older people don't want their nephew or the 14-year-old next door installing their software; they pride themselves on what little computer knowledge they have, gained from painful experience and "... for Dummies" books.


    The bottom line is this:

    If you accept the proposition that new people joining the Linux bandwagon is a good thing (and not every one of us does, but that's a different thread), and you prefer Debian, there's good reason for you to find this distribution to be A Good Thing.

    Me, I'd rather see 'em buy Red Hat, but that's not the point at all.
  • Not the same -- Debian _requires_ you to start up dselect. For a new user, dselect is certainly intimidating -- I'm experienced, and I always am hitting the wrong keys.

    The advantage for this choice is simply tech support; everyone starts out with the same config. And the tech support and advertizing that this company is already doing is an advantage to all of Debian, doubly so since they use essentially the same software that we do.

    That's their value-add -- service. It's the right thing for them to do.

    Unlike Corel, they're not ever going to have problems falling behind Debian because they have so many changes.

    But hey. I use the real thing :-), and call it by its correct name -- Debian. Good thing they don't keep the real name secret, even though they did choose a new name.

    -Billy
  • > Not the same -- Debian _requires_ you to start
    > up dselect. For a new user, dselect is certainly > intimidating -- I'm experienced, and I always am > hitting the wrong keys.

    As I said, in potato, the lists of delected packages will be passed directly to apt, so you should not have to run dselect.

    Anyway, the only confusing part of dselect is the [S]elect stage. The rest is a simple menu. Debian currently doesn't require you to go into [S]elect at all if you elect to choose from the groups of packages.
  • ..than seeing people try to make money off of the work of other people. Thankfully, the Linux community has proven that they are just as resourceful as the rest of us at that too.
  • I think it's a great idea- comfort for the commercial types....
  • While I like the idea of many different distributions, I thing they should really try to offer a new product. Did the press release have an details about how they are going to make it easier? (I personally don't see how Debian is any more difficult to install than RedH at, and I found it easier than Mandrake)

    People who barf up new distributions should go to some length to add new features or something unique, rather than just re-package an older, established dist. (I'm not saying these folks won't, I'm just complaining in general :) )

    Dana

  • Wasn't this the whole idea of both Stormix and Corel's distribution as well? I'm not so sure there's room for three "Debian for non-hacker" distributions.
  • I thought that's what Stormix [stormix.com] was? Packaged, easy to install Debian.

    I was thinking about it, but finally just installed Debian. It tooka couple of tries to get it right (mostly cause the interface for dselect is so kludgy) but it wasn't difficult and I'm VERY happy with the results. I much prefer starting with nothing and building up my system than starting with everything and having to de-install stuff (Redhat/Mandrake/SuSE)

    Skippy
  • Instead of making more distributions and trying to have something better than another, why not focus on a few, rather than 30+? As I read somewhere "linux will kill linux". With this many distributions, there are really no standards, and will cause many problems in the future. There's my two cents.
    -- David
  • Look who posted! ROBlimo. ROBably.

    Please tell me you see this.

  • Why? (Score:1)

    by Krellis ( 19116 )
    What I can't understand is why the need is always felt to make things easier, to make them "more accessible." You do that, and you destroy the entire point of switching to a more powerful OS, because you rip away some of the power to add ease of use.

    Instead of spending time to make the OS itself easier to install or use, why don't we make better documentation and simply EXPLAIN the current process better. This way it becomes more accessible, and the power and flexibility remains totally intact. I'm sure you can get to it with the "easier" distros, but I would wager it is harder to get to.

    Just my $0.02. And probably not very good, 'cause I'm a BSD user myself :)

    ---
    Tim Wilde
    Gimme 42 daemons!
  • If debian is difficult to use/install (I don't know, I'm a computer guy, so the fact that I think it is easy to use doesn't count)... why not just help the debian developers add on to that distro?
  • What I find amusing is that although the companies smell a business opportunity, none of them is getting a clue how the Open Source model can really rework their business model.

    I wonder if we'll see cooperation between companies, at some point? That's how the Open Source venues become of such quality right now: many people pool their resources and code away. Businesses still see Linux as a product they can sell without paying for development; they add a little package, and off it goes making money.

    And: how many more "dumb Linuxes" will we get yet? I can just see it coming: "Linux for Dummies: so amazingly easy even a moron with an IQ of 40 can install it!" What about new features, better applications and specialisations, people?

    "Knowledge = Power = Energy = Mass"

  • Come up with several Distos. Me personally, I think RedHat and Mandrake should merge/buy out, and create two types of a distro. Redhat Linux Server OS and Redhat Linux Workstation OS. Create two teams working on there os, put keep it so that both "distros" can cross talk via rpm or something. But make the server cd jam packed with server tools and all the little and big daemons, then extend something like linuxconf to work perfect with the server. On the workstation side, make it another whole cd(s) full of apps just geared for the workstation. But you would be able to install say apache and linuxconf from the server cd(s) and run apache on your workstation. Thats the way redhat linux should be....In all fairness it's kinda been the same for several versions, 5 through 6....Part Desktop, Part Server. They need to put the contrib into the Offical Distro, and make it work very nice, and have a console based Admin Tool, then redhat/linux will become much more NT/PHB oriented, ppl just need someone to "hold there hand".

    This is purely based on what my 18 NT Sys admins say here at work... It's too hard...where do I click at...DOS?
  • Somehow, I seem to recall Corel Linux being based on Debian. Hopefully, as time goes on and Debian derivatives become more popular, the superior packaging (IMHO) program of Debian will become equally as popular as Red Hat's RPM's.

    I wonder if the companies making money off of Debian plan on allocating resources and development to Debian, other than their particular distribution. It's only fair, but they aren't obligated to.

    With all these distributions coming out, particularly of note is LinuxOne (Red Hat: s/Red Hat/LinuxOne/g) which seems to offer no valid improvements over existing distributions, what will be the turn-over for new technology to keep a distribution competitively ahead of another? If distributions constantly have derivatives of equivalent merit, what keeps a company developing?

    Would the eventual money-oriented incentive be to use closed-software (so their distro can't be copied), or to focus on marketing? I don't know, but it'll be an interesting thing to watch.

    But, so long as all the distros get along, I'm happy. :)

  • The standard is that it is still linux. ;)
    All these different distributions are really just different programs included with linux. There are a few differences such as where programs are installed, etc, but it is still linux. The problem with standards more exists on the desktop level (X, Window managers, KDE, Gnome, etc.). Any ways, my point is that all these seperate distributions don't really hurt linux.

  • Commerial Linux (Score:3)

    by silvwolf ( 103567 ) on Wednesday November 03, 1999 @07:24AM (#1566958)

    It's all fine and dandy that a company is trying to make money off of Linux. Free enterprise and all that good stuff. But I don't quite get the point of this 'distribution.'

    I really don't see anything that comes with the package that doesn't already come with a free distribution. It says you can download WP for StarOffice, big deal. I can do that with RedHat.

    Our system includes window managers, word processing, spreadsheets, image processing/viewing, video and sound software and a selection of games, utilities and productivity tools. Also included is a variety of internet tools including browsers, mail, html editors, and streaming video and audio.

    Isn't all of this stuff included on a RedHat CD that you can get for next to nothing from some online vendors? Mayber their installation process is somewhat easier (though a RH 6.1 ftp install was pretty simple for even me) than other distribtuions. Everything listed in the overview section of the site is avaliable free elsewhere, with the exception of the tech support (but that's what the HOWTO's and IRC channels are there for).

    I don't see anything new with this company's distribution. They just see a way to make money off of the booming Linux marketplace.

    Or maybe I'm just way off base here and am totally missing the point. . .

  • I do like the .deb packaging, but I'd be real happy to see a viable alternative to dselect. Especially if I didn't have to get off my dead butt and code it myself :) (Maybe I can work it in as a school project. Problem is, I'm taking Java this semester. Anybody want a Java front-end to dselect?)

  • For the most part I've given up complaining or even commenting on any new distributions, although new ones based on Debian interest me (vaguely). There are simply too many distros these days (hundreds?). I see no point in supporting a fork off of Debian (I don't see Debian getting ``outpaced'' very easily), and anything that tries to keep pace with Debian and add ``just a few new features'' to make it easier to install or configure or whatever would die for (hopefully) obvious reasons, due to being sucked back into the ``main'' distribution.

    What makes Debian the most attractive (to me) is all of the architectures they plan to support. They already support 4 (1 more than RH), and the others they have the ball rolling toward look interesting as well (Debian on PPC could be a major win). I would much rather Debian become ``the'' standard than Red Hat. Being able to use whatever hardware you please is a definite bonus (not that Red Hat support for Intel, Alpha, and SPARC isn't cool.. it's just that I haven't heard any mention of them trying to expand this.. maybe I'm a nut who wants to buy an iMac for no apparent reason?)

    Anyway, from the FAQ, here's how Libranet aims to entice:

    Save time (lots and lots of it) and skip the confusing learning curve. Benefit by the many hours we have invested into taking the standard Linux distribution and refining it into a first class desktop.

    Sort of vague. Anyone want to get a copy and tell us what's so neat about their desktop?

    Not really. We provide simple to follow instructions to step you through the installation. You will need to make a decision about the size of your Linux partition. The rest of the installation is mostly automatic.

    That's in reference to the difficulty of the installation. Interesting, but installation on Red Hat 5.1 (to give a reference on why I don't see installation as being ``insurmountable'', although configuration can be a pain.. yes I know RH != Debian, but come on) really wasn't all that difficult (for me). The main annoyance with GNU/Linux is having to fool around with PnP (which is easily solved.. get an external modem and use the almighty serial port).

    Most of the rest of it is stuff you would find relavent in describing practically any other Linux. I'm not too excited so far.

    After glancing at the ``desktop'' section and reading a little more, it seems like the only other real feature here is that they've somehow cleaned up the configuration process and automated much of it during installation saving you ``many hours''. I think they could have been more vague (maybe). Am I missing something here I should have caught onto by now? Hmm.

  • 1) You make it easier to install so that people will be able to use it in the first place, so they can find out on their own how powerful it is.

    2) Not everyone is, or should be, a computer whiz. To expect this is ludicrous. Not everyone knows how to set the time on their VCR, but that shouldn't deny them the right to rent a movie.

    3) Real accesibility issues should not be ignored. I have a friend who is very computer literate, and is entirely capable of installing Debian, Slack or BSD. Problem is, he is unable to type, and needs a mouse and/or voice based interface.
  • Debian is arguably the best engineered distro. The Debian project encourages others to base their distribution on Debian GNU/Linux, and I think they'll succeed. Storm, Corel and now this one are gonna be based on Debian. This is probably going to be the really the same distribution, except that they might make installation a bit more (l)user friendly + add some documentation + tech support. This way Debian can make into corporate IT deparments IMHO.
  • Not to mention those of us who don't have any friends (outside of irc) :>.
  • Debian is working on apt-console, a replacement for dselect. If you wanted to write a front end to the packaging system, you would write a front end for dpkg (dselect is a front end. writing front ends for front ends doesnt work very well.).
  • From the looks of the archive, potato is targetting the following platforms.
    - sparc
    - i386
    - m68k
    - powerpc
    - alpha
    - arm
    - hurd-i386 (any other distro support hurd?)

    On top of this debian aims to install to the bare minimum hardware requirements, and has more packages than most distros (between 50% and 80% of GPLed software i heard someone say).

    I guess this makes debians install process a bit harder than some distro that only works on i386-linux.

  • One of their screenshots (the one that is 1600x1200 and running xmms [libranet.com]) is very interesting.
    I certainly hope for their sake that those MP3's weren't downloaded illegally!

  • An experienced friend? (Score:3)

    by Otter ( 3800 ) on Wednesday November 03, 1999 @07:30AM (#1566971) Journal
    Wouldn't it be just as easy to get an experienced friend help you install "pure" Debian and go from there?

    Just as easy? Maybe, if you're a 19 year old CS major. I doubt if the majority of people out there, or even of people likely to become new Linux users, have such a friend. I mean, I'm a scientist and have lots of geek friends and I don't know a single experienced Debian user.

  • I don't think that the gnome / kde thing is so much of a problem, you can still run kde apps in gnome and vice versa (with the kde libs installed), personally I prefer the "look and feel" of gnome but kde has better standard apps.. whats the problem ???

  • Why does Debian has a hard-to-install reputation? (Score:3)

    by Kaa ( 21510 ) on Wednesday November 03, 1999 @07:31AM (#1566973) Homepage
    First, I don't think that all that much attention should be paid to the ease of installation. Generally, a person who is not able to install software on a machine will not be able to use it properly. Besides, you install once an OS once, and then use it for years. Ease of use (as in updating, tweaking, etc.) counts for much more in my book than polished and chrome-laden install scripts.

    Second, Debian was my first Linux (and, generally, the first Unix) that I installed and I didn't meet any insurmountable difficulties. As far as I can recall, the only problem I had was in configuring X (X-based tool got confused, but a terminal-based config program worked perfectly well). I have no clue why Debian is considered to be "for-geeks only" distribution.

    Kaa
  • Debian has traditionally been somewhat more difficult to install than the "more commercialized" distributions.

    That has some (arguable) merits in and of itself; see Clueless users are bad for Debian. [debian.org]

    On the other hand, the fact that Debian provides a public Bug Tracking System, [debian.org] and provides some published Distribution Construction Policy [debian.org] that includes Packaging methods/policies [debian.org] means that there is considerably more useful structure than RPM [rpm.org] provides.

    In particular, since these policies have been designed with a view to being amenable to automation, this means that Debian makes a very good base on which to construct customized distributions where much of the maintenance can be automated. This is why there are so many ports, both to diverse architectures (ARM, MIPS, SPARC) as well as to build on some particular infrastructures ( Beowulf [debian.org]) and even other operating systems ( Hurd [debian.org]).

    The other effect of all this is that creating a variation on Debian doesn't mandate creating a whole huge amount of testing infrastructure, as is necessary to "fork" variations on distributions like Red Hat, where there is not a clear path to get patches back upstream; a Debian "fork" can more reasonably use the existing infrastructure.

    It looks like the Corel, Storm, and other such variations on Debian largely involve taking Debian,

    • Replacing the initial installation tools with cool new ones, which doesn't disturb the rest of the distribution, and
    • Adding some special packages, which again doesn't forcibly disturb the rest of the distribution.

    Due to its ability to multiplex together package sources using apt-get, Debian looks to be a better candidate for this sort of "customization" than just about any other.

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • There is a market of untold proportions customizing an OS for a given application -- like use within a certain company. Linux' openness and growing amount of support and administrative expertise will make it a great candidate for customized OS purchases in the future. It's about time everyone stopped having a computer that looked and acted like everyone elses -- instead, let it look and act in a way that best works for the user. How long will it be before companies regularly deploy an all linux setup? (picture the intranet web server, the samba server, then a mess of desktops with the company's enlightenment theme ;))
  • Corel Linux is actually putting some work and new stuff into their Debian-based distro.

    Libranet, OTOH, seems to be doing a LinuxOne-style distribution. The only thing I can see is that they've pre-selected the initial packages to install. They claim have been in business since 1984, but a few searches found very little info:

    A site with a broken link to a "Libra Computer Systems Office": http://www.gy.com/naics/44312/Nashua_nh.htm

    Some guys home page who says he once worked at "...a small software house (Libra Computer Systems) which folded 3 months later". He also has a link to /. and says he posts under "bigman", but he hasn't posted lately. Maybe he can tell us more... http://www.pncl.co.uk/~ianrolfe/aboutme.html

  • I think my favorite part comes where they mention all those nifty apps you get, but when you click on "product information" you are told that you can download WP8 or StarOffice for free.

    I see nothing in any of the information they provide to suggest they've done anything other than repackage Debian disks and write up some kind of install manual.

  • Debian IS NOT difficult to install as long as you have some exprience with installing and configuring linux before. And eas of using Linux distributions is the same no matter what distrib you use. (Does bash or vi behave differently on redhat and SuSE, eh?) I think commercial distribution based on Debian is a good thing. Debian is arguably the highest quality asnd the best engineered distrib. But they had tough time getting into corporate IT deparments because Debian project does not provide commercial technical support and stuff. Companie like corel and this one will fix this ...
  • Linux having many 'flavors' is probably no different than the situation faced by papa UNIX. As with UNIX, the success of a distribution will depend eventually on hardware vendors. We will probably see one distribution become wildly successful after low-priced mainstream computers are sold with Linux pre-installed. (As about every PC mag I have seen lately has been wildly predicting...)
  • Well, I don't know about you, or anybody else for that matter, but I see one really good reason to copy a distro:

    Get rid of the crap

    For me, that includes big things, like Emacs and X, cuz I don't need those for my simple file/web/ftp/samba server.

    Now, Corel is just offering a trimmed down version of Debian w/o the server stuff and WP (I think, don't quote me on this, just a wacky theory). More power to them. Users get a fully working office suite with an OS tossed in for fun. Myself, I am taking Debian, cutting out the workstation side stuff, and smushing the packages onto a Zip disk. But that's just me.

    Otherwise, I would have to go to the expense of buying a CD-ROM for the server (I need to anyway) and the Debian CD, and *still* wade through all the options I don't want.
  • Linuxconf can be run from the console, it uses ncurses I think.

    replace spam w\ jgeorgeson to email me.

  • That's in reference to the difficulty of the installation. Interesting, but installation on Red Hat 5.1 (to give a reference on why I don't see installation as being ``insurmountable'', although configuration can be a pain.. yes I know RH != Debian, but come on) really wasn't all that difficult (for me).

    The main problem with RedHat (and most other distributions for that matter) is all the crap that gets installed on your machine.
    About 98% of the software that gets automatically installed in any given linux distribution will never be used by 90% of users.

    I originally came from an Amiga background.
    I would install the base OS in one partition (2 megs), and then use assign to make shadows of the system directories on other drives. This allowed me to keep the official OS intact in case something went wrong when a new library was installed or the like.

    What I'm looking for in a linux distro is a basic install that has enough to get the system running and start up a TCP/IP stack, as well as a windowing environment (such as KDE).

    Debian does the base install quite well (36 megs. I'm impressed!), but it all falls apart if I want to install X.
    Suddenly I am faced with scanning through hundreds of packages in the dselect program (which, while being a fairly decent, though not very intuitive text based installer, still suffers the limitations of text based installers), and then having all the scripts fail because dselect didn't get the dependancies right, or having hidden dependancies in the packages that fail because the configuration of one package expected another package to be present (dhcpcd is one example of this).
    I mean, come on! Do I really need 450 megs of software installed in order to do C/C++ development, run StarCraft under WINE, and play with themes in KDE?
    Am I ever going to use text based newsreaders, mail clients, gopher clients and such? Hell no!
    Am I really going to use ImageMagik when I can just download the latest version of GIMP? Hell no!
    Will I ever use giftrans?
    Will I really be making TeX documents?
    Must I have XPaint and all those crappy utils installed?
    Do I really want to have 10 different text-based text editors?
    Do I really need 10 different image viewers?
    Do I really need all those different shells?


    I for one would welcome a distro that gives me The Basic Package, where I have just enough shell commands, X, and a desktop manager like KDE.
    This is how all operating systems have been distributed in the past.
    You don't see them including 2 gigabytes of miscellaneous freeware and shareware packages and thrusting them all in the user's face during the installation when all he wants is to get the damn thing installed without all this extra stuff he'll never use anyway (How many desktop users will use sendmail? Care to guess what gets installed in EVERY environment?).

    The installer should:
    - Install what is required to get the system up and get networking up.
    - install ONE shell. Let the user decide which one if he wants to.
    - Install X but let the user select not to.
    - Install ONE desktop environment, but let the user decide which one if he wants to.
    - Get everything into a safe configuration that lets the OS boot up and start the desktop environment.

    Now reboot.

    Now let the user configure his desktop, network stuff etc etc, and then if he REALLY wants to, he can have a look at the other goodies on the Linux CD and install some of it.

    It's a hell of a lot easier to learn how an OS works when there's 30 megs of stuff rather than 1 gig of stuff scattered all over the system directories.


    The main annoyance with GNU/Linux is having to fool around with PnP (which is easily solved.. get an external modem and use the almighty serial port).

    This is the mentality that must be squashed if you ever expect Linux to be accepted by the 99.9% of people who make up the regular users.
    They want to turn the computer on and be presented with a desktop.
    They want to click the pretty icon and have Wordperfect load up.
    They want to go to the control panel and change how fast the mouse moves, or make a custom mouse pointer, or change their screen resolution on the fly, or change their network settings (including things such as dhcp).
    They don't want to have to load a bunch of cryptic text-based configuration files and spend hours reading poorly written documentation in order to change their keyboard mapping or install a new network card or add new fonts.
    They don't want to replace their hardware (and why should they? it works, doesn't it?). Telling them to use an external modem because Linux can't handle PnP properly is pathetic.

    Take a close look at the Windows installer and its configuration system.
    Annoying crashes and reboots aside, it is an excellent system in concept.
    This is what users will look for when they put the Linux CD in their drive.
  • If done right, something can be made easy to use AND powerful. One thing about Debian that sucked was when I installed it as my first linux distribution and tried using the man pages, the man pages flew down the screen. No pager was assigned to them. When you're a newbie, you *really* need the man pages. I evenutally figured out how to export a pager,but still.... This was just plain stupid. Would putting in a default pager for man have made debian any less powerful? Of course not. Ideally, there would be a default pager, and if you wanted a different one, you could export it yourself. Another example are all the cryptic names that linux has for stuff. would /etc be any less powerful if it was called /preferences? Or /mnt if it was called /disks? Ease of use is all about common sense. You don't have to shove wizards down a user's throat of perform the computer equivalent of wiping their butt for them, but you have to give things intuitive names and give tasks clear and meaningful definitions and implementations. Ideally, an operating system should be a minute to learn, lifetime to master.

  • I asked Libranet what this distro was about... (Score:3)

    by William Tanksley ( 1752 ) on Wednesday November 03, 1999 @03:08PM (#1566987)
    I asked Libranet what this distro was about, and they said that the main thing they changed was to take dselect out of the install and instead give apt-get a list of things to install.

    IMO, this is WONDERFUL. These people are adding a lot of value to Debian in general by putting up a first-rate website with responsive service and nice general Linux propaganda.

    Add to that the fact that they don't seem to want to create their own code fork, so they'll always be able to keep up with Debian (and vice versa).

    I appreciate all that Corel's doing, but in a very real sense they _have_ to do it to make their proprietary system work. Libranet is in a sense much more in line with what Debian needs, because every minute of service they provide is a direct service to Debian itself, rather than some being a service to Debian and some to WordPerfect.

    Of course, again, I like what Corel's doing. I just wanted to point out that these guys have their heads screwed on straight as well, and they're actually MORE useful to Debian.

    -Billy
  • I've been playing with Debian for quite a while and I have had problems with the installation process on a couple of occasions.

    THe main thing I dislike about the Debian install process is the dselect program. To me it just seems like a really chunky way of doing things. The keystrokes seem non-intuitive, and I thought it just made what should have been a simple step difficult. I refuse to use dselect now, I'll just install everything by hand with dpkg.

    Also, on a couple of occasions the 2.1 installer has refused to work for me. That could have just been a dodgy CD, and I don't remember exactly what the problem was. Only way to get around it was to install 2.0 then upgrade.
  • Well there's always a support problem. It's really hard for all these tiny distros to give the same kind of support that a more unified approach would give
  • The common argument about Linux is:

    The kernel is all the same, so therefore they are all the same.

    If that is true, yet another distro will not matter, now will it?


    If GNU/Linux is all about the kernel AND the parts wrapped around the kernel, then another distro matters. And it would matter WHERE the distro got its start.


    So, which is it? The kernel or the kernel AND parts that matter? You can't have it both ways. There is either one Linux or a whole bunch of them.

    Kinda like SYS V Unix. And, one can look to history to see how well that worked as a marketing idea.


  • Now what's wrong with writing scripts and programs to ease the installation and use of a Linux? It's stil linux, except it's easier for people to install it. Thats the whole selling point behind Windows and MacOS: They're (supposively) easy to use. No "average joe" would want to buy a computer if the operating system and all the programs were hard to use, cryptic, and required a learning curve.

    If a goal of Linux is getting more support, then gaining more users is a step towards that goal. Corporations don't care if the users are tech-oriented or idiots; they care about how big the market is in Linux. A bigger market equals more companies doing Linux, be it hardware or software.

    And if you're a hardcore user that likes to install Debian raw, go ahead! There's enough support from techs to fuel Debian beyond the lifespan of any commercial Linux. Just try and be nice to the companies that are building on the shoulders of the Debian giant, trying to bring Linux to "everyone else". Meanwhile, you can gloat on how you installed Debian by using direct disk and memory writes to your tech friends, because they're the only ones who care.

    As for the proliferation of distros based on Debian (Corel, Storm, etc) .... may the best installer win and go OSS or GPL. ;) Eventually all the stupider distros will disappear and we'll be left with a superior distribution. Perhaps one who's installation programs will make it into core Debian.

  • it's hard to tell, from the way you said it, but in case you don't know debian already runs on PPC. it's running right now, on my old 7100 at home.

  • They have screen shots of the deskto pafter it is installed, but any linux system can be made to look like those.

    I looked for screenshots of the installation and did not find any does anyone have any references to this?

    Something to note, is that once a Linux distribution is installed they are all pretty much the same now. Slackware 7.0 is now glibc2, as are SuSE, Redhat, Caldera, Mandrake, etc.

    They failed to mention which kernel it ran or I missed that too. I remeber a few months ago reading about EasyLinux which was supposed to be a distribution that is easy to install. Last I saw on there web site they had released a final version, but no mention was made on /. of this.

    It seem all distro are moving towards easier installations. In wonder how many of them are dealing with security issues that arrise form having Linux installed on a system? Issues like if you install apache it is world viewable, and if you configure it in such a way anyone can browse your system. Also by defaul many of these system come wiht ftp and telnet already installed. Als inetd is usually configured to run and the default run level is usually 3 for multi user. I only mention this cause I found out that RH6.0 by default had many serveices configured thru inetd like finger who and ftp talk, etc. I shut them off except telnet and ftp. I also found out that apache by being installed and not in inetd (not that that has anythign to do with it) was browseable by others. Yes I have configured my hosts.allow and hosts.deny files. My point here is how many of these companies are considering security for a 'newbie' Linux users? Security upon installation? They should be coming up with 'easy firewall', and do you want to secure your system during the installation process. Also informing the user during the install inetd is configured to start durning boot and all.

    I also wonder how secure kde and gnome are since both use ports that are not configured thru inetd. After running netstat it shows many ports in use, how secure is this (questino here).

    Don't get me wrong I think it is great taht people are trying to make Linux more user friendly, but I hope they take into consideration how 'newbie' users can be dumb. Hey even in windows I have seen users edit there registries so that they could not boot there sytem or start word.

    We must consider the 'ignorant' user.

    send flames > /dev/null

  • Shouldn't the community be afraid of the possible extreme commercialization and wholesale fragmentation of Linux? This could lead to some pretty precarious situations, which certain companies could take advantage of. Imagine this situation--


    Press Release--for immediate distribution

    Somewhere in Silicon Valley--Bluebonnet Linux, a rock solid new derivative of the award-winning Debian distribution, was released today. The software is engineered for ease of
    use, and includes the patented and copyrighted new technology, SmartInstall.

    SmartInstall allows for the running of Linux from within Windows 2.11. Such groundbreaking progress promises for great appeal not only to techno savvy consumers, but those who still run legacy versions of Windows.

    Bluebonnet Linux, in a package of 13 CDs, includes thousands of software titles, including a demo version of Internet Explorer for Linux, a groundbreaking product that is estimated to be 30% more stable than Netscape 4.51.

    Bluebonnet Corp. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Microsoft, a leading software developer and content creator.

    A problem? A possiblity? Or simply an exagerrated fear, born of a night of Perl hacking? You be the judge.
  • hmmm....me thinks that this might actually be a Good Thing. Firstly, count on those outside and opposed to the linux community to trumpet this as "yet another example of linux fragmentation." To the harried IT manager with more immediate problems than whether or not M$ is telling him the whole truth, this may seem a very attractive argument. The question has also been fielded as to how the larger commercial distros will maintain the ability to develop when, in the end, anyone can re-package them from a $5 cheap-bytes CD. And so my first reactions are shock and horror at this current crop of "newbie" distributions, and, at first look, this does indeed look bad.

    The good news is that the market, while it can (and often does) reward the likes of M$, also has a hard time arguing with the current success of Linux. As per fragmentation, we have seen forks come and forks go, and in the end, the best is kept and the chaff lost. Also, while at first glance closed source software seems to be the best way to guard against such code-base-raiding, since the code is open source'd, the larger distros have an easier time of gauging what is and is not valuable to users. If they fail to heed such obvious warnings, the loss is not the communities since no one paid anyone to develop the majority of this code in the first place!! The ability and responsibility to develop and maintain the code lies in the hands of that very community, not RH or Debain or SuSE.

    Could this be a bad thing for linux? In the short term I think it will at least force a shakeout. As for the long term, I'm not worried.

    Naysayers take heed, this revolution is not so easily squelched.

Slashdot Top Deals

A morsel of genuine history is a thing so rare as to be always valuable. -- Thomas Jefferson

Close