Corel Linux Beta Program 160
Gameaholic writes "Corel is currently looking for beta testers for the upcoming Corel® LINUX® operating system. Corel LINUX is a Linux distribution specifically designed for desktop computer users. It is based on Debian and includes KDE as well as new applications and enhancements from Corel. " The battle for the desktop continues.
We need this kind of distro (Score:3)
Right now we have several niches... Slackware for the "I want to do it all myself" hardcore type, redhat and mandrake for the middle of the crowd bunch who either don't have the time or inclination or just plain want a "push button" install but still want a nice hackerish system, and debian for the long-haired suspender-wearing "here's a nickel, kid, buy yourself a better computer" crowd that wants an easy to build, clean system with all the power and a lot less glitz. What we still don't have (although redhat and mandrake seem to be trying to get there) is a distribution for our moms. Maybe Corel can fill that niche, maybe not, but at the very minimum anything they do to move towards that is good for the linux community as a whole.
Best of all, if Corel just manages to pull it off my mom just might quit calling me and asking me to troubleshoot her windows problems.
-- Gary F.
Ticker Symbol: CORL --- Couldn't hurt.. (Score:1)
I am sure the stock would go up upon the distribution release. It probably won't jump like an IPO but I expect 400% rise over time. That is only about 20 bucks a share.
More interesting is what microsofts reaction to all of this will be. Perhaps they will target distributions rather than Linux as a whole with FUD. Or, as I think, what if they bought into a distribution? That way they could play both sides of the fence.
Re:Debian Package system gets some help? NOT! (Score:1)
Are you smoking crack or what? Debian package management suite is and was far superior to anything that redhat had. dpkg/dselect/apt, never break and are pretty much rock solid. You can sync your system with ftp mirrors with just 2 commands. Hell you can upgrade the whole system with apt-get dist-upgrade command from ftp/http/cdrom/whatever. dselect and apt also take care of dependencies and conflicts automatically. There are other benefits too, these are just a few that I got from top of my head.
RedHat LAGS in this area, sorry.
Re:This is pretty offtopic, but (Score:1)
Similar, yes (there's one ports.tar.gz or pkgsrc.tar.gz for the OS), but it does lead to different results. For instance, the stuff in ports is not treated as an integral part of the system in FreeBSD, so each package in the ports subsystem can be updated on an as-needed basis by the port maintainer. That means if you need to keep some non-core thing updated, it's easier to do that with *BSD.
Of course, I've heard rumblings about solving the problem Debian has had with staleness by releasing packages tested for 2-3 months as ready to go into the stable distro. That would be a Good Thing, imho.
Maybe (Score:1)
I would think that the installer would be a important item that needs beta tested. If so, it would only make sense to get users that want Linux and Windows to co-exist on the same machine. (A bare drive install being somewhat of a no-brainer.)
Re:Give them a little time, OK??? (Score:2)
Bruce
Re:WINE? (Score:1)
Just need to encourage developers to recompile their apps in Linux. But what I would like to know is... when a windows app is compiled with WINE, is it just as good as if it was full ported to Linux?
AussiePenguin
Melbourne, Australia
ICQ 19255837
Well, actually.. (Score:1)
If you read carefully (I'm sorry, I'm a real bastard for choosing my words very finely and carefully [which is why I often look like a total idiot if I post -anything- when I haven't slept enough], or at least trying to), I never really said that Linux was fragmenting.. yet. We are, however, highly, and I mean highly, fractionalized. Can you really disagree with that? Everyone has their favorite distro. Some have uses for different distros, but for most of us, I'm pretty sure we stick to one distro or another.
I also think the more contributions the better. All I'm saying is that we should be careful, and not repeat the same mistakes. It took a lot of hard work and chance to pull this off so far (I don't really remember thr last time a free OS captured the public's attention like this), so it would be good not to screw it up. :)
Re:It makes perfect sense (Score:1)
all the parts separately and builds his own PC.
The hard-drives usualy do not come with Windows,
although I know that you can purchase HD with
Linux already on it (VAR, I believe?).
Once a friend wanted to dome a favor and tried
to install some Windows on my PC for me, but then
he was unable to do it. The boot disk never
recognized CD-ROM - and the Windows were on CD.
So, that's why I do not have Windows on my
machine. I am not proud of it, I am actually
sorry for it, because my PnP sound card setup
runs only on Windows.
In turn I installed Linux on his PC and set it
up in less than 2hours.
Petrus
Re:Not true. (Score:1)
AussiePenguin
Melbourne, Australia
ICQ 19255837
Re:Debian Package system gets some help? NOT! (Score:1)
Are you smoking crack or what? Debian package management suite is and was far superior to anything that redhat had. dpkg/dselect/apt, never break and are pretty much rock solid. You can sync your system with ftp mirrors with just 2 commands. Hell you can upgrade the whole system with apt-get dist-upgrade command from ftp/http/cdrom/whatever. dselect and apt also take care of dependencies and conflicts automatically. There are other benefits too, these are just a few that I got from top of my head.
RedHat LAGS in this area, sorry.
Re:Ticker Symbol: CORL (Score:1)
Re:Debian Package system gets some help? (Score:2)
They're package management system has lagged behind Red Hat's due to lack of developers for a while.
Has it? Is there a feature in RedHat's system allowing you to automatically update from a server? (I honestly want to know, I'm not trying to start a flameware here). That feature is one of the major reasons I use Debian.
I don't belive there is a need for this feahttpture to be rolled into the rpm codebase. autorpm [freshmeat.net] is quite good at pulling updates from a distribution company web site automaticaly. It's quite good at keeping an rpm based system up to date from any number of mirrors ( handles mirror rotations and such).
With other utilities such as rpmfind [freshmeat.net] and the very useful rpm database at rpmfind.net [rpmfind.net], an admin of an rpm based system has all the tools they need to manage the system.
OMNSHO, a system to act as a front end to all three would be an even better boon to the community.
--
James Michael Keller
Re:Corel LINUX... Requires Windows. (Score:5)
Among the FAQ's is:
I suspect this one falls into the old "RTFM" category.
D. Keith Higgs
CWRU. Kelvin Smith Library
Re:Debian Package system gets some help? (Score:1)
-avi
Re:Debian Package system gets some help? (Score:1)
So much for me previewing, IIRC it's ftp and / or mirrors of them, not web sites as I typo'ed above.
--
James Michael Keller
Re:Open Source vs Beta Test (Score:1)
meanwhile I am gettin the error, "document contains no data"
Mofo page is busted.
Re:Open Source vs Beta Test (Score:1)
"Cathedral and the Bizarre"! hahaha...I love that!
dylan_-
--
Corel LINUX... Requires Windows. (Score:2)
[...]
Windows® 95, Windows 98 or Windows NT® (4.0)
[...]
First release planned for end of year (Score:1)
Re:Do we really need another distro? (Score:1)
Graphics? (Score:1)
I don't think Corel gets it (Score:1)
As for myself, I wanted to download Corel Linux when the beta came out. I am not a Linux guru, nor am I a computer idiot either. But I am annoyed that they are doing this and I think that I am not alone.
Cowpland (sp?), I am hope you are listening. Look how easily people have been alienated by Redhat for who-knows-what reason, Corel is walking a dangerous path.
Re:It makes perfect sense (Score:2)
Personally, I prefer to stick to 'genuine' Creative Labs cards (they are better supported even under Windows -- or so my Windows using friends say). I have been able to successfully get a couple of generic clone sound cards working under Linux, the first being a "Digital Research Labs" (free after rebate from CompUSA) which uses the ESS 1869 chip set. I used the isapnp utilities to initialize the card, and then the RedHat sndcfg utility could be persuaded that it was a SoundBlaster and it worked. The second card is an old (pre PnP jumperless) Aztech Sound Galaxy 16, which I was able to get working with the OSS drivers supplied with SuSE. As far as I can tell most sound cards can be made to work with Linux with a little bit of research. Being impatient, its generally easier for me to just get a Creative Labs card...
Re:Why the (R) on LINUX (and why all caps) (Score:3)
Re:WINE? (Score:1)
Wine is not really an emulator, it's just a very very different implementation of
No source for the Beta? (Score:3)
Yeah, but the registration form is broke (Score:1)
Something about a templage on E:\
Ikes!
Jim
Re:No source for the Beta? (Score:2)
Re:Open Source vs Beta Test (Score:1)
Over the next few years, I think we're going to see several Linux distributions do this - look at Caldera and their install program. Caldera released their code only after its product had been on the market for a few months. ITs only a matter of time before REdHat holds its innovation tight to its chest until its had time to propagate as a RedHat technology.
Another issue we've all overlooked... (Score:3)
But the thing I see people overlooking is the fact that this is most likely a limited beta program. From the site:
Ok so now everyone on /. is rushing in their forms, etc. You have to pause and think that Corel more than likely doesn't want too many geekmeisters like most slashdotters testing the thing. Yeah, there will be openings, but I bet that they are more interested in useability testing and interface bugs than security right now. What i'm attempting to drive at here is that their server is probably being swamped by the /. effect and thus making it difficult for johnny aolScriptKiddie to sign up for the program. now i'm not saying that johnny is any better at using linux than the general reader around here, but hey, this might be a way to pull johnny out of his stupidity as an AOL lamer and maybe get him on a decent OS and possibly let him learn a few new things too. I guess what I'm saying is that, from the perspective of the general advancement of linux, this story shouldn't have been posted: simply because of the tendancy /. has to flood sites with eager people.
I don't know that Corel is having any problems, although I did read someone's post about having script errors on the beta submission page... I'd have to guess that they are feeling some strain.
So for linux's sake, don't slashdot Corel!! :-)
just my $0.34
(oh, and sorry about the italic tags. This post is not lynx compatible. :-)
Re:Why the (R) on LINUX (and why all caps) (Score:3)
Re:Ticker Symbol: CORL (Score:1)
Give them a little time, OK??? (Score:5)
OK, they made a few boo-boos regarding forms and generic requirements documents. Please consider that the office staff don't necessarily understand Windows or Linux, they've been given boiler-plate copy by someone who does, and they'll have to get new boiler-plate now.
They'll also have to comply with existing software licenses - which means if any Beta tester asks them for the source of an already GPL-ed program that Corel is distributing, Corel will have to give it to them. It might take a bit of explaining to get this through to them, but the Debian folks can handle that quite well. If Corel wants to put the GPL on any entirely new stand-alone software, it's Corel's choice when they do that, and they have the right to hold back the source until the GPL goes on it.
Expect some growing pains as a formerly windows-centric company ventures into Linux. Give them a little time.
Bruce Perens
Re:We need this kind of distro (Score:1)
Re:WINE? (Score:2)
IIRC, WINE can be configured either to use existing Windows .dll's that are installed on the machine, or to use its own native versions. I believe one of the goals of the WINE project is to re-implement the non-free Windows libraries, just as LessTif freely re-implements Motif.
I heard something a few months ago about Corel contributing resources (manpower?) to the WINE project, but haven't heard anything about this in quite a while.
Re:WINE? (Score:1)
Re:No source for the Beta? (Score:1)
---
Re:Debian Package system gets some help? NOT! (Score:2)
Are you smoking crack or what? Debian package management suite is and was far superior to anything that redhat had. dpkg/dselect/apt, never break and are pretty much rock solid. You can sync your system with ftp mirrors with just 2 commands. Hell you can upgrade the whole system with apt-get dist-upgrade command from ftp/http/cdrom/whatever. dselect and apt also take care of dependencies and conflicts automatically. There are other benefits too, these are just a few that I got from top of my head. RedHat LAGS in this area, sorry.
I haven't used a debian install before, so I'm not going to get into which is better with debian folk. However just because rpm's own codebase dosn't have those features is irrelivent. Other packages handle those functions you belive it lacks, work just as well doing the same things. They don't replace, but work with rpm. Rpm handles the package databasing, installing, removing, etc. Autorpm has all the networking code to go out and check the ftp servers and download anything new - and if you set it to - update the rpms. It's especially good when you point it at redhat's update dir on the ftp server, so when I read something on bugtraq or redhat-list about a patched package update -- it's already on my system.
Rpmfind handles finding and meeting dependencies. It too, simply uses the rpm system - vs bloating rpm itself with functions.
The problem with automagickal download and installs is it only works when your system is rolled in a consistant basis. Ie BSD's ports collection system is great - it will download and install anything needed to install the package you needed in the first place. However that only works because the entire system is set up to do version checking for libraries and such. It's also a source based system. If your dealing with binaries - as most people using rpm do - you get into all sorts of problems.
If you always use say --sources for your rpmfind call, and recompile the src.rpm files all the time you get the same effect.
The downside is not every package is going to be up on an ftp server in rpm format. I think what rpm really needs is a much better source/binary rpm packaging system. More exactly a front end that generates .spec files. Rpm handles the generation just fine. That way if you can't find anything but tarballs of the latest and greatest file you - or the developers or packge mantainers - could create a standard .spec based on a valid template. Something where you could move around and tag files as documetation, binaries, etc and pick the paths. And output a valid .spec file.
That wouldn't help for when you have to create patches against the source Makefiles to add in rpm environment vars, but even that could be automated by such a system looking for hard coded paths in Makefiles and such.
--
James Michael Keller
Re:WINE? (Score:1)
Somebody give RMS a call... (Score:1)
--
Re:It makes perfect sense (Score:2)
Re:Get on the ball, Corel! (Score:1)
What you mean is people won't like it unless it's free. If Corel is writing applications that aren't derivative from GPL, like a word processor, they're going to look for a profit model, so they might release the source, but not the rights to redistribute it.
It's interesting the line that's being drawn. They're not making Linux for the open source crowd. They're making a platform to lure 'normal' desktop users, so they're borrowing some conventions from the Linux world, and keeping others to keep in business.
Re:No source for the Beta? (Score:2)
I've volunteered for this program under (I presume) one of the slots reserved for Debian developers.
If they actually send me a disc, I will indeed ask for the source to the GPL'ed stuff on there, and see what they say. Under the terms of the license, they cannot turn me down, though they may attempt to violate the spirit of the GPL by charging me an outrageous copying fee. Then again, maybe it won't be a problem.
Incidentally, the parts of the Debian XFree86 packages that aren't modifications to the original source code (i.e., almost everything in the debian/ directory of the source package is under the GPL, and a lot of it is copyrighted by me. (Granted, none of this stuff is essential to getting a working XFree86 system, but it does help.) So I will be making my request not just as a GPL licensee but as the author of some of the modified code (if they have in fact made changes).
I have nothing against Corel, and I am glad that they are basing their product around Debian, but I'm not going to let that blind me to the fact that if we don't defend the GPL -- if we don't insist that companies large and small abide by software licensing terms just as they have with the consumers of their proprietary software, then a large part of the point of the GPL is lost.
I hope Corel does the right thing. It's really no harder than making the .diff.gz available on a website (the .dsc would be convenient but is not essential).
Re:Debian Package system gets some help? NOT! (Score:1)
In fact, Debian's package system IS highly superior to Redhat's. Redhat's package format has some things which Debian's doesn't, but the system itself is SO much better it's not funny.
You can completely upgrade an entire Debian system from one release to any later release with a pair of commands and a
You can even order apt to get the sources and compile them for you and then install the result (although this is brand new).
Everything's automated, and what's even more amazing, everything's automatic. It works! The first time I ran apt it was to upgrade from a seriously outdated and somewhat hacked-about 1.2 system; the upgrade went entirely flawlessly, and I'm still running the result.
Redhat is a pain to upgrade in comparison. You have to boot into an installation program.
And that's not even counting the programs which display available programs for you -- Debian's had those for FAR longer than Redhat.
I don't want to sound anti-Redhat -- they're a GREAT distro. However, to say that Debian need to learn from Redhat in packaging systems is to reverse the situation.
Re:No source for the Beta? (Score:1)
If i download the kernel, decide I want to port it to run on Coleco Vision consoles, and simply rename the sources to reflect the fact, am I obligated to return the "changed" source at the end of each day? Or can I decide (okay, I've made enough progress to release my code).
For instance: Rob doesn't post a new tarball everyday when he fixes a minor glitch here or there. He makes releases as he has time and when he thinks he's made enough progress to merit it.
Re:Corel LINUX... Requires Windows. (Score:1)
Re:WINE? (Score:1)
Re:Requires Windows..Is a direct MS attack! (Score:1)
Re:Why the (R) on LINUX (and why all caps) (Score:3)
As for having to "vigorously protect" a trademark, IANAL, but I don't see Debian, Red Hat, SuSE or Slackware (or any of the other distros I know about) as having tried to usurp the trademark. They are not calling something that is not Linux, "Linux". Furthermore, every Linux distro I've seen has specifically acknowledged Linus as owning the trademark, and as being the original author of the Linux kernel. I don't believe that you necessarily need a contract, written or otherwise, for using a trademark provided you do so within the framework of the trademark law.
So therefore I'd say that no enforcement action on Linus's part has been necessary, so there would be no reason to assume that his trademark has been relinquished.
At any rate, if a trademark is relinquished because of falling into general use, it means that nobody else can claim that term as a trademark.
If someone has good reason to believe I'm wrong (especially a lawyer), then let's hear why...
slashdotted ??? (Score:1)
Windows Required for Installation? (Score:1)
My guess (Score:1)
If you're so sure.. (Score:1)
Care to post a link to a source where I could verify that for myself? After all, Linux is under the GPL, not the BSD license.
- yet another sleep-deprived post.. yay! -
Get a life! (Score:1)
Re:Graphics? (Score:1)
Re:Windows Required for Installation? (Score:1)
Use your head (Score:1)
But... (Score:1)
--
You must be kidding (Score:1)
Wouldn't Corel want the the largest possible pool of people to choose their beta testers from? And when they pick those beta testers, will they want "AOL lamers" who have no previous experience with Linux with which to evaluate the beta, or people who have actually used linux before?
I don't think they'll be mad at all if their servers are
Re:Why the (R) on LINUX (and why all caps) (Score:1)
No, this is not what happened. Someone tried to trademark Linux as a "computer operating system software" and then sue for infringement.
Here is the record from the US Patent & Trademark office. [uspto.gov] For more information on the whole episode, check out this press release [iplawyers.com] from the law firm that handled the case for Linus.
Word Mark LINUX
Owner Name (REGISTRANT) Croce, William R. Della, Jr.
Owner Address 33 Snow Hill St. Boston MASSACHUSETTS 02113 INDIVIDUAL UNITED STATES
Owner Name (LAST LISTED OWNER) TORVALDS, LINUS
Owner Address 3665 BENTON STREET APT. 36 SANTA CLARA CALIFORNIA 95051 INDIVIDUAL FINLAND
Attorney of Record CATHERINE MCCAULEY-LIBERT
Serial Number 74-560867
Registration Number 1916230
Filing Date 08/15/1994
Registration Date 09/05/1995
Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING
Register PRINCIPAL
Published for pposition 06/13/1995
Type of Mark TRADEMARK
International Class 009
Goods and Services computer operating system software to facilitate computer use and operation; DATE OF FIRST USE: 1994.08.02; DATE OF FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 1994.08.02
Corel Linux? I don't think so... (Score:1)
If the quality of Corel Linux is similar to CorelDraw I think, no - I KNOW I'll pass.
Re:No source for the Beta? (Score:1)
am I obligated to return the "changed" source at the end of each day? Or can I decide (okay, I've made enough progress to release my code).
If you distribute daily binaries, you should distribute daily source as well, but you don't have to - you can simply make it available upon request instead. Anyway, if you never distribute your changes as binaries, you don't have to ever distribute the source either.
By the way, the GPL doesn't claim to give you the right to 'release' things, it gives you the right to 'distribute' them.
For instance: Rob doesn't post a new tarball everyday when he fixes a minor glitch here or there. He makes releases as he has time and when he thinks he's made enough progress to merit it.
Rob is the copyright holder - he can do whatever he wants with it.
This is pretty offtopic, but (Score:3)
The result is that for 99.5% (at least that's the number on my system) of stuff you want, you use the distro's official version/build, which is guaranteed to work perfectly. On my system, I have ~530 packages installed. There are only 3 that are not native Debian packages -- the only 3 things I've found that I wanted that weren't available. So I downloaded the rpm and installed 'em with alien
It's kind of a similar philosophy to BSD, in that the OS consists not just of a kernel and a set of basic stuff, but of everything. In a BSD this is true because everyone's running THE official BSD -- no distros. In Debian, there's the same kind of mentality. By comparison, RedHat's distro is sparse (granted most of the difference is in packages that very very very few people are interested in).
Whenever I find out about a new program I find I need (happens all the time, this is Linux after all
dpkg -l "*progname*"
to see if there's already a Debian package. Exactly 3 times, there hasn't been one. If Debian wasn't behind on processing developer applications (they're focusing efforts on catching up with bug reports) I'd have already built debs for these apps.
Sometimes the system doesn't work so well: as an example, there hasn't been a working version of XTraceroute (maybe you don't consider that essential
The result is impressive.
I've run a lot of both distros. I came to the conclusion Debian was superior because it has everything in a compatible, working version. That makes my life a lot simpler. In addition, Debian packages have Config scripts that make setting up a lot of stuff stuff easy even if you're not familiar with the specific config file formats
Man, that was way offtopic. I do intend to try Corel's stuff tho. I hope the license on their config stuff is good, cause Debian's idea of a "user-friendly" install is, the "voice" of the person who asks you various questions and tells you what's going on (in text mode) during the install, is pretty chatty and likable
Re:Windows Required for Installation? (Score:1)
Re:Why the (R) on LINUX (and why all caps) (Score:3)
Re:If you're so sure.. (Score:2)
If the people doing the IA-64 port are not considered to be "copying" or "distributing" amongst themselves the modified Linux kernel, GNU libc, etc. they're doing for the port, then the GPL doesn't oblige them to make the source available to others, nor does it mean they can't stop any of those people from "distributing" the programs or the source to the programs to others.
The impression I have from what I've seen is that the NDA will end when Intel releases all the details of IA-64 (unless I've missed something, they haven't released the full details, just those details that would be used by application developers).
Do we really need another distro? (Score:2)
I myself think we need more software support in the way of applications.. not in the way of more Linux distributions. Ugh. More GPLed drivers also good.
I already have trouble tracking all of the Linux distributions we have now (actually, for the most part, I don't even bother any more). It's getting to be almost as bad as the fact that we have something like 80 or so flavors of Unix. Do we really need to fractionalize even further? I'm all for choice, but when fragmentation begins to occur on a widespread scale, that's not neccesarily a good thing.
Isn't fragmentation the entire reason why Unix fell to Windows in the first place (seems like a good thing to keep in mind since Linux is "a UNIX-type operating system")? While we may not always be able to make the BSD folks happy (I like the three flavors of BSD [yes I'm ignoring BSDI because it's commercial, of course] about as much as any other free OSes), it would be nice to have a little bit more coordination among the different distros. It would be sort of annoying to see a lot of software crop up that only runs on a specific distro. I mean, I like Red Hat and all, but I don't think I have too much use for software that is specific to Red Hat (remember.. not everything that is going to be released for Linux is going to be GPLed or whatever, which would make it easier to port like crazy if we really want to if it was).
Besides, when there are so many different choices (a la 80 flavors of Unix), the average end-user becomes rather confused about what to get and so chooses whatever is popular (which is why I doubt Red Hat will lose its popularity lead any time soon.. popularity only tends to breed even more popularity in this industry because you can use your popularity as a leverage.. people go for what's hot, after all). A little bit of consolidation couldn't hurt.
At any rate, I don't think it would be a good idea for me personally if I decided to buy software from a company whose caps lock key gets stuck when they are typing in the name of their product and neglect to fix it, IMHO. The only places I tend to see all caps are in places where the author apparently doesn't want you to read the all caps in order to see what is really written there (like, say, legal statements, licensing agreements.. the really important parts of them, anyway). Seems like a product name would be an odd place to test out that particular technique.
Laugh. It's funny.
- yet another sleep-deprived post.. yay! -
MS sactions (Score:1)
Re:You must be kidding (Score:1)
I agree that they want people who know what they're doing and a lot of general interest. Therin lies the key: general.
We all know about linux already. We already support it. Even though Linux is a buzzword these days, people don't really know what it is. If Corel wants to spread their Linux as an alternative to Windows, one that is easy, etc, hey need to test the definition of "easy" on Johnny AOLScriptKiddie. I've been down this road with BeOS. They don't want to portray it as a Windows competitor, so it's going down the tubes with the MacOS. I think that Be is GREAT and would make an EXCELLENT home user system. But they don't tout it that way. Now Linux, OTOH, is MUCH harder to install. I know how, I run it, etc. But it's not just like click and go.(ala BeOS, or *gag* windows) Corel has to have a lot up their sleeve to get this onto people's desks instead of WinXX. And to do that, they need testing by the market they're pushing for, not by us geeks. Let the geeks play with debian and slack and RH (i'm distro agnostic, by the way). Whatever good things we bring to linux in general, Corel will add. My bet is if they have people coding stuff for their distro, those people have enough geek friends to pound out those sort of bugs. But Corel will need to do serious testing on EASE OF USE, not bugs.
Whew, that was tiring.
Time to go play quake. :-)
Again, another $0.265 from me. Like it matters in the grand scheme of life anyway.
Re:Debian Package system gets some help? (Score:1)
CLD is the best thing since sliced Debian (Score:1)
(Note: this is a reprint of this comment [slashdot.org]. It is more on-topic here.
The good things about Debian are that it is technically sophisticated and stable (even the so-called "unstable" versions are very stable), and that it is developed by thousands of hackers which means there are more packages and newer versions. (There are currently... 3944 packages in potato.)
The bad things about Debian are that it takes way too long between stable releases, and there isn't a GUI for install, package management, and configuration. Hopefully Corel's contributions will fix all of the bad things, making the perfect free operating system!
(Note that currently the Debianistas are undergoing a crisis about their organization and personality issues and many are dissatisfied with how things are done. I considered mentioning this chaos in the list of "bad things about Debian", but I thought about it and realized that all of the hundreds of packages that I use still work great and that from my perspective as a Debian user the only thing I can legitimately complain about is the lag time between stable releases and the lack of idiot proof, pretty GUI tools.)
(Also note that I said "the perfect free operating system" instead of "the perfect free Linux distribution", because Debian can be layered on top of any suitable kernel, in theory. Work is already progressing on Debian-GNU-Hurd. Anyone want to build up a Debian-OpenBSD for me? :-))
Read all about it in the Corel's Linux Distribution white paper [corel.com] or visit linux.corel.com [corel.com] for news and job openings...
Zooko
Re:Corel LINUX... Requires Windows. (Score:1)
The design is a bit unfortunate. In fact, it's a bit of a stumble. But there aren't any hidden messages about Windows dependencies or anything.
Why corel really does need Guru Users (Score:3)
I am seeing a lot of posts here to the effect "Corel Linux is designed for newbies, and so Beta Testers should be newbies." While I can see the angle these people are coming from (and i suspect Corel agrees with them) may I beg to differ?
I think that Corel Linux should have a large number of Wizard level Beta testers. Certainly a lot of newbies need to test it to, but I think at least half of the users should be experienced Linux users.
Why? First, because It is not impossible for an experienced user to construct a simple interface. If it is, we are all doomed. Bluntly, an experienced user who is bothering to consider user interface issues will come up with BETTER suggestions than a non-experienced user, simply because of his wider experience.
Second, Experienced users might actually fix the bugs!. An novice user is unlikely to fix a bug, even if it's just a missing entries on the start menu! Certainly, any non-transparent bug will not be diagnosed in a meaningful way.
Third, An experienced user will do a better job of reporting the bug. C'mon -- how many of us have gotten help desk calls to the effect of "It doesn't work right".
Finally, a non-experienced user will accept bugs that an experienced linux user would not. People who've never run Linux before are used to rebooting their computers three times a day!!! They will accept bugs that I would report (and likely fix).
For the reading impaired: I am not saying corel needs no novice users -- I'm just saying that's not ALL they need.
If Corel Linux is going to be a success in the market they are aiming for, it needs to be much better than windows. Making it better from a novice users point of view is going to be an uphill battle -- the things novice users care most about (pretty pictures) are already reasonably well done in Windows. Corel need all the help they can get if they are going to compete.
Re:No source for the Beta? (Score:2)
First, you don't have to release any changes you make.
Second, anyone to whom you distribute any GPL'd software must be granted the rights that you were granted, under the GPL. That means that if you sell a person a CD containing e.g. the Linux kernel, you have to make available the source, either in the same distribution, or with an offer good for (I believe) 2 years.
Third, the rights under the GPL (remember IANAL) do not preclude a contract (ie: NDA) being signed by beta testers. True, the beta testers must have their rights fulfilled under the GPL. However, Corel can have the beta testers sign an NDA which says "even though we have these rights, we won't exercise them" (these rights being redistribution, perhaps modification (though peer-review should be encouraged in this situation)).
I hope this clears things up. If you've any further questions just ask.
Re:Corel LINUX... Requires Windows. (Score:1)
Re:Corel LINUX... Requires Windows. (Score:3)
Nuts, you need win95/98/NT or a mac to beta test!! (Score:1)
Get on the ball, Corel! (Score:3)
as I don't have "Windows® 95, Windows 98 or Windows NT® (4.0)" installed.
Even the actual form is rather silly. "TSRs"? "Windows version"? "Type of documents you produce"? The first two are pointless for evaluating
a Linux product and the third's probably cut from a form about Wordperfect. I really hope Corel's actual distribution is a lot well thought out than
their web site advertising the beta test is.
Still, the FAQ link is somewhat encouraging, though there are potential problems with this:
| Will Corel be releasing the source code for applications it has created such
| as the Corel File Manager?
| Corel will be making the source code available for such applications. The
| exact terms of the license under which the source code
| will be distributed has not yet been announced.
People who care won't like it unless it's GPL.
Re:No source for the Beta? (Score:3)
Every standard utility in there that is GPL'd has its source available (from the author). Any in-house software doesn't have to be GPL just to be included with linux.
Re:No source for the Beta? (Score:1)
This, presumably, only applies to stuff which stands alone - since any modifications to a GPL program would obviously have to be GPL from day one. However, they have lots of stand-alone code, from what I understand - notably applications such as WordPerfect, which AFAIK is not now nor is planned to be GPL, or any OpenSource license.
Open Source vs Beta Test (Score:4)
It makes perfect sense (Score:2)
--
Requires Windows..Is a direct MS attack! (Score:5)
It's brilliant!
Now lets see we need about 80 million beta testers......
Re:Get on the ball, Corel! (Score:1)
| it's free. If Corel is writing applications that
| aren't derivative from GPL, like a
| word processor, they're going to look for a
| profit model,
I was talking mainly about the distribution. I don't think anyone really expects Corel to open up their word processor or any of the rest of the office suite. It'd be nice if the system utilities are free (as in the GPL sense), though.
| It's interesting the line that's being drawn.
| They're not making Linux for the open source
| crowd.
Of course not. But they *do* want the open source crowd to test it for them.
Re:Windows Required for Installation? (Score:1)
Thank you both for the further insight.. (Score:1)
Sorry, sometimes I just feel motivated to motivate others to put some weight behind their comments. Thanks. :)
Re:Somebody give RMS a call... (Score:1)
Because the only stuff from Cygnus available as binaries only isn't GPLed? The GNUPro FAQ [cygnus.com] claims that "As part of our commitment to Open Sourceware, Cygnus provides source code with all releases of the GNUPro Toolkit." (Note that "provides source code with all releases" doesn't necessarily imply "makes the source code available from our FTP site"; they don't have to make the source conveniently available, they just have to make it available to those to whom they've distributed the binaries - and can't prohibit those to whom they've distributed the binaries from further redistributing binaries or source to GPLed programs).
Re: They haven't released anything. (Score:2)
When Corel puts the distribution up on a generally accessible server, or begins selling it, then they have released it. As long as Corel employees or its contractors (including beta testers who have to fill out an application first) are the only ones with access to the programs, they are not released.
Re:We need this kind of distro (Score:3)
My Point is that windows does have a place in the OS market - that of user-friendly-if-very-crap-and-unreliable-os-for-
Re:GPL Dedication (Score:2)
Pardon me for asking, but why should Corel be "truly dedicated" to the GPL? This is strange term to use, and one usually reserved for religions, political causes and spouses. The closest of the above would be a political cause (because the worshippers keep telling me it's not a religion).
I'll ignore the question of why the cause should be an individual license and not Free Software itself, but ask instead "why should Corel follow your cause?" Aren't they allowed to have their own causes? Aren't people allowed to think differently than you without arising the suspicions of the citizens committee? And most importatnly, why is no one is talking about possible violations of the Artistic license, or the QPL, or the MPL?
Re:Give them a little time, OK??? (Score:2)
Requires Windows 95 + (Score:3)
I think really what they mean is that it is meant for people migrating from Windows desktops to Linux. So, if you're not running Windows now, they won't be able to guage the friendliness of the migration. Let alone if you don't even have Windows, you won't run into configuration problems if you're a Linux wiz who wants to go mess with Corel's config files.
The same applies for Macs.
Joseph Elwell.
Another good thing for Linux (Score:3)
Open the Beta! (Score:2)
Re:No source for the Beta? (Score:2)
Re:It makes perfect sense (Score:2)
Re:GPL Dedication (Score:2)
Re:Why the (R) on LINUX (and why all caps) (Score:2)
I still think the whole trademark is invalid - if you look at the filing, it's all wrong. It claims August 1994 as the first use of the word, when it was in use long before that.
Ticker Symbol: CORL (Score:2)
When Wall St. gets wind of the fact that Corel is coming out with their own Linux distro, will it's stock (which is currently at something like 5 3/4) suddenly become really really valuable? I mean, even if the distro ends up sucking ass, won't it increase like gangbusters just on what RHAT did?
I for one am betting it will; I'm taking some of my profit from RHAT and putting it into CORL and crossing my fingers -- the worst that can happen is I'll have to pay less taxes next year.
Hopefully Wall Street is as much on crack as I think it is, and I'll see ya'll while I'm flying over in my private jet. =)
----