| DistroWatch Weekly
1 • Mint-cinnamon.SUPER! (by Jow on 2013-12-09 09:50:20 GMT from Mexico) |
Mint cinnamon Petra does not fail at all. It recognize any periferic, It is fast, abd very beautiful. It give us a marvelous out of the box experience with all needed codecs. News apps,etc. The next LTS in May.2014 will be best than any Win and Mac. Congrats to Clem!
2 • PCLinuxOS 2013.12 (by Sondar on 2013-12-09 10:20:59 GMT from United Kingdom)
Shame that PCL apparently still seems to suffer from ancient animosities within its camp, now long since past, accusations of DW PHR fixing and dismissal by some pundits as too 'elementary' and a plethera of other inappropriate adjectives. Personally, I've never found much value in any of those allegations. I have regularly recommended it to a range of disenchanted defectors from you-know-where, whatever their abilities and preferences. Shame, therefore, that the present release of PCL came so late in the week for RoW and reviewers. The LXDE version is a real cracker for Christmas. Fast, comprehensive and clean; even Tex from the Deep South has managed to incorporate the correct FlashPlayer files for limeys. So far not missing any expected features, so recommend a gander, even to Jesse.
3 • Mint, Ubuntu and... FUD (by Koroshiya Itchy on 2013-12-09 10:22:40 GMT from Belgium)
Being the target of a FUD campaign usually means you are on the right path. Congratulations Linux Mint!
4 • Mint updates for Flash plugin ? (by Fred on 2013-12-09 10:28:44 GMT from France)
Last time I used Mint/Cinnamon, I checked Firefox plugins with firefox's built-in verification, and it complains about Flash plugin being out-dated.
At the same time, flash-plugin from canonical (on an Ubuntu PC) was up-to-date (and flash-plugin installer was installing the same up-to-date version).
I finally figured out that Flash plugin in Mint was provided by Mint repository, you can check here:
Even for "Petra" (ubuntu 13.10) http://packages.linuxmint.com/list.php?release=Petra
Package mint-flashplugin is still 2011.10.19 !!!!!
Mint packages organization is done with clever apt pinning configuration, but it is true the security of some packages is really not handle the right way.
Having Firefox up-to-date is good, but most of vulnerabilities on the web are due to this cr*p of flash plugin...
I am no more using Mint... because I understand a bit of security and debian internal.
For common users (the target of Linux Mint) it is a serious concern !!!
5 • openmandriva (by gino on 2013-12-09 10:49:20 GMT from Italy)
openmandriva is not a mandriva fork, but a ROSA based distribution
6 • OpenMandriva (by Teresa e Junior on 2013-12-09 10:56:44 GMT from United States)
Just skipped the review. We all knew it was just a hard copy of Rosa, didn't we?
7 • @4 • Mint updates for Flash plugin (by mandog on 2013-12-09 12:02:38 GMT from Peru)
Which planet are you on the flash plug-in used in mint Petra is exactly the same version as used in my archbox, so either arch is also outdated by 2 years or you my friend are just a Ubuntu fanboy spreading fud.
8 • no fud... for sure (by Fred on 2013-12-09 12:15:45 GMT from France)
No fud, for sure, not what I mean. Fud are useless. Just 1 reason why I don't use Mint anymore is updates.
Maybe the web page is no more accurate ?
Last time I used Mint, a LTS version, the flash version used was subject to vulnerabilities, and not updated by the Mint updater.
"apt-cache policy" gives me the answer: unfortunately, flash-plugin with Mint is provided by Mint, with a higher priority.
Maybe they corrected this issue by now ?
9 • LMDE (by Paraquat on 2013-12-09 12:19:31 GMT from Sweden)
I won't get into a flamefest over Mint vs Ubuntu, but if you're concerned about security (you should be) it is for sure a good idea to keep your Firefox or Chrome browser up-to-date.
I personally use LMDE (Linux Mint Debian). Very nice Debian-based distro, but I found that the Linux Mint repository was lacking a whole lot of programs I use. So I just edited file /etc/apt/sources.list and commented-out all the lines and then added these two:
deb http://http.debian.net/debian/ testing main contrib non-free
deb-src http://http.debian.net/debian testing main
While you're at it, deinstall the icedtea plugin, which is a Java security hole. Most people do not need it, but it comes installed by default in many distros.
Then "apt-get update" and "apt-get dist-upgrade" and I have a very nice up-to-date system.
10 • OpenMandriva vs ROSA (by Carlos Felipe on 2013-12-09 12:26:36 GMT from Brazil)
Visually, they are the same distro.
Rosa has codecs and flash preinstalled.
11 • Re. 4 & 8 (by Woof on 2013-12-09 13:07:10 GMT from United Kingdom)
We've had all this Flash nonsense with Puppy over the years. Use the version provided - more recent ones often don't work! For example, v.10.3.183.18 is getting very long in the tooth, but is still one of the most reliable for a wide range of distros and apps. Clem is more likely to get the FP spec. correct with his rigorous testing regime. Better still, abandon Firefox and switch to Opera.
12 • Ubuntu Binary Fee... (by Ron on 2013-12-09 13:20:05 GMT from United States)
Charging fees for their binary packages, even if it is just some? You have got to be kidding me. It is getting harder and harder to defend Canonical these days. Profit is one thing but they are going way overboard. This path they are on won't work for them, but they will find out the hard way. All it is going to take is a few distro's/clones splitting from Ubuntu and basing things on Debian and creating shared, Ubuntu like repositories to work along side of the Debian repos. You will see the Ubuntu numbers drop even more when that happens. I said the same thing, about number dropping, just before Mint became so much more popular. Hardcore fans will argue this like they did before. However time will tell.
I miss the old Ubuntu. This new MS/Apple like Ubuntu is just not the same as the old Ubuntu.
13 • Mint Flash plugin manual upgrade (by byku on 2013-12-09 13:42:00 GMT from Poland)
I'm not Mint user, but You can try to upgrade Flash plugin for yourself (I think for other buntu distros it should be similar).
14 • Mint-Canonical Fuss Example of Inherent FOSS-Business Conflicts (by joncr on 2013-12-09 13:51:30 GMT from United States)
It isn't surprising that Canonical is making noises about trying to block use of its binaries in competitive commercial products, especially if their effort to use one common OS on all devices actually succeeds.
A lot of people will freak out about this, in an ill-informed way, using it as another hammer to bash on Canonical.
But, the larger point is that any attempt to marry FOSS code and a for-profit hardware business inevitably exposes the tensions between those two very different ecologies. If you are in the business of selling products that use FOSS binaries (rather than selling support for FOSS server support) then the availability of those binaries, and their source, to others opens a huge door for competitors to put your code on their hardware and undercut your business.
Any rational business would want to prevent that. (In fact, any rational business might be better off deciding that FOSS contains what amounts to a poison pill and back away from any effort to use FOSS code in proprietary hardware.)
As far as access to Ubuntu binaries on Canonical servers goes, as long as the source remains available, anyone, include the Mint team, could rebuild the source and host those binaries on their own servers. This is exactly what CentOS, et al, do with Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Distributions allowing anyone to pull binaries off their servers is one of the expectations that has developed in FOSS culture, but nothing in the licenses mandates that.
15 • Mint and Ubuntu (by silent on 2013-12-09 14:03:16 GMT from France)
The information is a bit scarce, but it can be actually good for Mint to make a license agreement with Ubuntu about using their binary packages for commercial purposes. The result would be a transparent an reliable business model that could boost cooperation between the two leading Linux distributions. On the other hand, I think that Mint should simplify the 1-5 rating of updates (as probably this is somewhat overcomplicated for both some of the users of a beginner-friendly flavour, and for some of the Ubuntu developers), and provide a better integration for Ubuntu and Mint repositories.
16 • @2 PCLunxOS (by kc1di on 2013-12-09 14:16:49 GMT from United States)
I'm not sure about any unsettled stuff, but I fine PCLinuxOS a very good Distro and use it on several machines here. It's one of my go to Distro. and just seems to work for me.
2013.12 is very good. but no need to download each quarterly update, essentially you have a semi rolling distro and as long as you keep it up to date you have the lastest packages.
17 • Flash what? (by Koroshiya Itchy on 2013-12-09 14:49:52 GMT from Belgium)
What flash plugin are you talking about? This one (quote from Adobe site)?
NOTE: Adobe Flash Player 11.2 will be the last version to target Linux as a supported platform. Adobe will continue to provide security backports to Flash Player 11.2 for Linux.
This happened almost 2 years ago...
How do you expect to get updates?
I have the Google Pepper plugin installed in Chromium (not Chrome).
18 • Flash what? (and II) (by Koroshiya Itchy on 2013-12-09 14:54:46 GMT from Belgium)
Besides, if you use flash (as I do) it means that you are not really concerned about security (unless if you do it inside of a well isolated virtual machine, jail, chroot or whatever)...
19 • Ubuntu/Mint license kerfuffle (by Linadian on 2013-12-09 15:14:14 GMT from Canada)
Ubuntu has an uphill battle enforcing licensing of anything that has any GNU/GPL code in it. Unless they wrote a package from scratch and obtained a patent, good luck with that Canonical.
Just in case they forgot the terms of GNU/GPL, you can use, modify, distribute, but any modifications must be shared if built upon existing GNU/GPL code.
Just my $0.02
Speaking of Mint, where is the DW Mint 16 Cinnamon review?
20 • If you were answering to me (by byku on 2013-12-09 15:25:41 GMT from Poland)
I'm not using flash in browser or as standalone player. And yep i forgot that there will be no new flash for Linux. People can watch some YouTube movies via HTML5 (and play some games too).
21 • @ 10 • OpenMandriva vs ROSA - Carlos Felipe (by Chanath on 2013-12-09 15:42:56 GMT from Sri Lanka)
"Visually, they are the same distro."
Carlos, do you have both installed? What's the reason to say that visually, they are same? Is it because of the ROSA menu, or do you find them alike?
As these two have the same Mandriva base, and the Rosa menu, they may look alike, like all the distros with Gnome shell, but do you find them only visually alike or completely alike? Interesting to know.
22 • Cinnamon (by Sasi on 2013-12-09 15:44:55 GMT from Kuwait)
Cinnamon on Ubuntu 14.04 LTS is really superb! Thanks to Mint. I am finally settled on this desktop environment, after testing several distros and DEs. Its Nemo File Manager is very useful.
23 • Crunchbang vs. Complicated... (by Gwilson on 2013-12-09 15:51:58 GMT from United States)
This is perhaps getting wide of any topic in this week's Distrowatch, but really find myself tuning out when I read articles about various desktops and window managers or Canonical feeling threatened by Linux Mint. I don't do much distro hopping anymore, but I do like to try out various distros and see what nifty things developers have done or what other people seem to feel is either necessary or practical in a GUI. In the end, though, I seem to keep coming back to Cruncbang with it's Openbox interface and Debian Stable repository. It is just so blessedly simple, unpretentious and efficient. I have a friend who loves LibreOffice on Win7 but doesn't want to "learn" Linux (she's just a user, not a tinkerer). I have told her that both OS's are running the identical program, and all we really need is a system that gets the program up on the display for us to use. I am greatly appreciative of all the work that developers and maintainers do. I love to play around and tinker with things. I even enjoy the occasional challenge of sorting out some issue. But I primarily just need a distribution and its user interface to just show me a selection of programs I can run and get me on my way. Some of these controversies start to sound like deadly serious religious or political fights. This stuff really isn't a matter of life and death from where I sit.
24 • undercuting business (by Fred on 2013-12-09 16:24:41 GMT from France)
Oracle is undercutting Redhat's business with OEL.
Canonical fond a way to protect their work, with their new license agreement.
Hopefully OSS designers are not acting the same way as Canonical !
It would be funny if OSS blockbusters such as Gimp, LibreOffice or VLC would decide to do the same. And ask for a specific license fee model !
Does anyone at Canonical think about giving money to OSS developers, for any downloaded package ?
Redhat's behavior is much more respectful of what is opensource. Canonical's guys should never forget they are nothing without Open source developers, despite what they provides to OSS !
what Canonical does is simply the end of opensource...
25 • Flash & Mint security (by Pinky Eye on 2013-12-09 16:25:32 GMT from Czech Republic)
"NOTE: Adobe Flash Player 11.2 will be the last version to target Linux as a supported platform. Adobe will continue to provide security backports to Flash Player 11.2 for Linux.
This happened almost 2 years ago...
How do you expect to get updates?"
Ehm, you answered yourself:
"Adobe will continue to provide security backports to Flash Player 11.2 for Linux."
Recent version was 11.2.301, now we have 11.2.327 or something.
Aboout Mint, although it somewhat snowballed with FUD, the main premise is still valid: Mint by default doesn't upgrade rank 4 & 5 updates (mostly Xorg and Kernel packages). The warning about enabling this looks rather severe, so i expect most Mint users won't enable upgrading those packages. Clem may argue about the poor quality of Ubuntu kernel packages/updates, but as Quidsup stated in his review, there is no reason he couldn't use other sources if he is not satisfied with the ones he has.
The issue stands, some of Mint's packages don't recieve security updates by default.
Clem is right that the option is configurable -- the user himself/herself can ultimately decide if the added security is worth possible breakages, just be open about it: some of Mint's packages don't recieve security updates by default.
26 • @19: GPL permits charging a fee for distribution (by Serge on 2013-12-09 16:29:41 GMT from United States)
The GPL explicitly permits charging a fee for distribution of binaries. Canonical might not have the right to charge for access to binaries of software in Ubuntu's repositories under other licenses, though. It appears that Canonical is arguing that their act of building the binaries from source is a creative act that gives them a copyright stake in the resultant binaries and therefore the right to dictate additional terms, and it seems that Clem Lefebvre counters by saying that building binaries is a deterministic act that does not grant Canonical a copyright stake.
I think Clem is right, but I would bet that the vast majority of the software in the Ubuntu repositories is either GPL licensed or permissively licensed. I have a hard time imagining that there is any significant volume of software in there that's under licenses that do not permit charging a fee for distribution of binaries.
A better legal question, in my opinion, is why does Linux Mint have to pay but other users are allowed free access?
Note: I'm not a lawyer, so take my opinion with a grain of salt.
27 • @19 Opinions about sharing (by DavidEF on 2013-12-09 16:47:26 GMT from United States)
The conversations between Mint and Canonical are about binaries. I could be wrong, but I think the GPL says that you must share your code, not that you must freely distribute your binaries. I haven't read it lately, so forgive my ignorance, if I'm mistaken. But if I'm right, it would be like charging for media (floppies, CD's, DVD's etc.) with a free software. If it costs you to distribute, shouldn't you have the right to recover the costs? Or should Canonical have to pay for very expensive server environments, with continuing maintenance needs, and the electricity to power them, and the Mint people have the right to compete with them for free?
28 • RE 24 binaries are not source. Neither are logos.... (by dbrion on 2013-12-09 16:51:37 GMT from France)
"Redhat's behavior is much more respectful of what is opensource. "
Well, RH makes his source available to anyone wishing to clone RH (and helps to remove his logos, which are not free).
Many Centos (or SL, or ...) are very happy getting binaries... and, if they feel it might be complicated (though users are satisfied with the clone), decide to hire Red Hats support...
Thus, everyone is free to recompile ***sources***.... but AFAIK sources are not binaries (and recompiling "deterministically" eats resources)...
BTW, logos are not opensource... And UBUlinux already gave, 120 years ago, the Debian Logo (""la gidouille du père Ubu: -1896- " http://therebantynezoe8.skyblog.com/pics/726057884.jpg or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ubu-Jarry.png ). Maybe they do not want to give their newer logo....
29 • @26 (by byku on 2013-12-09 17:01:23 GMT from Poland)
"A better legal question, in my opinion, is why does Linux Mint have to pay but other users are allowed free access?"
"to prevent Mint from competing with Canonical in front of the same commercial partners."
I think that some vendors could ship computers (maybe some wants?) with preinstaled Mint. And users of Mint don't have to use Canonical clouds, shops and others stuff that could give Canonical money eg. shoping lenses. So maybe Canonical afraid this and want some money from licences?
I wonder if other buntu distros will have to pay?
30 • Binary Fee @12 (by vw72 on 2013-12-09 17:04:33 GMT from United States)
FOSS means the source code has to be available. Since it takes a lot of time, effort and infrastructure to compile all of the binaries for a full distro, if the compilation is viewed as a service, why would Canonical or anybody else not be allowed to charge a competing distro for that service?
The reality is that LM is a direct competitor of Canonical in the commercial space. Under the GPL, Canonical has to make the source code available, but that doesn't extend to the binaries. The same is true for Redhat, SUSE or any other distribution. There is a difference between forking a distro into a new distro and simply redistributing the original binaries from the original distro and claiming it as yours, particularly if you are trademarking and copyrighting your distro.
Besides, there isn't much of a controversy here. From the interview, the licensing fee is in the single digit range. Basically, to have a contract, something of value has to be exchanged. $1 (or even $9 or the equivalent euro amount) doesn't seem too excessive.
31 • Ubuntu Binary Fees (by dragonmouth on 2013-12-09 17:26:47 GMT from United States)
Linux used to be free, now Canonical is trying to make it proprietary. Every day Canonical is acting more and more like Microsoft. Is Canonical going to pay licensing fees for Debian binaries they have "borrowed", or, like Microsoft, are they going to pretend/deny that they don't use any Debian binaries?
32 • @31 (by jaws222 on 2013-12-09 17:31:49 GMT from United States)
"Linux used to be free, now Canonical is trying to make it proprietary. Every day Canonical is acting more and more like Microsoft. Is Canonical going to pay licensing fees for Debian binaries they have "borrowed", or, like Microsoft, are they going to pretend/deny that they don't use any Debian binaries?"
You still have Debian, Fedora, OpenSuse, PCLinuxOS, Arch, Slackware... I could go on. If that's the direction Ubuntu's headed so be it. I have a 12.04 install running Unity and it's okay, but there are much better out there,
33 • On Mint updates being held back (by Kirk M on 2013-12-09 17:35:38 GMT from United States)
Not all kernel and Xorg updates are security related. In my experience, the majority of these updates pertain to bug fixes that often affect only a minority of users, removal of deprecated code/code for hardware that no longer exists or even a simple bump in revision numbers (kernel).
In the case of Linux Mint, if a kernel or Xorg update provides a fix to a security issue, the Mint devs have never failed to get the word out along with instructions in how to receive these critical updates. But these types of kernel and Xorg updates don't happen that often.
Also, this so-called "holding back" of updates by default only applies to the Mint Update Manager (MintUpdate) and nothing else! There's 3 ways to update a Linux Mint install. MintUpdate (filtered by default but user configurable), Apt and Synaptic and the latter two are not affected by MintUpdate's filtering system. They hold back nothing.
Nothing but a "taken-out-of-context" (Grawert's "statement" consisted of 5 or 6 words *in parenthesis* that was posted on an Ubuntu mailing list 2 weeks before the news first picked it up), overblown non-issue.
34 • @30 (by byku on 2013-12-09 17:42:23 GMT from Poland)
Only my speculations (i don't want to start another war).
"$1 (or even $9 or the equivalent euro amount) doesn't seem too excessive."
If a vendor will want to sell eg. 1m computers with Mint on board - will have to paid $1-9m to Canonical. So if it will be small vendor it will be cheaper for him preintsal Ubuntu instead Mint.
But I wonder if other buntu distros will have to pay? Especially if will get more attencion (like Mint) in their country of origin (i mean where live developers of derivative).
But i think if any derivative will not cooperate with big vendor there will be no problems from Canonical.
35 • Woof: regarding Opera browser (by hotdiggettydog on 2013-12-09 17:52:10 GMT from United States)
Don't know if you know this.
Opera has abandoned linux. Yes, there is still a linux version available but its old and rarely updated.
Opera is putting all their resources into Chopera, their new Chrome clone. They are also going strong on the mobile browser as well.
Opera is also closing down its myopera branch in March as stated in Opera blog.
Losing myopera email does not sit well with me and many others.
I was a happy Opera user since version 6. Very disappointing.
36 • @23 (by jaws222 on 2013-12-09 18:13:07 GMT from United States)
"In the end, though, I seem to keep coming back to Cruncbang with it's Openbox interface and Debian Stable repository. It is just so blessedly simple, unpretentious and efficient"
That's not at all surprising. I'd bet if you took a vote of experienced Linux users to rank distros Crunchbang would be #1 on the list. # rules!
37 • Adobe Flash (by denflen on 2013-12-09 18:15:22 GMT from United States)
Regarding updates to Adobe Flash Player: I am running Lubuntu 12.04 on 2 different desktops. One has Google Chrome Browser, version 31.0, and Flash Player version 11.9. The other desktop has the Ubuntu version of Chrome (Chromium that is). It is version 30.0 and Flash Player version 11.2. So the options seem to be if one is concerned about Flash Player, install the Google Chrome browser and get Flash Player updates. If Google Chrome isn't trusted, stick with Chromium Browser and an older version of Flash Player. I can't say which way is better, or I wouldn't have both. Just putting it out there...
38 • Ubuntu is going on the wrong way (by Daniel Mery on 2013-12-09 18:20:44 GMT from United States)
Sad to write this, but Ubuntu is going on so bad. Linux World is a freedom place, not space for mercenaries atittude like this. Really, I prefer Linux Mint, Cinnamon is better than Unity. Mir was really a 'fiasco'.
39 • @38 Re: Ubuntu going the wrong way. (by Rev_Don on 2013-12-09 19:21:00 GMT from United States)
In more ways than one. Canonical is also missing out on a golden opportunity to pick up more XP orphans and are taking all of the distro's based on 'Buntu with it. By that I mean that stubbornly sticking to their 2 year/4 release cycle between LTS releases. The world at large, and Canonical has known that XP support will run out in April 2014 and instead of revamping their cycle to put out a LTS release in 2013 (either 13.04 or 13.10) and having time for the first update to that to mature to the 13.04.1 (or 13.10.1) stage users wanting to switch from XP to a 'Buntu based distro either need to go with a short term release that is only supported for 9 months or with a 2 year old LTS release.
I seriously doubt that these new converts, especially the less technically savvy ones will want to install a new LTS release in a few months. These people just want to use their computers, not mess around with them. And sure there are other distros like PCLinuxOS that are good choices for newbies, but seriously how difficult would it have been to drop an interim release or two and get a fairly fresh LTS out in late 2013. Sorry, but not doing so is simply shortsighted IMNSHO, especially when the vast majority of distros designed for these newbies are based on a Ubuntu and more than likely won't have their LTS release ready until May, well after the XP orphans need to be off of XP.
40 • @39 (by byku on 2013-12-09 19:52:47 GMT from Poland)
Users of XP have old computers. Most of them are too weak for Unity (too weak GPU to render GUI?). If XP users will choose Linux they will swich to less power demand distros (maybe Mint or other buntus) or have to install other DE/WM (without shopping lenses). If they will want to buy computer they will buy one with Windows (most people don't know that they are paying for Windows when buying new computer so the price of the system isn't their concern) or Ubuntu (if there will be no other desktop system preinstalled eg. Mint that is quite popular these days and some users could buy new computer with it).
41 • @40 (by byku on 2013-12-09 19:56:17 GMT from Poland)
But i heard something about Ubuntu with MATE (maybe Mubuntu). Maybe some XP users will choose this configuration and will stay in Ubuntu's ecosystem?
42 • @40 (by jaws222 on 2013-12-09 20:22:50 GMT from United States)
"Users of XP have old computers. Most of them are too weak for Unity (too weak GPU to render GUI?). If XP users will choose Linux they will swich to less power demand distros (maybe Mint or other buntus"
Or they could install Crunchbang and have blazing fast speed on old hardware. But, more than likely they will stick with Windows and run 7 or 8 which would mean buying a new machine since 7 and 8 are bloated resource hogs.
43 • charging for binaries (by Jeff on 2013-12-09 20:24:17 GMT from United States)
I can understand that servers cost money to run.
The problem that I have with this is that somewhere between 80% and 93% of all Ubuntu packages (depending on the source of the statistic) are unchanged from Debian. Built directly from Debian source in Ubuntu.
Where is value being added ?
How much is Ubuntu/Canonical giving back in return ?
44 • Others will follow suit on license fees (by My Opinion on 2013-12-09 20:27:44 GMT from United States)
The end of free Linux is coming. I project that in two years, Linux will no longer be considered free, and all distributions will charge for their use (e.g. "we are just passing on the license fees to the user, that's all"). The end of free Linux is coming.
What do you think? I think I'm right. I wish it weren't true.
45 • XP orphans and #! (by Jeff on 2013-12-09 20:35:53 GMT from United States)
CrunchBang is probably going to be a bit too "scary" looking to many of the XP users.
This being said I use #! myself.
I am converting some of these peoples computers to Debian Xfce.
46 • @45 (by jaws222 on 2013-12-09 20:41:10 GMT from United States)
"CrunchBang is probably going to be a bit too "scary" looking to many of the XP users.
This being said I use #! myself.
I am converting some of these peoples computers to Debian Xfce."
I think you're right. It's a shame because with just a little time and effort Crunchbang is not that hard to learn. Also, many would feel Openbox as a DE is too simplistic. Maybe XFCE Crunchbang.
Debian XFCE? Have you looked at Point Linux yet? They recently put out a MATE version and it is really simple and works great out of the box. Check it out if you get a chance.
47 • More FUD (by RJA on 2013-12-09 20:44:47 GMT from United States)
Now there's someone thinking that Linux will become feeware?! (That wasn't a typo!) What the bleep!
48 • @44 (by jaws222 on 2013-12-09 20:47:35 GMT from United States)
"The end of free Linux is coming. I project that in two years, Linux will no longer be considered free"
So we will you just all go to Arch?
49 • @46 XFCE Crunchbang (by Jeff on 2013-12-09 20:54:03 GMT from United States)
Sadly, Phillip dropped XFCE Crunchbang a while ago, it was in my opinion a great Xfce distro/configuration
50 • @48 (by Jeff on 2013-12-09 20:57:00 GMT from United States)
Debian is still free and likely to stay that way, also.
51 • @49 CrunchBang (by CAI ENG on 2013-12-09 21:05:56 GMT from United States)
I too felt, when Philip dropped XFCE, that I had been missing an old friend. Now, I cannot abide anything but OpenBox. Philip was right, and I was wrong.
CrunchBang, in my testing experience, over the past several years, is the simplest, fastest, and easiest to learn. It is intimidating to an absolute novice, because it is so different in appearance from XP's desktop (XFCE is even more cluttered!). Anyone willing to spend FIVE minutes with it, however, will understand how lovely this distribution is.
I also enjoy and use several other distros, including PCLOS LXDE, and Lubuntu, and I have found them both excellent. I began with UNIX in the mid 70's, and graduated to Linux with Slackware, RedHat, Suse, in the mid 90's, but now, when I try any of those variants, I am just amazed at how little they have improved, compared with CrunchBang.
52 • damned if they do, damned if they don't (by tomas on 2013-12-09 21:10:34 GMT from United States)
"packages 80-93% are unchanged from Debian"
Wow, i've found fault by looking at the other portion, the changed packages. Too often I've found trivial changes (edit a glade file to widen the layout of a column. no other changes, period), plus unwarranted (or dubious) introduction of dependencies into the changed packages, such that they depend on other "-version184.108.40.206-ubuntu" (whatever) modded packages ~~ as though the intent is to render them unusable upstream.
For example, introduction of dependencies related to AppArmor or some other brick in the proprietary canonical stack. My criticism has been that it's a stretch to claim, or to believe, that these "add value" to the modded (sourced from upstream) packages. Thus, canonical seems to be intent on impinging upon our freedom (freedom of choice, on a per-package level) forcing an all-or-nothing scenario -- either drink our koolaid, in the prescribed manner, in the glass we provide... or you're free to (for all we care) stay thirsty.
53 • @31 - Re Ubuntu Paying Debian (by Tony on 2013-12-09 21:12:19 GMT from Canada)
You really should take a look at some of the base packages in Debian and see who the maintainer is. Now go see where they work. I think you might be surprised and it will answer your question. LOL
54 • @42 (by byku on 2013-12-09 21:18:02 GMT from Poland)
If they will not buy new computer they will probably choose distros like #!, Puppy or WattOS (there are plenty of less power demmand distros with small but nice communities and developers who listen).
We will see.
55 • @51 (by jaws222 on 2013-12-09 21:38:41 GMT from United States)
I too felt, when Philip dropped XFCE, that I had been missing an old friend. Now, I cannot abide anything but OpenBox. Philip was right, and I was wrong"
He certainly was, but my first go-round in Statler I put installed XFCE on my Openbox distro because at the time I was not familiar nor did I like Openbox. I'm pretty sure the same can be done in Waldorf if one chose to do so. But, yeah Philip was right! Openbox all the way!!
56 • Re: Ubuntu/Mint binaries kerfuffle, My apologies (by Linadian on 2013-12-09 22:41:33 GMT from Canada)
I stand corrected, if it's about Mint using Canonical's servers, then they will have to shut EVERYBODY out and put a secret encrypted signature in their OS similar to what MS does, no match, no updates, there's no other way around this.
57 • @52-You make a lot of good points (by Linadian on 2013-12-09 22:57:19 GMT from Canada)
I think there is a lot of sour grapes at play here and mirroring of MS's mistakes, ironically they both went with a bizarre GUI and spyware (I detest Ubuntu 'customizing' firefox with a forced plug-in, I shut it off and un-install it ASAP, I personally run Kubunt), because Mint booted Ubuntu from the #1 spot on this site and is running circles around them DE GUI wise, Mint is the one under attack. Check out this DW 'based on Ubuntu' search results, SEVENTY EIGHT distros: http://distrowatch.com/search.php?basedon=Ubuntu
58 • You make a lot of good points (by gee7 on 2013-12-10 00:11:15 GMT from United Kingdom)
Check out this DW 'based on Ubuntu' search results, SEVENTY EIGHT distros: http://distrowatch.com/search.php?basedon=Ubuntu
Only 87 distros based on Ubuntu?
There are 142 distros if you check out "based on Debian."
59 • Gnu/Linux, Ubuntu, Other Distros (by Ron on 2013-12-10 00:52:10 GMT from United States)
Ubuntu has a way of keeping their name in the news. They know how to get attention. As far as some saying that the days of Linux being free are numbered? I strongly disagree with that. Ubuntu is not the heart nor center of Gnu/Linux. Their goal of making money in itself is not a bad thing. I personally have no problem with that. Lets take a look at another Business. Red Hat. Now their focus is not on the desktop, though there is Fedora, yet they do strongly support opensource and are very fair with how they do things, while still making money. Oracle Linux is a competitor yet they base their product on Red Hat Enterprise. Than you have Centos(Fedora/Red Hat) and SME(Fedora/Centos), free alternatives. Look at the stock quotes for Red Hat and Oracle,
Red Hat - http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/rht
Oracle - http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/orcl
Red Hat, despite other alternatives and competition, is still doing better and they are respecting the Gnu/Linux community and spirit.
Why doesn't Ubuntu do something along those lines for the Desktop/Mobile market? When they first came out they encouraged others to clone/fork Ubuntu. Now it seems it is the opposite. Ubuntu can't and will never be able to destroy what Gnu/Linux is. They will have strong opposition from many, many others including big companies. Ubuntu needs to mend its relationship with the Linux community somehow.
Besides there are a lot of other great alternatives to Ubuntu and Ubuntu based distros. To name a few,
Debian (of course)
And of course for those of us with the know how,
Of course there are more. Just take a look at the Distrowatch list. Gnu/Linux is here to stay and it will always be free. Sadly though some think they can become the next Microsoft or Apple by taking Gnu/Linux and turning it into something else, well trying to anyways. Honestly Gnu/Linux distros, any of them, can not survive or survive long without the support and backing of the Linux community.
60 • @40 Re: XP Orphans (by Rev_Don on 2013-12-10 02:54:21 GMT from United States)
If you take the time to actually read my post you'll notice that I stated Canonical and 'Buntu based distros, not Ubuntu specifically. I totally agree that saddling a newbie Linux user with an abomination like Unity (even if their computer supported it properly)would be a huge mistake. But a 'Buntu based distro with Mate, XFCE, or LXDE would be fairly simple for them to get comfortable with and would run quite nicely on the Pentium 4s with onboard Intel graphics and 512meg to 1gig ram that so many of them would have.
And as much as I would prefer to have them on Debian, PCLinuxOS, or even CentOS, the chances of them finding someone else besides me around here that would know about any of the other distros is somewhere between slim and none. Most people around here think that all Linux is Ubuntu and don't have a clue about anything else. I don't want to be the only one supporting them when there are some other 'Buntu users around to help shoulder the support load.
61 • Mint drama (by :wq on 2013-12-10 03:18:43 GMT from United States)
It was mentioned in comment #33, but it bears reiterating that the mintUpdate ruleset only affects mintUpdate. Using APT/aptitude or Synaptic (which comes included in Mint OOTB) for upgrades, one doesn't encounter this issue. While I expect novice users to use mintUpdate, it isn't the only option. In the end, some Ubuntu devs and users are no less culpable than some others outside their community for fostering an air of tribalism, but I have no interest this soap opera. It is my opinion that the Linux Mint team are trying to do what they believe to be in the general best interests of their users. They are not politicking for other distributions to follow suit. I am content to leave this as an internal Mint community self-determination discussion. If the majority of the Mint community wants a mintUpdate policy change, I believe it will probably come about. If they don't, it won't. Whenever I have Mint installed for a test drive, I don't use mintUpdate anyway; I personally prefer working from the console, but, as previously mentioned, mintUpdate is configurable.
In his statement, Clem touched on the point that (since around the time of Firefox 4 & Mint 9) Mint uses Ubuntu's user-agent string (and thus, since the time of Firefox 4/Mint 9, it will be recorded as "Ubuntu" on sites like Wikimedia's Traffic Analysis Report). Also, as previously discussed in DWW, any derivatives that make use of the Ubuntu security servers are counted as being "Ubuntu" when Canonical provides Ubuntu usage estimates (to be clear, I am not blaming Canonical for this or suggesting that they are being disingenuous because of it; it's not their job to try to sort it out, and, more to the point, in those cases it is Ubuntu's servers that are being used). While exact usage statistics will never be attainable, I would welcome any changes that provide even just a little added clarity. If charging for access to Ubuntu binary repos is indeed in the pipeline (it's too early to say with absolute certainty at this point in time), if it encourages Ubuntu derivatives to become more autonomous and self-reporting, good. Let Linux Mint be counted as "Linux Mint", elementary OS as "elementary OS", etc, and let Ubuntu be counted as "Ubuntu". Otherwise, let them all be counted as Debian(-ish) :)
If producing binary repos on the scale of Ubuntu is too much for smaller Ubuntu-derivative distribution projects to bear, perhaps a collection of individual volunteers, organizations and companies could provide this service free of charge.
As regards LMDE updates, for people who prefer LMDE over vanilla Debian Testing, but prefer more frequent update packs, SolydXK receives monthly update packs.
62 • Ubuntu, license fees and graphical interface (by Thomas Mueller on 2013-12-10 03:26:10 GMT from United States)
I don't like the possibly upcoming binary license fees and prefer a less-configured distro where I can choose what packages and what graphical interface I prefer. I can find my way around IceWM better than GNOME 3! FreeBSD and NetBSD offer the ability to build software using a framework (FreeBSD ports or NetBSD pkgsrc) that keeps track of dependencies (unlike Slackware) and also the facility to build/update the entire base system from source. I'm trying to find what Linux distros or package managers offer those abilities (Gentoo?).
One downside of overreliance on graphic interfaces such as in Ubuntu is not knowing what really happens under the covers.
Support for new hardware and software tends to come to Linux ahead of the BSDs.
I became an infant mortality on the Arch Linux emailing lists when I asked such a question, rejected by the overaggressive moderator because he thought I should have found the answer on the wiki inside one minute (I still haven't). But I still have burning curiosity about pacman with Arch Build System.
63 • @44 (by :wq on 2013-12-10 03:30:43 GMT from United States)
Let's not give in to despair and doomsday thinking. Will GNU/Linux and the distributions thereof change in the next couple of years? Yes. Will all of those changes be positive? No. Will all of Linuxdom become an unrecognizable dystopia? No.
I am probably more concerned about the choices and impact Valve and Google make moving forward than I am about the impact Canonical or Oracle attempt.
64 • Mint outdated? ha ha ha (by Hugo Masse on 2013-12-10 03:40:33 GMT from Mexico)
I installed LMDE yesterday and after updating I am running Firefox 25 and the flashplugin is 11,2,202,310 from sept 24, 2013. I also realised that the infamous mint-flashplugin 2011.10.19 is a metapackage not the actual plugin. And finally, that on Synaptic you also have a flashplugin-nonfree to download the latest version from Adobe, if you so desire.
65 • @59 I totally agree, more than just Ubuntu (by Linadian on 2013-12-10 04:12:53 GMT from Canada)
Ubuntu is NOT the end all to be all, as a matter of fact, there is a reason they're losing the faithful, I will probably need my flame retardant suit after saying this, but Ubuntu is slowing becoming a mess and a joke. To further their alienation, they are going with the Mir graphics server soon, while the rest of the Linux world is sticking with X or going with Wayland. Gnome 3.x is not helping either, a smartphone GUI belongs on a smartphone.
When all the smoke clears, I can think of very little actual original Ubuntu packages/apps, most of what I use is cross platform anyway, meaning they will run on practically ANY distro, so if Ubuntu wants to shut me and millions of others out, not very many of us will cry or miss the drama, their developers bicker like opposing politicians, it's sad to watch. It might safe to say at this point Mark is the Bill of the Linux world, lol. ;-D
Number of Comments: 65
Display mode: DWW Only • Comments Only • Both DWW and Comments
|• Issue 537 (2013-12-09): OpenMandriva 2013.0, Gentoo developer interview, project Neon, Linux Mint and security|
|• Issue 536 (2013-12-02): Impressions of openSUSE 13.1, Ubuntu Touch, FreeBSD 10 delay, troubleshooting OS lock-ups|
|• Issue 535 (2013-11-25): GhostBSD 3.5, Debian and MATE, Ubuntu 14.04 features, security updates|
|• Issue 534 (2013-11-18): Review of OpenBSD 5.4, Fedora on ARM, menu names vs command-line names|
|• Issue 533 (2013-11-11): Point Linux 2.2, Pisi update, Debian and Xfce, Bruno Cornec interview|
|• Issue 532 (2013-11-04): Ubuntu and Kubuntu 13.10, Debian's init, FreeBSD's PKG-NG, Linux on ARM|
|• Issue 531 (2013-10-28): PC-BSD 9.2, openSUSE testing, nftables, upgrade pros and cons|
|• Issue 530 (2013-10-21): Kwheezy 1.2, DPL interview, Zenwalk's future, keeping up with vulnerabilities|
|• Issue 529 (2013-10-14): Ubuntu's Mir, dmesg and photorec tips, Tiny Tiny RSS|
|• Issue 528 (2013-10-07): Semplice 5, Haiku package management, Klaus Knopper interview, making custom distro|
|• Issue 527 (2013-09-30): Tiny Core Linux 5.0, SteamOS, moving operating system to new computer|
|• Issue 526 (2013-09-23): Look at ArchBang 2013.09.01, BSD Now, kernel stats, command-line tips|
|• Issue 525 (2013-09-16): The Official Ubuntu Server Book, FreeBSD 10 and OpenBSD 5.4, Skype alternatives|
|• Issue 524 (2013-09-09): Look at LXLE 12.04.3, Ubuntu's new package format, Secure Boot and dual-booting|
|• Issue 523 (2013-09-02): OpenIndiana 151a8, openSUSE "Evergreen", GNOME and DuckDuckGo, running apps from RAM|
|• Issue 522 (2013-08-26): Look at gNewSense 3.0, Ubuntu Edge fundraising failure, exploring GPL|
|• Issue 521 (2013-08-19): Review of Korora 19, Fedora considers return to "Core", Haiku package management|
|• Issue 520 (2013-08-12): Salix OS 14.0.1 "KDE", Xubuntu experiments with XMir, managing passwords with KeePass|
|• Issue 519 (2013-08-05): Review of Porteus 2.0, Kubuntu lays out plans for Wayland adoption, adjusting system swappiness|
|• Issue 518 (2013-07-29): MidnightBSD 0.4, Razor-qt, Ubuntu Edge, mounting infected drives|
|• Issue 517 (2013-07-22): Zorin OS 7 "Lite", Slackware turns 20, UbuntuForums compromise, Raspbian as home server, Tor|
|• Issue 516 (2013-07-15): Review of Fedora 19 "KDE", Shuttleworth on Mir, Seth Vidal, Kingsoft Office for Linux|
|• Issue 515 (2013-07-08): Whonix 0.5.6 and Deepin 12.12, MintBox, processor capabilities, distros for Raspberry Pi|
|• Issue 514 (2013-07-01): Peppermint Four, Mir, Mandriva forks, ThinkPenguin on libre hardware|
|• Issue 513 (2013-06-24): Look at ROSA, PC-BSD updates, Xen4CentOS6, Slacko vs Precise, Mageia interview, shells|
|• Issue 512 (2013-06-17): Trisquel 6.0, RHEL 7 with GNOME Classic, from Linux to FreeBSD, first look at Wayland|
|• Issue 511 (2013-06-10): Mint 15 impressions, GNOME Classic, Ubuntu Community portal, Absolute OpenBSD|
|• Issue 510 (2013-06-03): Impressions of aptosid 2013-01, Wayland comes to Raspberry Pi, maintaining DNS settings|
|• Issue 509 (2013-05-27): Mageia 3, Debian GNU/Hurd, RebeccaBlackOS with Wayland, ports|
|• Issue 508 (2013-05-20): Review of Debian 7.0, interviews with Clement Lefebvre and Gaël Duval, scripting with xdotool|
|• Issue 507 (2013-05-13): Impressions of Calculate Linux, 13.4, Ubuntu's portable packages, mintDrivers|
|• Issue 506 (2013-05-06): Ubuntu and Kubuntu 13.04, Debian "Wheezy", Slackware on systemd, distros for Raspberry Pi|
|• Issue 505 (2013-04-29): First look at PCLinuxOS 2013.04, Saucy Salamander, Remastersys and System Imager, Linux containers|
|• Issue 504 (2013-04-22): Look at Bodhi 2.3.0, Ubuntu 13.04 features, building OpenBSD ports, opening large files|
|• Issue 503 (2013-04-15): CentOS versus Scientific Linux, PCLinuxOS 64, Lucas Nussbaum, ZFS/Btrfs versus ext4|
|• Issue 502 (2013-04-08): Look at Mint 201303 "Debian", Ubuntu versus openSUSE, comparing ZFS and Btrfs file systems|
|• Issue 501 (2013-04-01): KANOTIX 2013 and GhostBSD 3.0, openSUSE Rescue-CD, Haiku package management, computer forensics|
|• Issue 500 (2013-03-25): Look at openSUSE 12.3, Ubuntu release changes, Debian backports, growing divide|
|• Issue 499 (2013-03-18): MINIX 3.2.1, openSUSE 12.3 on desktop, Ubuntu GNOME and UbuntuKylin, distros for musicians, KolibriOS|
|• Issue 498 (2013-03-11): Sabayon Linux 11, Ubuntu's Mir, Linux malware|
|• Issue 497 (2013-03-04): Rebellin Linux 1.00 "Adrenaline", rolling-release Ubuntu, Arch vs spin-offs, justification and diversity|
|• Issue 496 (2013-02-25): Review of Chakra 2013.02, The Book of GIMP, Ubuntu and privacy, FreeNAS vs NAS4Free|
|• Issue 495 (2013-02-18): SparkyLinux 2.1 "Ultra", Fedora 19 schedule, Xubuntu on DVD, cloud privacy|
|• Issue 494 (2013-02-11): FreeBSD 9.1, web server stats, Anaconda, rolling-release PC-BSD, fixing broken packages in Arch|
|• Issue 493 (2013-02-04): UberStudent 2.0, OmniBoot 1.0, MariaDB, Enlightenment 0.17|
|• Issue 492 (2013-01-28): Fedora 18 review, systemd, Kali Linux, Ubuntu Unleashed|
|• Issue 491 (2013-01-21): Fuduntu 2013.1, Fedora 18 desktop choices, Consort, accessing encrypted drive|
|• Issue 490 (2013-01-14): Look at Manjaro Linux 0.8.3, openSUSE on Chromebook, Able2Extract 8.0|
|• Issue 489 (2013-01-07): PC-BSD 9.1, Arch spin-offs, rolling-releases, year-end PHR stats, removing applications|
|• Full list of all issues|
|Linux Identity |
NEW The Best of Linux 2013: Fedora 19, Mageia 3, Mint 15, openSUSE 12.3, Ubuntu 13.04
68 pages, one DVD
|Linux Identity |
NEW The Best of Linux 2013: Fedora 19, Mageia 3, Mint 15, openSUSE 12.3, Ubuntu 13.04
68 pages, one DVD