| DistroWatch Weekly
|Linux Foundation Training
|Reader Comments • Jump to last comment
1 • Removing pre-installed apllications (by Didier Spaier on 2013-01-07 10:41:06 GMT from France) |
reminder for Slackware users: just make a full installation and keep it so, you will save yourself a lot of hassle.
The only good reasons not do so so IMHO are an embedded system and/or shortage of disk space.
2 • ... and there were no missing hits for bodhi either (by meanpt on 2013-01-07 11:00:55 GMT from Portugal)
... which keeps being fast, as distros used to be, and better, profiting on the E17 maturing an on the best the buntu base is providing. Congratulations to the founder, developing team and to the community.
3 • PC-BSD (by kc1di on 2013-01-07 12:11:13 GMT from United States)
Thanks Jesse for the review this week. I haven't not tried PC-BSD in a couple years but gave up on it last time because it was so difficult to dual boot with. has that changed any? I may have to give it a try again.
Cheers and Happy New Year!
4 • pc-bsd (by greg on 2013-01-07 12:12:32 GMT from Slovenia)
it seems to me that pc bsd is on the right track concerning system usability. i think linux can learn a lot from them. even single distribution. the PBI is what it got me to download their manual. haven't downloaded the OS. it would seem to me that main issue is hardware compatibility and probably also software (as there might not be so many prepackaged stuff for BSD. i could be wrong though. i would certianly liek to see more of such tools in linux. and make them polished and make them work (bugs, bugs, and more old bugs...)
5 • suggestion: install on USB (by AliasMarlowe on 2013-01-07 12:45:12 GMT from Finland)
I have a suggestion for evaluating distributions of Linux or BSD. Can it be easily installed on a USB stick? How well (or how fast) does it run when the USB stick is booted?
Note that this is NOT running a live install image from USB, as these generally do not support persistence of installed applications, user accounts, or other settings across boots. Obviously, installing on USB precludes use of a swap partition on the USB stick (or on the fixed disk of the PC, in many cases).
For example, I have installed Kubuntu onto a 8GB USB stick, and it runs tolerably well once it has booted. The boot time is definitely slower than from a live USB or live CD, but I have been able to install a few non-default applications, and can save settings and files between boots. One reason for doing this is so I can use my work laptop for private internet access when traveling, without needing to boot its Windows partition or otherwise access its encrypted fixed disk (this use has been approved by IT department).
6 • 64-bit ISO images (by Jon Wright on 2013-01-07 13:03:59 GMT from Vietnam)
Having never downloaded a 64-bit image before, I suddenly feel quite behind the times. And yet Jesse is still installing exclusively by means of spinning plastic discs.
7 • @6 (by Nobody Special on 2013-01-07 13:26:07 GMT from Canada)
"And yet Jesse is still installing exclusively by means of spinning plastic discs."
Same here, dunno, just can't be bothered fiddling in the BIOS, etc, and if I like what I test, I have a good PERMANENT copy. I still back up pics and docs to optical, I trust it the most.
64-bit is better and faster, older formats get less and less attention and support, I see no point running 32-bit when my machine is 64-bit capable.
8 • Removing pre-installed apps (by dragonmouth on 2013-01-07 13:48:46 GMT from United States)
The ease and danger level of removing pre-installed apps depends on the distro. Since Ubuntu and all its derivatives integrate most of the default apps into the system, it is very hard to get rid of the. It is also very easy to make the system unusable by inadvertently removing "ubuntu-minimal" or some other vital package. OTOH, in antiX and siduction, application packages, for the most part, do not have system related packages as dependencies. This makes the removal of pre-installed packages much easier and much harder to disable the system inadvertently.
9 • Re # 1 - Slackware reference (by Huh? on 2013-01-07 14:18:51 GMT from Canada)
Re #1 - Suggestion to just do a complete Slackware installation:
Did I Miss something - perhaps in the PCBSD review? I have been using Slackware for years, always doing a custom installation where I choose what packages to install. Never had any trouble using this approach, so only occasionally need to upgrade a package because of a security update. So not clear why the suggestion? Looked over the article again to see if I missed something. Maybe it's just because it's Monday morning/ Clarification would be appreciated.
The review on PCBSD was greatly appreciated. Have thought about tinkering with FreeBSD. Using PCBSD seems to be an easy way to do so. I usually work at the command line, where Slackware excels, but having such a well thought out desktop approach might be useful on some spare office PCs for users coming over from the Windows world. One of the complaints I frequently hear about Linux is what a mashup approach it takes. While I am happy with that, the comment about the BSDs having a single unified approach certainly has merit in many cases. So again, thanks for the review.
BTW - for those confortable working at the command line, you should definitely have a look at Finnix 107 released this past week. It joins Systemrescue, Puppy, Backtrack, and UBCD as part of my "must have" toolkit.
10 • Re #7 — spinning disks DO require maintanance (by Jeff Dickey on 2013-01-07 14:30:10 GMT from Singapore)
I have (the remains of) a 6250bpi 9-track tape reel next to my optical-media storage as a reminder: media instability + technological change = inability to read backups, sooner than you think.
While a single DVD can hold well over thirty times the data of that now-comically-outsized tape, optical media (particularly -R and -RW discs) don't last forever. This is even more true when the discs are not in ideal storage, as is the case in homes and most small businesses. I have some barely ten-year-old DVD-R (and older CD-R) media that can no longer be read reliably by any of my current drives. Two of the computers I use on a daily basis have no optical drive at all, a trend that is becoming more, rather than less prevalent.
THe few dozen images and other documents I care about are kept in an airtight box with several silica-gel desiccant packets, replaced periodically. Barring a fire, I expect them to last for decades. But DVDs don't react particularly well to fire, either. My downloaded "test data" discs, of course, don't rate that level of protection. :-P
tl:dr; If fire doesn't eliminate your backups, technology eventually will. What will you want to access a decade from now, and how sure are you that you'll be able to?
11 • 64-bit question (by Bewbies on 2013-01-07 14:59:50 GMT from United States)
I have an old 2008 model Acer laptop with 64-bit capabilities but the drawback to its hardware specs is that its maximum RAM capacity upgrade is 2GB. It originally came with 1GB when I bought it but I did upgrade it to 2GB.
I've read that if you're going to run 64-bit OSes, that you should have no less than 3GB (preferably 4GB) of RAM. Apparently 64-bit uses a bit more RAM than its 32-bit counterparts? I'd be willing to use 64-bit OSes, but don't want to experience these so called performance drawbacks. Anyone else here with this same predicament? Suggestions?
12 • PC-BSD (by Koro on 2013-01-07 15:34:42 GMT from Belgium)
IMHO, PC-BSD is one of the best desktop operating systems out there. With some financial support and increasing popularity (required to get more drivers and applications ported), it would pulverise any Linux distribution, including the most popular ones. And who says this is a happy Debian user.
13 • PCBSD (by mikew777 on 2013-01-07 15:40:23 GMT from United States)
I've always liked PCBSD but for the last several versions starting around the 8 series I've had an issue with their not working with the network cards in my desktop machines. I run and test several Linux machines and am currently running and have run Linux Mint for years now and never have networking issues or driver issues in Linux. I'm not sure why there is always a problem with the BSD's and networking and video driver issues. At this time and with all the driver development everything should work with BSD as it does with Linux. I would like to try it again but until they get their driver issues resolved they aren't going to get a lot of people using the BSD's.
14 • Installation method (by Jesse on 2013-01-07 15:49:42 GMT from Canada)
>> "And yet Jesse is still installing exclusively by means of spinning plastic discs."
I'm not sure why you would think that. I moved last year to doing almost all of my installs and testing via a USB thumb drive. The review of PC-BSD was a rare exception where I decided to use a DVD. The only other time I've used a optical disc in the past several months was while testing Puppy, which I planned to run on older hardware which did not support booting from USB.
15 • @Bewbies (by DSMan195276 on 2013-01-07 16:21:49 GMT from United States)
Whether or not you could run a 64-bit version of an OS with 2 GB of RAM depends much more on what distro you want to use and not that it's 64-bit vs. 32-bit. 64-bit provides a speed-up by doubling the amount of data that can get to the CPU (As well as from the CPU to memory, etc.). Thanks to that, the distro should experience a speed boot (though in my experience, I've never really noticed a difference. It could just be me though, I've only had 1 64-bit PC). 64-bit PC's do end-up using more RAM because programs will use 64-bit values by default instead of 32-bit, so most of your programs will experience some more RAM usage.
But let's look at it this way. Windows recommends 1 GB of RAM for Win 7 32-bit and 2 GB of RAM for Win 7 64-bit. That's expecting a 100% double in RAM usage by programs (Which is never going to happen, there is lots of data stored in RAM that's the same regardless of your CPU size). And now if we look at Ubuntu (12.04), for me when I boot Ubuntu and log-in, I'm usually around 500 MB of RAM used. So even if we saw a complete double, 64-bit Ubuntu would still only use 1 GB when you log-in, which is still only half of what you have. In reality, the amount wouldn't completely double. So using 2 GB of RAM for a 64-bit Linux distro should be perfectly fine for normal usage. You'd have to decide for yourself if you'll have enough RAM for what you intend to do though, because I don't know all of what you use your computer for. If you have a 64-bit CPU, it's worth at least trying the 64-bit version of your distro and seeing how it compares, in general you should see at least a slight speed increase.
16 • RE 5 : usb installations: (by dbrion on 2013-01-07 16:45:13 GMT from France)
Well, I installed successfully FC13 up to FC 17 on USB sticks (and installed Mageia 1 and 2 ) The main issue is with package management (writing is slow on such flash based sticks. If one has an external rotating disk (sometimes I make one of them with an universal (S)ATA-USB adapter), this is much cheaper and faster in writing....
With Mageia 1, I was happy enough to give an USB mechanical disk to my nephew (he has the same laptop than me), and there were no issues.
I prefer **today** Fedoras to mageias : what was interesting with Mandriva was some complicated to compute software, such as Scilab and they were not kept in mageia....
17 • @DSMan195276 (by Bewbies on 2013-01-07 16:54:45 GMT from United States)
Thanks for your thoughts. Since this laptop is not my main rig, I'll likely bite the bullet and give a 64-bit distro a spin. It's currently running 32-bit Mint. For no more than I use this laptop, it can't hurt to experiment with it a bit.
18 • #7 (by zykoda on 2013-01-07 17:38:27 GMT from United Kingdom)
"64-bit is better and faster, older formats get less and less attention and support, I see no point running 32-bit when my machine is 64-bit capable."
If your results are required to 10 places of decimals, then I would agree. If three decimal places is good enough, why waste the extra resources computing 10?
If you need intermediate results at a higher precision than the final answer, then you probably need to use a more stable method. Some methods are notoriously prone to numerical instability. Of course calculating "pi" to millions of decimal places requires specialist methods, just as fast code cracking needs quantum computers. But encryption is a little less safe than it was last year with recent new insights. Of course most CPU cores are relatively lightly used unless openmp (or similar) is used. Then again there is much wastage in the Graphics Processor which can easily outstrip a CPU 10 fold on selected problems with its hundreds of cores! Why use General Relativity and space-time curvature tensors when Dynamic Universe provides more simplistic methods? The velocity of light is not constant. Just a few revelations. YMMV.
19 • @11 (by Nobody Special on 2013-01-07 17:39:52 GMT from Canada)
Meh, even a distro with KDE only has a 200-300MB memory footprint after booting, my machine has 8GB RAM and I have never seen it exceed 2GB even under the heaviest of loads (lots of 'multi-tasking'). What might help is scaling back the swap area usage, swapping is totally unnecessary when there is plenty of physical RAM free still.
The default value is 60, I set mine to 0 but some people feel 10 is 'safe'. I run Kubuntu so this is for Ubuntu based systems, this may differ with other distros.
sudo <default text editor name here> /etc/sysctl.conf
Search for this line and adjust the value, add it if not present:
You can also research unnecessary processes running and shut them off permanently, for example, Blue Tooth, I own none and don't use it.
IMHO, 'feature rich' modern distros should be run on at least a dual core with a decent GPU.
20 • @9 Slackware reference (by Didier Spaier on 2013-01-07 18:43:21 GMT from France)
I agree that there is no problem in doing a custom installation of Slackware for someone experienced. In fact, Slackware's installer even provides a smart way of making a custom installation (and then clone it if needed) through the use of tagfiles.
But for newbies, doing that not knowing the dependencies too often results in help requests on http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/slackware-14/ that could have been easily avoided, that's why I recommend to make a full install - at least to newcomers on Slackware.
To anybody wanting to know in which respect Slackware's packages management system differ from the ones found in many other Linux distribution, I recommend reading following blog post from Ruarí Ødegaard: http://my.opera.com/ruario/blog/2011/09/26/slackware-package-and-dependency-management.
21 • PC-BSD 9.1 (by Dave Postles on 2013-01-07 20:20:07 GMT from United Kingdom)
I've used PC-BSD in the past and quite liked it. The installation process is long (like all BSDs, including Ghost-BSD which used to have a nice Gnome 2 desktop in previous incarnations), so do have the cup of tea to hand.
22 • PCBSD - Pear - PCLinuxOS (by Sam on 2013-01-07 20:30:28 GMT from United States)
I too wonder how PC-BSD's dual-boot is doing these days. Last time I tried it (think in the 8.x release) it borked my Thinkpad's MBR. While I loathe a certain company in Redmond, I need its software for work. Without a true "testing" laptop in the house currently, I'd be very hesitant to try out PC-BSD again even though this is a pretty glowing and interesting review.
Pear - when is Pear going to catch the attention of Apple for pretty blatantly copying Apple's desktop icons? I don't know if Apple copied these from someone else, but given that company's tendency these days to sue, sue, sue, and sue anyone with even the most remote resemblance to Apple's design... I sort of see "Lindows" all over again.
PCLinuxOS - would it be fair to include this distro in a list of "Most likely to drop out of the Top 50 in 2013"?
23 • plastic disks (by Ron on 2013-01-07 21:11:33 GMT from United States)
"And yet Jesse is still installing exclusively by means of spinning plastic discs."
Awh shucks, one of my desktops has a mouse with a tail!
My eyeglasses are three years old!
I did get rid of the cassette audio tapes.
Thanks Jesse for the great start of 2013.
24 • x86 are still around (by RayRay on 2013-01-07 23:16:54 GMT from United States)
You are kidding, I can understand why a distro might decide to only produce a 64 bit version (that requires a certain amount of effort), but if a 32 bit version is available why can't you provide the link to it. Believe it or not there are readers that only have access to 32 bit machines. There are still people who need distros for legacy machines perhaps you'll stop covering distros like Puppy Linux or DSL.
25 • PCBSD (by Anonymous Coward on 2013-01-08 00:12:05 GMT from United States)
Clearly someone at Distrowatch is on the take from someone on the PCBSD team. That system is terrible for a modern laptop experience. You want to use one of those exotic features like..... your laptop's touchpad? Hahahahah good luck with that.
And have fun recovering from the train wreck it is likely to make of your existing boot configuration.
This system makes it easier to get a desktop environment on BSD. But it's a pyrrhic victory since it offers nothing in terms of usability or hardware support, in case by some miracle you succeed in booting it.
Just go to their forums and look at the long line of problems posted with (usually) no answers, or (sometimes) answers proclaiming BSD's superiority to Linux.
What a joke.
26 • PC-BSD (by Pierre on 2013-01-08 01:03:04 GMT from Germany)
As I recently posted all my machines are running openSUSE 12.2 (64bit) at the moment... or at least were running.
But because I tinkered around a little too much on my laptop I decided it was time for a clean reinstall.
Although I was very happy with my openSUSE 12.2 install I further decided that I want to use this opportunity to test drive the newly released PC-BSD 9.1 or 'clean' FreeBSD 9.1.
Disappointingly I ended up with errors on both, PC-BSD and FreeBSD. This might be due to my lack of experience with BSDs because I am using Linux exclusively and never really tried BSDs until last week.
With PC-BSD my DVD-iso was not able even load the kernel and my thumb drive image of PC-BSD finally was not able to deal with my old Radeon X1400 which is my laptop's graphics adapter. Poor for a newly released operating system not to be able to support a more than 6 years old hardware.
I was - like Jesse - very excited about the features, but not a single feature is of any use if the system is not able to run properly on an 5 year old machine which is not having any hardware that were out of the ordinary.
So I finally ended up really disappointed about the latest PC-BSD release. The FreeBSD what so ever was not able to properly install a healthy system, too.
Very sad because I had loved to use a FreeBSD or PC-BSD because of many features that are actually not available in Linux at the moment.
ZFS for example is one of these that really made me think about using BSDs for quite some time when I first discovered the power of ZFS while dealing with a Solaris server.
Another very nice feature is the jails system which I was really excited to test drive, too.
Whatsoever. Finally I was once again installing Linux on the laptop, Arch Linux this time. It must be at least 2 years that I last installed Arch and was quite surprised to see that the install process got even more complicated than it already as been before.
Sure, as you see me writing this comment now on my Arch powered laptop I had no problems getting Arch installed and running. But nevertheless it was quite some shock to see the install process getting more complicated than user friendly. It's a clear that this gives you a little more power of the overall process. But to which costs!
Now that I am running Arch, I am quite curious to see if I will end up having issues like I had the last time with Arch. It was running really rock solid and smooth until an update messed it up although nothing was mentioned in the news on the Arch website.
Additionally I am curious to see how it will go on with my two Btrfs partitions I set up for my root and home. I did so because it is sounding promising to finally bring the ZFS functionality to Linux it is said to be the future standard Linux filesystem.
So this are my 2 cents until now. :)
Greetings from Germany.
27 • Re #25/26 PC-BSD (by jadecat09 on 2013-01-08 03:45:05 GMT from United Kingdom)
I run PC-BSD exclusively on my refurbed HP/Compaq DC7700p SFF PC. There are no issues whatsoever.
The problem with the AMD/ATI graphics cards are down to the aforementioned company not willing to support any of the BSDs, rather than any reluctance from Free/PC-BSD to support AMD/ATI gear.
You do have to do some research into hardware compatibility, but generally Free/PC-BSD are fine on most machines, including laptops.
Keep rockin' in the free world.
28 • Plastic discs; credit to PC-BSD where due (by Fossilizing Dinosaur on 2013-01-08 04:18:21 GMT from United States)
These can still be useful. Hung label-to-label they make beautiful mobiles, turning light into rainbows. They hold archives of legally-required storage. Even small ones can also hold bootloaders for chaining to otherwise unsupported hardware, for those who don't "mod" new drivers into their BIOS.
For try-before-you-buy, I prefer multi-boot-ing portable dynamic-storage devices (like flash sticks), instead of wasting storage space or materials.
The BSD community should be commended for their progress (carrot), and gently challenged where applicable. They are part of us.
29 • Drawback to PC-BSD (by impossiblescissors on 2013-01-08 04:55:29 GMT from United States)
I've tried PC-BSD 8.2 and 9.0 in the past, and generally found them to be pleasant to use and stable. Admittedly I dorked a system update to 9.0 once and had to reinstall from scratch on one setup.
All of the PC-BSD software I used was installed from PBI's. This seemed like a cool idea when I was a n00b who broke Linux systems by adding incompatible repositories to my list of sources. However, it seemed like the PBI's take up a ton on hard disk space. Firefox is a ~22 MB download under Windows and Linux, but >200 MB under PC-BSD! Am I correct in saying that PBIs take up a lot more disk space than software installed from Linux repos?
Disk utilization was the reason why I replaced PC-BSD with Debian 6 on an ancient Dell Latitude C400. With only 10 GB of hard drive space, there was no way I'd fit a useful PC-BSD system on it. After messing around with Fedora, OpenSuSE and various flavors of Ubuntu/Mint, Debian proved to be the most stable and easy-to-reconfigure distro for running on outdated hardware.
30 • Why all the BSD hate? (by MarkT on 2013-01-08 06:38:34 GMT from United States)
Ah yes, the neverending debate.
From BSD vs. Sys V to BSD vs. Linux.
BSD was there at the start, and BSD will still be there at the end.
BTW, much kudos to the PC-BSD team. You have taken BSD to the next level. I admit, I did have a couple minor glitches getting it set up, but nothing major, and nothing more than I've experienced on any other Linux distro.
Anyways, PC-BSD has come along in a huge, huge way since just 9.0. I'm astounded at how much this team has accomplished in just a short amount of time. I think I just might be able to finally quit my Linux distro-hopping addiction and realize my dream of setting up that VLAN with OpenBSD as the guard, PC-BSD as the workstation and NetBSD as the cross-architecture/low-level subsystem interface. I am geeking out.
Thank you, PC-BSD.
One last word, to the guy who took a shot at PCLinuxOS...are you kiddng me? IMHO (and I don't care if I'm alone in this), PCLinuxOS is the "best" all-around distro out there, and pretty much the only one I really use and actually do work on. For production systems, the only one, again IMHO, would be CentOS.
31 • Shooting in the feet (by Davide on 2013-01-08 07:42:02 GMT from Italy)
@26: are you kidding? replacing the best linux desktop distro with something else? opensuse 12.2 is perfect, fast, reliable, rock solid, if you want to stay on the bleeding edge you can ... and you replace it with something without yast ... Nooo, you've made a joke :-)
@30 you were right about pclinux os but I think it's no longer acceptable the lack of a 64bit version. And about centos, it's the best server operating system ever made. Have you tried the minimal installation? you can tailor it to your need in every aspect ... think that neither wget is installed by default :-)
32 • PCLinuxOS no 64-bit (by MarkT on 2013-01-08 08:10:51 GMT from United States)
@31, true, regarding no 64-bit. I haven't had that requirement yet (maybe need to do more serious work) and when I do, if PCLinuxOS doesn't have 64-bit yet, then well, I guess I'd have to move on.
Regarding OpenSUSE, I thought it was pretty solid when I was messing with it, but at the time I was on this trip about fastest boot time and PCLinuxOS has the fastest boot time to a fully usable KDE desktop, hands down. Even beats the "minimal" distros like Puppy, AntiX, SliTaz, NetBSD, Arch, Swift, etc, etc. That, and it has all my apps, does everything out of the box and just plain runs all the time with no performance hookups, etc, etc. Sorry, I'll stop.
33 • BSD (by Johannes on 2013-01-08 09:21:17 GMT from Germany)
Thank you for this very interesting BSD review. I wish more mainstream medias would write about BSD, which deserves it. Maybe the day will come, now that Linux has reached this stage :-)
34 • Re: 64 vs 32 bit performance, #18 & #7 (by Leo on 2013-01-08 14:08:22 GMT from United States)
I don't know how this is even a debate issue. There is no question that 64 bit can either be faster (for programs optimized for it), or as fast (for other programs) as 32 bit:
This is because the wider pipe that 64 bits gives you, allows you (as a developer) to do low level optimizations, of this sort (consider running a loop TWICE as fast):
As programs get progressively optimized for 64 bit, the advantage of running a 64 bit applications continues to widen, and the phoronix reviews over the last few years are a testament to this.
35 • Accessibility (by jeffrx on 2013-01-08 14:29:00 GMT from United States)
Props to Zorin OS for making accessibility a priority, just like Ubuntu did before Unity came along. 10 years ago, after my injury accessibility was a big reason I chose Ubuntu, only to be left behind after Unity.
36 • PC-BSD (by hayden on 2013-01-08 14:32:39 GMT from United States)
Thanks for the review. Like some others I wish some mention had been made of how this handles the MBR and multi-booting. In fact, I would like to see that discussed for EVERY OS tested. After having trial distros mangle my MBR without comment, followed by a full day of recovery, I now rarely try ANY new OS. Puppy is one distro that is very polite about what it is going to do and that sets up GRUB to boot multiple OTHER OSs, not rudely assuming (a la MS) that their own is so fabulous that you would just as soon delete all others. Maybe the Surgeon General could prescribe a system health warning for the boot screen of these egocentric distros?-)
37 • intel graphics (by Colin on 2013-01-08 14:50:30 GMT from United Kingdom)
why does linux still have very poor intel graphics support. Linux always bangs on about ATI & NVIDIA , but intel graphics hardly ever get mentioned. Very strange when Intel graphics are widely used on laptops.
38 • Re: #37 - intel graphics (by Leo on 2013-01-08 15:22:50 GMT from United States)
Intel actually produces high quality open source drivers:
They are comparable (though in some games slower) than windows, and typically on par with OS-X:
This is in contrast with NVIDIA which doesn't even produce open source drivers (so you need to hope they build it for your OS), and AMD which produces both binary and open source, with the open source orders of magnitud (typically a factor 3!!!!) slower than the windows driver.
Having said that, Intel's integrated _used_ to suck. But this has been vastly improved by Sandy Bridge processors, and pushed even further by Ivy bridge.
In short, you might have crappy drivers. My intel based (Linux) chromebook has an ivy bridge IGP and it streams 740p video beautifully, even with a low end celeron dual processor at 1.1Ghz
39 • Size of PBIs (by Jesse on 2013-01-08 16:00:21 GMT from Canada)
>> " Am I correct in saying that PBIs take up a lot more disk space than software installed from Linux repos?"
You would have been correct in assuming PBIs take up more space during the PC-BSD 8.x series. For the 9.x releases I believe the PBI system checks for duplications in dependencies and removes those which are not needed. Let's say, for example, you install Firefox and it comes with all of its dependencies for X and various toolkits. If these libraries are already installed then the system should remove the duplications so that the Firefox package, as it is stored on the disk, isn't any bigger than it needs to be. So, for the 9.x releases of PC-BSD the disk space used by PBI packages should be about the same as disk space used by Linux repository packages.
40 • PC-BSD & PCLOS (by mz on 2013-01-08 17:44:16 GMT from United States)
I too have suffered hardware compatibility issues with PC-BSD. Unfortunately I think this may be an issue for many potential users for some time. On the bright side pfSense makes an excellent & extremely stable FreeBSD based firewall, so those with old hardware & an extra NIC can still get good stuff out of the BSD family fairly easy.
Regarding PCLOS, well it's my daily system on both my main machines. I love the fact that I've run it longer than any non-LTS Ubuntu can with out a reinstall/upgrade & I still have up to date software. I've also found the hardware detection to be better than on the Ubuntu family. I think what few rough edges PCLOS has are a lot smoother than some other top 25 distros like FreeBSD, Gentoo, & Slackware. The lack of a fully 64-bit version may be less than ideal, but there is a 64-bit kernel in the repos. I'll admit that part of the reason I tried Mint initially instead of PCLOS was for the full 64-bit support, but having used both I find PCLOS a much better fit for what I want out of an OS. YMMV, but it's a good distro that's worth a try.
41 • Disk place (re 39) + USB booting issues (re 5) (by dbrion on 2013-01-08 19:00:52 GMT from France)
Is disk space still an issue on modern computers (at least if one does not install on USB sticks, which remain expensive: but connectics (an USB on the laptop+a hub+ the USB stick connector are cascaded) are a bigger issue on the long term....
Perhaps IT connections remain a bottleneck (and shipping DVDs will remain useful).
42 • @ #27, #31 (by Pierre on 2013-01-08 19:34:41 GMT from Germany)
So the problem, as you name it, is the BSD community is not willing to support common hardware like AMD/Ati graphics adaptors. Ati was for many years THE build in solution for many workstations and home pcs with a little more need of graphcs power than Intel is able to deliver.
So what? You want to use BSD? With an Ati graphics card? Kiddoh, buy a new device! Or what?
No, thanks a lot. Additionally: in PC-BSD there are Radeon drivers offered but do not support a 5 year old chipset? Come on, if that is the case, just leave it out completely.
And another addition: NetBSD in comparison to PC-BSD was able to handle my X1400 Ati card properly. Can PC-BSD make an even poorer impression?
In my opinion: no!
It's just disappointing because PC-BSD really has a lot of potential which no one with Ati cards is able to use - at least not me. Maybe there are some lucky people out there where the Radeon driver was of any use?
No, not kidding. ;) I agree, openSUSE 12.2 is fast, stable, rock solid and has Yast, one of the very best configuration tools out there in the wild.
Nevertheless I just wanted something more vanilla. And Arch was always a quite clean distro with BSD-like configuration. Now with systemd it changed a lot but it still is clean and flexible and I can build the system I want from the very beginning.
I know one can do that with openSUSE, too. But it still runs on my workstation and home server, so it is not gone at all. :)
43 • Re #36 PC-BSD multi-booting (by jadecat09 on 2013-01-08 19:40:08 GMT from United Kingdom)
I have dual-booted PC-BSD with Slackware and found that if you load PC-BSD secondly there should be no problem.
Keep rockin in the free world.
44 • PCLOS (by Ika on 2013-01-08 19:54:56 GMT from Spain)
I tried a lot of distros in my search of a default one for my machine (all of top rated, leaving out the "based on" re-spins) and none of them gave me the stability PCLOS is offering.
So, that's my beloved. :)
45 • 22 PCBSD - Pear - PCLinuxOS (by Sam (by Chanath on 2013-01-08 22:54:08 GMT from Sri Lanka)
"Pear - when is Pear going to catch the attention of Apple for pretty blatantly copying Apple's desktop icons?"
Could you elaborate, which Apple's desktop icons, Pear had copied? Are you talking about the icons you get spread over the whole screnn, when you click the "Launcher?"
If those are the icons, then they are not Apple's, but most probably Faenza. If you are talking about the "spread" across the screen, that's the "old" Slingshot and that's open source. I have that in many Debian and Ubuntu based distros.
46 • PC-BSD Dual Boot (by OSnoob on 2013-01-08 23:50:54 GMT from United States)
I installed PC-BSD 9.1 on a Windows 7 desktop machine this weekend and the dual boot works perfectly. This from someone with virtually no modern experience in Linux or Unix prior to late 2012.
47 • @ 30 RE: PCBSD (by Anonymous Coward on 2013-01-08 23:58:26 GMT from United States)
My post (#25) was not meant as a blanket slam against FreeBSD. Indeed it is a respectable system for it's intended purpose, which clearly is not aimed at laptops with somewhat recent hardware.
Also, my stating that PC-BSD has failed on multiple levels in my experience doesn't indicate any particular animosity toward the project.
However - PC-BSD's claim seems somewhat misleading. Where FreeBSD falls short in terms of common PC-oriented hardware support, PC-BSD is virtually guaranteed to have the exact same shortcomings. It would be different if additional modules & drivers were developed and/or added to the exiting BSD kernel, rather than just adding a graphical desktop environment selection tool. At a basic level that seems to be the only significant difference.
48 • PC-BSD/FreeBSD Hardware Shortcomings (by MarkT on 2013-01-09 05:32:23 GMT from United States)
Fair enough, regarding lack of hardware support, especially regarding laptop chipsets and devices. I suspect that many of the device driver developers for FreeBSD mainly own non-laptop hardware, otherwise I'm sure you'd see the exact same quantity/quality as compared to the offering that Linux has.
Moreover, regarding your comment that PC-BSD just added "a graphical desktop environment selection tool...at a basic level that seems to be the only significant difference": actually I'd say that's the only significant difference at a high level. ;)
49 • BSD's and Laptop support (by David L on 2013-01-09 14:03:05 GMT from United States)
If you are looking for a BSD derivative that has good if not great laptop support. Look no further than OpenBSD. A lot of the development is done via laptop. I currently run 5.2 on an old Dell Inspiron 9100, a Toshiba A105-4284, and a newer Dell 14R. All work flawlessly. Wireless is a cinch if your not afraid of the command line.
Reference : http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq1.html#Desktop
" It might be worth noting that a large amount of OpenBSD development is done on laptops. "
PS, Newbies be ready to lift the hood and get your hands dirty.
50 • BSD's and Laptop support (by David L on 2013-01-09 14:05:52 GMT from United States)
I did forget to mention that my sdcard reader fails to work on the Toshiba. But a workaround was simple by just plugging my camera directly into my usb port and issuing the correct command.
51 • off topic Fuduntu (by Nobody Special on 2013-01-09 14:08:21 GMT from Canada)
First of all, I love the name, I can't decide on funny or genius, lol, maybe both. Anyway, it's an interesting distro hybrid concept, it's getting my attention, I hope it's around for a while.
52 • re: x86 are still around (by Peter Besenbruch on 2013-01-09 23:58:25 GMT from Austria)
"Believe it or not there are readers that only have access to 32 bit machines."
Believe it, or not, this reader tends to install 32 bit Linux on 64 bit capable machines. I simply don't need the extra memory. All of what I do works fine with 1 gig. of RAM, even Windows virtual machines. "1 gig. ought to be enough for anybody." ;)
53 • pc bsd (by William L. on 2013-01-10 03:13:12 GMT from United States)
As for PcBsd Ive tried to install/use it about a year ago. that is when i started tinkering with Linux distros after( in my opinion ) micro-softs blunders in there win 7 - 8 os's. At that time it was time to try to use Linux. well the first one i tried was PcBsd on which didn't go well and i gave up on it and went with Ubuntu. as a newbie in Linux i think the new users coming from windows to Linux or BSD as in my case it is hard in trying to lean a new OS as in just install and run like they do for windows. In my case im getting there learning this stuff. With the help from the different forums and the people on here in the learning curve of a new os that you as the user have to do some things to make it work. i might try PcBsd again and see if its any better to install now i know some of the stuff so will try it again. and as for puppy,openSUSE and the likes they seem to be very good os's. as of me typing this ive been using Mint13 for 2 months now and i like it. So to all of the teams working on these distros keep up the good work.
54 • Backlight problems for Linux when Windows not installed (by gnomic on 2013-01-10 05:10:39 GMT from New Zealand)
Looking through the manual for Manjaro Linux recently I came upon the following passage. "Some people - particularly those using laptops- are encountering a problem where the screen brightness is too dim upon replacing MS Windows with a Linux distribution as their main OS. Although it affects all Linux distros, the problem is actually due to the computer's BIOS settings. Certain hardware manufacturers have set it up so that if Windows is not detected running on their systems, the backlight is automatically disabled."
As it happens I have an HP DV4 machine which has no Windows as it has no hard disk. This laptop always starts up with a blank dark screen using Linux live media, but certain distros manage to turn on the backlight during boot. These include Fuduntu 2013.1, Fedora, Solus, and Toorox.
Has anybody seen anything like this, or does anyone know of such a problem? Have the Manjaro people got this right? I mentioned this last year on Distrowatch but had not seen this particular suggestion at that time.
55 • 64-bit ONLY! (by RollMeAway on 2013-01-10 06:10:28 GMT from United States)
Sounds elitist to me.
I have 8 old computers in my home office for my hobby: linux. Most bios dates are 2004 - 2006. Fastest is a 2.8 Ghz, P4 with 2 GB ram, and nvidia 6200 video card.
I maintain and use 11 at my work, only one is a 64 bit. That one is a sales guy wanting to impress.
I could afford a NEW computer, my work certainly could too, but WHY?
These OLD computers perform their tasks quite well, or they would be replaced.
Like the car analogies: Some people must have a new car every year. Why?
Bragging rights I suppose. I can go anywhere the brand new car can, in my old car.
56 • 52 • re: x86 are still around (by Leo on 2013-01-10 13:25:18 GMT from United States)
Keep in mind that you can actually address more than 3gb of memory in the systems with PAE processors (and kernels), so the benefit of 64 bit is not so much access to a lot of memory, as it is faster computing (see my comment above).
I definitely think that distributions should support non-pae 32 bit for older hardware. Like RollMeAway says, for many uses/users, old computers do just fine. And old processors are non-pae.
Kudos to Bodhi to reinstate support for non-pae processors!
For more on PAE:
57 • re 55 New car. (by willi,amp on 2013-01-10 13:48:11 GMT from United Kingdom)
I drive a Honda, proven over the last 10 to 15 years to be the most reliable car on the planet. It's not the fastest, overstyled, expensive car available but it's the one most likely to get me there. That's also the reason I use PCLinuxOS.
58 • PC-BSD installation (by LLO on 2013-01-10 18:29:56 GMT from Hungary)
Jesse you are really a lucky person, because not everyone can just play with PC-BSD as one wishes.
Since 7.x, I have tried to look at it without success. It is uninstallable on my machine due to failure of the installer. It generates an infinite loop something like:
“ATA IDENTIFY. ABC: e c 00 00 00 00 40 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
CAM Status: Unconditionally Re-queue Request
Error 5, Reentry was blocked”
This looks to me complete nonsense. Some other mode, the system just hangs, or flashes the word panic.
It is impossible to systematically check it, because the installer has the imaginable worst menu: no highlighted area, no cursor, no cursor movement, no explanation on the menu entries, and no apparent clue how to stop the running cloak timed something like 8 seconds.
This is not a hardware problem. A system with core 2 duo processor and Gigabyte GA-EG45M-DS2H motherboard is quite ordinary. Installing Desktop BSD presented no problems at all. The real problem that Desktop BSD ceased to exist soon after its installation. However, I still can recommend to the FreeBSD and PC-BSD developers to look at the installation script of Desktop BSD that generated the best installation experience of any BSD and Linux system I have ever installed.
Other aggravating factor of the lock of permanent record of the start-up messages. 60 years ago, every word of the system operator and system response was recorded on the console log. Should not we have a dedicated area on a floppy, or a thumb drive for that purpose. Would not be simpler and far more effective to send that file to the developers than try to explain the problem based on the run-off screen messages?
PC-BSD has a highly desirable feature of some applications that are stored with all the necessary dependencies. As I know it now, no corresponding feature is in the existing Linux world. While existed, GOBO Linux allowed to store various generations of the same library avoiding clashes between between applications with such dependencies, or undesirable forced updates. In nowadays word, formal homogeneity seems to be more important than content. That is plain wrong. Not all applications can, or desire to follow the trend of formal decorative changes. In some academic and professional fields, there is no budget for such changes. Unfortunately the developer seem to the least concern of those eras. If we wanted to measure the usage rate of Linux in percentage instead of part per million they should!
59 • @54 Laptop backlight (by Sam Graf on 2013-01-11 01:26:12 GMT from United States)
The only computer I've experienced something like that on is a Gateway NV79, and that was during installation or live operation under Debian or Ubuntu and Ubuntu-based distributions. To work around it I would attach an external monitor. After installation, the computer would boot normally.
60 • Re: 5 usb stick based distributions (by Shankar on 2013-01-11 09:29:18 GMT from India)
My workhorse 'computer' has been a flash drive for the past seven years (from late 2005 or so). For the first four years I ran Puppy Linux on it and then switched to Debian Live persistent (by far the easiest mainstream (i.e. not Puppy) distro to put on a flash drive, incidentally, since it is very predictable and it's easy to, for instance, divine the correct GRUB stanza). I have only recently started experiencing speed issues related to writing to the flash drive, but I think that's because I probably have an unusually slow flash drive at the moment. Otherwise it' just like an ordinary system. Using Debian's Web Image Builder allows you to build a minimalist image (in my case with just the basics plus X11) and everything else yo ucan then install on the flash drive just like a normal system, and it is all (aside from the stuff in that initial live image) upgradeable at any time.
Try it, it's worth it. It really amazes me that more people don't take advantage of this functionality in so many distros. I have a desktop at home and a small netbook, but anywhere I go I just plug my flash drive into any available computer and in thirty seconds am up and into in my system. Provides security, stability, ease of use (no worries about sync'ing files etc.) and power all rolled into one. Backup scripts take care of the rare loss / failure of flash drive situations.
61 • re 55 and those 'old' computers (by gnomic on 2013-01-11 10:06:48 GMT from New Zealand)
Call me out of date, but I'm just getting round to calling those PIII machines 'old'. That's just about round turn of the century stuff if I'm not mistaken. If it still turns on and boots . . . . However I suppose that's not the way the world works, and just as live CDs are now mostly live DVDs, looks like 64-bit is gradually supplanting 32-bit round about now. As usual it all depends on what the function is; if it's a typewriter that maybe plays an MP3 on the side or even a music CD those fossils will do. However, am I right in thinking there are no 32-bit chips being made any more aside from some specialised purposes perhaps? It's the progress thing. Maybe the rot set in when Linus jettisoned the 386? In my own little sphere things have just recently gone 64-bitwise as to the hardware on hand, and I find myself often downloading 64-bit images albeit with a sense of regret.
62 • Re: 61 (32 bit processors) (by Leo on 2013-01-11 14:21:22 GMT from United States)
I think you are right, gnomic. Nobody is producing 386 processors. The answer is here:
"Some 64-bit architectures, such as x86-64, support more general-purpose registers than their 32-bit counterparts (although this is not due specifically to the word length). This leads to a significant speed increase for tight loops since the processor does not have to fetch data from the cache or main memory if the data can fit in the available registers."
Low level *86 processor both from AMD and Intel (Atom) are 64 bit.
The exception would be the very low power ARM architecture (mostly smart-phones), which is still 32 bit, but starting plans to move to 64 bit
63 • @62 (by Patrick on 2013-01-11 14:37:43 GMT from United States)
32-bit is a very important segment for Linux, but maybe not on desktops and laptops. But the Linux kernel is going very strong in phones, routers, embedded systems etc. and all those will stay 32-bit for quite a while longer. In my world (embedded systems), 8-bit is still widely used and 32-bit is just now starting to threaten that position in large volumes. But then we're talking mostly about 32-bit bare metal or with a small RTOS, most of them don't have enough memory to boot Linux let alone run Linux programs. It will be a while before your microwave or stove will be running Linux...
64 • Re: 62 (Patrick) (by Leo on 2013-01-11 15:37:18 GMT from United States)
Sure Patrick, this is what I meant to say at the end of the post, and you gave a lot more and useful details, thank you!
When people say 'Linux will never be popular' I laugh. Nothing is more pervasive: a lot of embedded devices, as you said (very strong there). Servers (#1 I believe). Smartphones (#1 market share). Tablets (also via Android, prob #2 after iOS). Chromebooks are selling like hotcakes now at the right price point.
Oh, and Linux runs, perhaps, your fridge:
Where is my KDE toaster? :)
65 • @57/ old hardware (by mz on 2013-01-11 17:37:49 GMT from United States)
Well my fathers '85 Camero was over 20 years old with over 380,000 miles on it when he got rid of it, but this is about your favorite old rust bucket car, it's about Linux!
I've got to say though that keeping an eye out for old hardware can pay dividends. 3/4ths of my computer hardware is second hand stuff that may well have been scrapped if I haden't gotten it. I really don't see my 433 Mhz IBM as good for much other than firewall duty, but my 1.7 Ghz laptop has been good for daily use up till now & has help me work on my college classes. I've also got a 2.5 Ghz back up machine that is sitting around in case everything else intended for desktop use fails. All 3 are old 32-bit single core machines, but they are nice to have around. Keep on the look out, one man's PC junk could be another's treasure.
66 • PC-BSD wild ride first notes (by Fossilizing Dinosaur on 2013-01-11 17:45:40 GMT from United States)
From Windblows, unpack all 5Gb and win32imagediskimager to ~8Gb stick. Plug, boot, wait on truly minimal animation, then wonder which to choose from a long list which evaporates in seconds to scrolling text, during which it asks to grow its partition to take over the entire stick.
This may be stressful for someone who doesn't know what to expect.
67 • Usb installed vs LiveUSb, re: #5 (by Tom on 2013-01-11 19:14:23 GMT from United Kingdom)
I was interested to hear AliasMarlowe say that he/she found a full proper install on a Usb-stick was slower than a LiveUsb session. I assumed it was the other way around.
Do other people find the same?
68 • hating the haters (by Tom on 2013-01-11 19:36:15 GMT from United Kingdom)
Yes, i hate all the haters too. The hats are ok. Surely it's all just friendly rivalry and a bit of angst about things that are annoyingly nearly perfect but just not quite there in whoever'the individual's opinion?
I tend to find each distro i try has a good niche that possibly no other distro covers or covers it in a different way to suit different folks. Almost all cover vast swathes of the middle-ground really well too, sometimes under certain differing conditions.
There is plenty of room for all, at least until Microsquish usage is down to around 30-40%. Until then we can be fairly certain that none have really fulfilled their potential and been taken up by as many users as they deserve.
69 • Usb installed vs LiveUSb (by anticapitalista on 2013-01-12 01:22:06 GMT from Greece)
#67 I can well believe it to be the case. In fact in my tests running antiX live or frugal from a hard disk, is definitely faster than booting an installed version either from hard disk or usb (not that an installed antiX is slow).
It might be because I have an old computer compared to what is now available (It is over 5 years old)
70 • Debian only for Desktops now (no more Redhat) (by gregzeng on 2013-01-12 08:52:47 GMT from Australia)
Many noobs think that all 'Linux' systems are alike", without knowing that toasters, servers, smartphones & desktop computers require very different operating systems, even if they happen to use a Linux-derived brand-named operating system.
Distrowatch is plagued by suicide bombers, obsessing to keep server-only operating systems (Redhat mainly) alive in non-server markets.
Lets all admit it - RPM-type desktop systems (PCLinuxOS, OpenSUSE, Fedora, Mageia, ... ) have apps that cannot be interchanged reliably with each other. Only Deb apps will auto-install & uninstall, without dependency hassles, between ALL Debian-based distros, whether they be 'buntu-based (the most popular), or not.
The Synaptic Package Manager don't automatically allow this, so every new system should be altered from the default: "Ask for confirmation changes that affect other packages". To bypass this stupidity, a few 'tricks' are needed to try to maintain parity with Windows & IOS; nothing that a few reboots cannot solve.
Linux's suicide bombers destroy its mass usage, so that third-party app makers cannot program for the two mainstream Linux distros (Redhat or Debian). Not every 3rd-party works well in Java (LOL !).
Let the small-minded flaming begin - as long as the current Linux users can continue their elitist minority status. The global free market seems to defeat this petty dictators.
Populist opinions on Youtube tend to agree with me:
youtube.com/watch?v=MjbXSbaMwV0, /watch?v=q3DnIMUtI_o, /watch?v=QyLTdUSlb8w, /watch?v=LHdS2P3qpMk
BTW: My 1st workable Linux distro was PCLinuxOS, decades ago. And I'm unhappy with the suicidal RPM-distro creators too.
71 • pclinuxos 2012.2 lxde mini - distro without a desktop? (by gnomic on 2013-01-12 10:38:05 GMT from New Zealand)
Lately tried out a December 2012 version of PCLinuxOS with LXDE desktop, the 'mini' version. However the desktop never appeared, no screens found. There seemed to be some problem with parsing a file on the way to running X window. Tried all the options including frame buffer on three machines - still no desktop. Anyone had any success with any versions of this latest release in live CD mode? A bit disappointing as the 2012.06 edition did manage to run X, even on the aberrant HP laptop mentioned previously. This distro often seemed to be on the quirky side back in the day, but it seemed they had got it together in mid-2012.
72 • USB installed vs live USB (by AliasMarlowe on 2013-01-12 14:32:11 GMT from Finland)
Actually, the Kubuntu installed on USB runs about as well as a live Kubuntu USB - once both have fully booted. I have not done any benchmarks, of course, and likely will not, so I cannot quantify this assertion.
What is noticeably slower is the boot time for the system installed on USB compared to the live USB of the same distribution. It takes longer to reach the login screen on the installed system compared to the live USB reaching its desktop. If one logs into the installed system as soon as its login screen appears, one must still wait at least half a minute before applications can be launched from the KDE menu. By contrast, applications can be launched on the live USB immediately after its desktop comes up.
73 • USB proper installs vs liveUSB (by dbrion on 2013-01-12 14:33:18 GMT from France)
If you are satisfied with the default options, liveUSB is almost a copy (adding a boot sector?) , and proper install is sometimes a copy too (removes unused hardware drives) : both are slow on flash+USB.
If you want non default packages,
* USB install uses the package manager to **write** binaries on the USB stick : as writing is slow, if you need many packages and are in a hurry , you can .... use an external rotating disk (the price per byte remains interesting) , and this works with little lags in writing (unless you share your USB bus with many other devices).
* OTOH, live USB , once it has been written, cannot add packages (like a CD/DVD) without tricks (mounting another disk|partition as /usr/local is the easiest I found out) . Therefore, they are seen as fast... but it is not the only thing which might interest you .
I use 32 GB USB sticks (they are not too expensive now, and I have got some data) with Fedora and sometimes Mageia, but packages were added during night,-I know it needs time, so I managed not to be annoyed with that-.
74 • For Troll Greg Zeng (by Fossilizing Dinosaur on 2013-01-12 15:27:06 GMT from United States)
Several distros have tools for adding deb, rpm and other package forms. Perhaps you should encourage development of such tools, instead of whining?
Even versions of closed systems are challenged to run apps designed for earlier/other versions of their own systems. But yes, updating by default is dependency cultivation. Some users do, some don't,even with the closed systems.
After all, even for closed systems, we all start out as noobs.
75 • @70, @71 (by Ika on 2013-01-12 21:08:12 GMT from Spain)
”Only Deb apps will auto-install & uninstall, without dependency hassles, between ALL Debian-based distros, whether they be 'buntu-based (the most popular), or not.”
Really? If you’re looking just inside Mint releases you’ll see it’s not quite true.
I’m running the latest PCLOS 2012.12 KDE and all is working fine. Did you check the md5sum? Maybe the download is corrupted... Enter the forum and ask them; you’ll find help there.
76 • beware BODHI--automatic mount of all partitions (by Roland on 2013-01-12 23:41:46 GMT from United States)
Installed bodhi 2.2 from thumbdrive to sdb1, w/sdb2 as home. I discovered that it automatically mounted all my data partitions without my permission and without entries in /etc/fstab. I put entries in /etc/fstab for my data partitions as 'noauto,user' and the OS hung during boot. This is dirty pool. OS developers: these are not your computers, they are the property of the owners. DO NOT mess with other peoples' hardware. DO NOT mount every partition on the machine just because you think it's a good idea. It isn't. Today's boxes often have big partitions. They can take a long time to fsck. Every mount increases the mountcount causing long fsck's. What's worse, today's OSes don't give any feedback when a long fsck is occurring. This is dumb.
77 • re #75 pclinuxos lxde-mini failing to start X (by gnomic on 2013-01-13 00:53:42 GMT from New Zealand)
The iso image came from a usually reliable mirror and matched the checksum provided. The first CD was burned at 10x speed, as there was a problem I tried again at 4x. Still no X Window. Could be a case of a duff iso that somehow got released, happens sometimes. Guess you have the full KDE release weighing in at 1.3G, but am unable to d/l that due to a data cap. Maybe I'll just try the full LXDE release and see if that works for me.
78 • re #71, 77 pclinuxos lxde mini problem (by gnomic on 2013-01-13 01:23:05 GMT from New Zealand)
Hmmm, had a look at the PCLinuxOS forum and I see someone else has the no X Window problem also - but no fix suggested. Was registered with forums in the past, but that seems to have gone west. Waiting to be informed whether I'm approved for registration.
79 • PCLinuxOS 64 bit is there....if you know where to look (by TonyA on 2013-01-13 01:26:20 GMT from Thailand)
Contrary to the believe that PCLinuxOS has no 64bit version, I would like to tell you that I am running the 64 bit version for over 6 months now on a 'daily' base.
It is true that there is no << official >> 64bit distro, as not "all" applications are successfully ported to 64bit yet.
But on my hardware it is stable, fast, elegant and a pleasure to work with.
And with work, I mean that the CPU is asking me for overtime pay :-)
Of course, a few things are going to depend on which appz you need.
However, the update to current state is....long, big, ,,,grrr
80 • non-X86 Linux Cloning (by Russell E. Jenney on 2013-01-13 02:26:47 GMT from United States)
I current run Debian 6.0.5 on a Mac G5 PPC quad at 2.5Ghz. I can clone my operational drives on x86 machines with "Clonezilla," but this will not work on the PPC achitecture. Apple's OSX "Tiger" and "Leopard" installation discs have a cloning capability in the "Disc Utiltiy" Restore Process; however, neither system's Disc Utlity recognises ext4 or any other files system other than HPFS+. Is there a program or command line code it can Use to clone a Debian disc on a non-x86 architecture machine?
81 • No more downloadng Debian and Ubuntu based distros (by Chanath on 2013-01-13 07:23:06 GMT from Sri Lanka)
I shall be reading the distrowatch every week, but I won't be downloading any Debian or Ubuntu based distros, until Debian 7 and Ubuntu 14.04 arrives. As for the Debian based, it would be the SlousOS 2. As for Ubuntu 14.04, the time to start looking at it would be around October, November this year.
I find that there is no use in downloading and testing any Ubuntu release until the first daily of 14.04. In this "development" fervour Ubuntu had shot in the foot by releasing Quantal and the daily version sof Raring. Ubuntu uses Compiz 0.9.x as its engine, but that Compiz it uses with the newly "developed" base, cannot work with Compiz in its full capacity, which means the Quantal and the upcoming Raring is a bug in its own. In other words, the Quantal is a bug, and not a real distro. Theh raring would be a bug, when its released.
If Precise can use the same Compiz and have that Compiz work in full, and the Quantal cannot, then Quantal is a buggy release, and the Quantal's bas is buggy. Ubuntu had faild in its "development" fervour!
Thw Quantal's base cannot work also with the already working, and very well working so-called Unity 2D in Precise, so Quantal is inferior to Precise. The raring release would be inferior to Precise. In this "development" fervour., Cannonical had shot in the foot!
82 • pclinuxos 2012.02 lxde - bad iso problem (by gnomic on 2013-01-13 11:14:24 GMT from New Zealand)
Fresh news to hand it seems that a bad iso image may have escaped into the world for the full lxde version at least. Watch this space.
83 • PCLinuxOS (by SkepticalReticent on 2013-01-13 18:46:26 GMT from United States)
Latest LXDE was 2012.12 last time I checked; 2012.02 wasn't 'bad'. But they recently restructured their mirrors structure.
84 • gnomic (by Ika on 2013-01-13 22:52:56 GMT from Spain)
Actually I'm running the MiniMe edition 2012.12 (about 500 MB), not the full one.
85 • @83 (by TonyA on 2013-01-14 01:21:43 GMT from Thailand)
How is the quality of the .ISO related to the mirror structure ?
Number of Comments: 85
Display mode: DWW Only • Comments Only • Both DWW and Comments
|• Issue 843 (2019-12-02): Obarun 2019.11.02, Bluestar 5.3.6, using special characters on the command line, Fedora plans to disable empty passwords, FreeBSD's quarterly status report|
|• Issue 842 (2019-11-25): SolydXK 10, System Adminstration Ethics book review, Debian continues init diversity debate, Google upstreaming Android kernel patches|
|• Issue 841 (2019-11-18): Emmabuntus DE3-1.00, changing keys in a keyboard layout, Debian phasing out Python 2 and voting on init diversity, Slackware gets unofficial updated live media|
|• Issue 840 (2019-11-11): Fedora 31, monitoring user activity, Fedora working to improve Python performance, FreeBSD gets faster networking|
|• Issue 839 (2019-11-04): MX 19, manipulating PDFs, Ubuntu plans features for 20.04, Fedora 29 nears EOL, Netrunner drops Manjaro-based edition|
|• Issue 838 (2019-10-28): Xubuntu 19.10, how init and service managers work together, DragonFly BSD provides emergency mode for HAMMER, Xfce team plans 4.16|
|• Issue 837 (2019-10-21): CentOS 8.0-1905, Trident finds a new base, Debian plans firewall changes, 15 years of Fedora, how to merge directories|
|• Issue 836 (2019-10-14): Archman 2019.09, Haiku improves ARM support, Project Trident shifting base OS, Unix turns 50|
|• Issue 835 (2019-10-07): Isotop, Mazon OS and, KduxOS, examples of using the find command, Mint's System Reports becomes proactive, Solus updates its desktops|
|• Issue 834 (2019-09-30): FreedomBox "Buster", CentOS gains a rolling release, Librem 5 phones shipping, Redcore updates its package manager|
|• Issue 833 (2019-09-23): Redcore Linux 1908, why Linux distros are free, Ubuntu making list of 32-bit software to keep, Richard M Stallman steps down from FSF leadership|
|• Issue 832 (2019-09-16): BlackWeb 1.2, checking for Wayland session and applications, Fedora to use nftables in firewalld, OpenBSD disables DoH in Firefox|
|• Issue 831 (2019-09-09): Adélie Linux 1.0 beta, using ffmpeg, awk and renice, Mint and elementary improvements, PureOS and Manjaro updates|
|• Issue 930 (2019-09-02): deepin 15.11, working with AppArmor profiles, elementary OS gets new greeter, exFAT support coming to Linux kernel|
|• Issue 829 (2019-08-26): EndeavourOS 2019.07.15, Drauger OS 7.4.1, finding the licenses of kernel modules, NetBSD gets Wayland application, GhostBSD changes base repo|
|• Issue 828 (2019-08-19): AcademiX 2.2, concerns with non-free firmware, UBports working on Unity8, Fedora unveils new EPEL channel, FreeBSD phasing out GCC|
|• Issue 827 (2019-08-12): Q4OS, finding files on the disk, Ubuntu works on ZFS, Haiku improves performance, OSDisc shutting down|
|• Issue 826 (2019-08-05): Quick looks at Resilient, PrimeOS, and BlueLight, flagship distros for desktops,Manjaro introduces new package manager|
|• Issue 825 (2019-07-29): Endless OS 3.6, UBports 16.04, gNewSense maintainer stepping down, Fedora developrs discuss optimizations, Project Trident launches stable branch|
|• Issue 824 (2019-07-22): Hexagon OS 1.0, Mageia publishes updated media, Fedora unveils Fedora CoreOS, managing disk usage with quotas|
|• Issue 823 (2019-07-15): Debian 10, finding 32-bit packages on a 64-bit system, Will Cooke discusses Ubuntu's desktop, IBM finalizes purchase of Red Hat|
|• Issue 822 (2019-07-08): Mageia 7, running development branches of distros, Mint team considers Snap, UBports to address Google account access|
|• Issue 821 (2019-07-01): OpenMandriva 4.0, Ubuntu's plan for 32-bit packages, Fedora Workstation improvements, DragonFly BSD's smaller kernel memory|
|• Issue 820 (2019-06-24): Clear Linux and Guix System 1.0.1, running Android applications using Anbox, Zorin partners with Star Labs, Red Hat explains networking bug, Ubuntu considers no longer updating 32-bit packages|
|• Issue 819 (2019-06-17): OS108 and Venom, renaming multiple files, checking live USB integrity, working with Fedora's Modularity, Ubuntu replacing Chromium package with snap|
|• Issue 818 (2019-06-10): openSUSE 15.1, improving boot times, FreeBSD's status report, DragonFly BSD reduces install media size|
|• Issue 817 (2019-06-03): Manjaro 18.0.4, Ubuntu Security Podcast, new Linux laptops from Dell and System76, Entroware Apollo|
|• Issue 816 (2019-05-27): Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.0, creating firewall rules, Antergos shuts down, Matthew Miller answers questions about Fedora|
|• Issue 815 (2019-05-20): Sabayon 19.03, Clear Linux's developer features, Red Hat explains MDS flaws, an overview of mobile distro options|
|• Issue 814 (2019-05-13): Fedora 30, distributions publish Firefox fixes, CentOS publishes roadmap to 8.0, Debian plans to use Wayland by default|
|• Issue 813 (2019-05-06): ROSA R11, MX seeks help with systemd-shim, FreeBSD tests unified package management, interview with Gael Duval|
|• Issue 812 (2019-04-29): Ubuntu MATE 19.04, setting up a SOCKS web proxy, Scientific Linux discontinued, Red Hat takes over Java LTS support|
|• Issue 811 (2019-04-22): Alpine 3.9.2, rsync examples, Ubuntu working on ZFS support, Debian elects new Project Leader, Obarun releases S6 tools|
|• Issue 810 (2019-04-15): SolydXK 201902, Bedrock Linux 0.7.2, Fedora phasing out Python 2, NetBSD gets virtual machine monitor|
|• Issue 809 (2019-04-08): PCLinuxOS 2019.02, installing Falkon and problems with portable packages, Mint offers daily build previews, Ubuntu speeds up Snap packages|
|• Issue 808 (2019-04-01): Solus 4.0, security benefits and drawbacks to using a live distro, Gentoo gets GNOME ports working without systemd, Redox OS update|
|• Issue 807 (2019-03-25): Pardus 17.5, finding out which user changed a file, new Budgie features, a tool for browsing FreeBSD's sysctl values|
|• Issue 806 (2019-03-18): Kubuntu vs KDE neon, Nitrux's znx, notes on Debian's election, SUSE becomes an independent entity|
|• Issue 805 (2019-03-11): EasyOS 1.0, managing background services, Devuan team debates machine ID file, Ubuntu Studio works to remain an Ubuntu Community Edition|
|• Issue 804 (2019-03-04): Condres OS 19.02, securely erasing hard drives, new UBports devices coming in 2019, Devuan to host first conference|
|• Issue 803 (2019-02-25): Septor 2019, preventing windows from stealing focus, NetBSD and Nitrux experiment with virtual machines, pfSense upgrading to FreeBSD 12 base|
|• Issue 802 (2019-02-18): Slontoo 18.07.1, NetBSD tests newer compiler, Fedora packaging Deepin desktop, changes in Ubuntu Studio|
|• Issue 801 (2019-02-11): Project Trident 18.12, the meaning of status symbols in top, FreeBSD Foundation lists ongoing projects, Plasma Mobile team answers questions|
|• Issue 800 (2019-02-04): FreeNAS 11.2, using Ubuntu Studio software as an add-on, Nitrux developing znx, matching operating systems to file systems|
|• Issue 799 (2019-01-28): KaOS 2018.12, Linux Basics For Hackers, Debian 10 enters freeze, Ubuntu publishes new version for IoT devices|
|• Issue 798 (2019-01-21): Sculpt OS 18.09, picking a location for swap space, Solus team plans ahead, Fedora trying to get a better user count|
|• Issue 797 (2019-01-14): Reborn OS 2018.11.28, TinyPaw-Linux 1.3, dealing with processes which make the desktop unresponsive, Debian testing Secure Boot support|
|• Issue 796 (2019-01-07): FreeBSD 12.0, Peppermint releases ISO update, picking the best distro of 2018, roundtable interview with Debian, Fedora and elementary developers|
|• Issue 795 (2018-12-24): Running a Pinebook, interview with Bedrock founder, Alpine being ported to RISC-V, Librem 5 dev-kits shipped|
|• Issue 794 (2018-12-17): Void 20181111, avoiding software bloat, improvements to HAMMER2, getting application overview in GNOME Shell|
|• Issue 793 (2018-12-10): openSUSE Tumbleweed, finding non-free packages, Debian migrates to usrmerge, Hyperbola gets FSF approval|
|• Issue 792 (2018-1203): GhostBSD 18.10, when to use swap space, DragonFly BSD's wireless support, Fedora planning to pause development schedule|
|• Issue 791 (2018-11-26): Haiku R1 Beta1, default passwords on live media, Slax and Kodachi update their media, dual booting DragonFly BSD on EFI|
|• Full list of all issues|
Star Labs - Laptops built for Linux.
View our range including the Star Lite, Star LabTop and more. Available with a choice of Ubuntu, Linux Mint or Zorin OS pre-installed with many more distributions supported. Visit Star Labs for information, to buy and get support.
|Random Distribution |
FTOSX was the natural next generation UNIX/Linux-based operating System. Based on GNU/Linux, but following its UNIX inheritance, FTOSX offers a fresh, innovative and simple approach because was designed specially for the masses. FTOSX was a RPM-based operating system (based on Red Hat Linux and Fedora Core) and therefore similar to popular Linux distributions. FTOSX offers more than 1,000 software packages redesigned in an harmonically form in its graphical interface, FTGUIX.