| DistroWatch Weekly
|Linux Foundation Training
|Reader Comments • Jump to last comment
1 • PC-BSD (by KI on 2014-10-06 09:20:06 GMT from Belgium) |
PC-BSD is a great operating system and probably the best Linux desktop alternative out there.
It feels a bit clumsier as compared to Linux distros and, even if you choose an alternative DE you will still end up with a lot of KDE stuff installed (plus a less polished experience as compared to KDE).
I found it to run very well in hardware that was not well supported by Linux. In fact, ins spite of BSD's reputation, my sound cards, wireless network adapters and Nvidia GPUs tend to provide a better out-of-the-box experience with PC-BSD than with Linux. This is particularly true for laptops.
The one reason I am not using PC-BSD in those troublesome systems is the lack of CUDA support.
2 • PC-BSD/FreeBSD (by Reuben on 2014-10-06 10:00:24 GMT from United States)
Chromium is available as a port. It's missing pepper flash, but other than that it's mostly similar to Chrome.
In my mind the biggest missing feature is UEFI support. I've tried to get 10.0 to install using the CSM on my system, but it never seems to boot up after installation. 10.1 is supposed to have EFI support, but it hasn't worked for me in any of the BETAs.
3 • PC Linux (by Zlatko NIkolic on 2014-10-06 10:12:19 GMT from Serbia)
PC Linux is my OS after years using Ubuntu Linux OS, Ubuntu try to copy Mac and I do not like that, my choice is KDE and its real deal for PC user with 27 inch LCD. After any update PCL do not request restart, is stable very fast, on my PC is 64bit version with KDE on SSD, its fast for everything I need to do on my PC.
I donate every month 1 dollar for this distro. Happy 11th birthday to PC Linux team, best regards from Serbia.
4 • Debian GNU/kFreeBSD will NOT be dropped from Debian (by Slackeee on 2014-10-06 10:25:02 GMT from Germany)
I wonder why so many people get this wrong.
A port being dropped from Jessie does only mean that it will not get an official release this time, but not that will be dropped from Debian. There are indeed several ports that are still part of Debian, but don't get an official release because they don't meet the release criteria.
So please don't get that mixed up.
5 • RE @4 Debian GNU/kFreeBSD (by KI on 2014-10-06 11:02:53 GMT from Belgium)
I guess that adopting systemd (which is Linux-specific) and using Gnome (which depends on systemd and therefore is also Linux-specific) will make ports not using the Linux kernel harder to develop and maintain.
6 • Rolling release testing (by rufovillosum on 2014-10-06 12:43:20 GMT from )
Jesse should consider his update schedule for the rolling release tests. My anecdotal experience with Arch, which has no distribution-enforced schedule, is that version conflicts sometimes happened when I updated monthly, but I've never had a problem since I switched to weekly.
7 • Rolling releases (by musty on 2014-10-06 13:08:38 GMT from France)
Hello, I am using Fedora since Fedora Core 4 and each time I was doing a full install.
Since Fedora 17, I do an upgrade or a pre-up and it is true that this always breaks something (F17-> F18-> F19). Then for Fedora 20, I did a full install again.
It's unfortunate to recognize it but the longest rolling release for me was Windows XP (2001 -> 2014) on one of my many laptops...
8 • PCLinuxOS Ccongrats on 11th birthday (by Tony on 2014-10-06 13:50:57 GMT from United Kingdom)
It was your distro that enabled me to get away from propitiatory systems many years ago. Long may you continue.
9 • Rolling releases (by linuxista on 2014-10-06 15:19:29 GMT from United States)
@7 I think there is some misunderstanding regarding rolling releases (RR). Fedora is a release upgrade model, not RR. Windows XP had various SP updates, but was never RR. If it had been there never would have been Vista, 7, 8, etc. Linux RR would include Arch, Manjaro, OpenSuse Factory, Gentoo, PCLinuxOS, Chakra, Debian Testing or Unstable, etc. I'm sure I'm omitting some.
10 • Thanks Distrowatch for HandyLinux review (by hotdiggettydog on 2014-10-06 16:14:31 GMT from Canada)
I was able to resurrect an old Acer laptop that originally ran Xp (poorly) with HandyLinux.
Sis graphics are problematic with almost any other distro but Debian still supports it in the newer kernels.
My only complaint with Handy is they include Skype but not PulseAudio. New versions of Skype will not work without pulseaudio.
Xfce is my desktop manager of choice now but with one complaint on laptops. The display will not reopen once the lid is closed. Hope the Xfce people fix that. Yes, I've searched for answers and tried all the settings.
11 • PCLinuxOS (by kc1di on 2014-10-06 16:59:41 GMT from United States)
Happy 11th may you Live Long and Prosper :)
This is one of my go Distros for a long time.
12 • Knoppix... ORCA and ADRIANE (by Baltazar on 2014-10-06 18:33:11 GMT from Puerto Rico)
Well... I have been trying for some time to get some OS capable for a blind person to use and... damn am I so let down.
Knoppix's ADRIANE seems to be one step in the right direction but I will be damn by its unforgiving stiff structure, it sort of works but not quite... and I am no t visually limited (unlike my friend)...
And then there is ORCA... or just the "Graphical Programs" > "Full X Session" from within ADRIANE, with its not to useful "compiz" and all... which can be a nightmare to navigate... I tried using it, still trying, by taking off my glasses and using the keyboard... just nasty! It is not user friendly nor is it logically structured to facilitate use by a blind person...
Thought I must add that many web pages are not friendly to visually handicapped people... which is sad.
Then there is the language difference (ie, system needing to be in Spanish but stumbling on English sections and having this hard to fallow mix...)...
LXDE is not good for this type of needs... and... damn trying to use KDE with ORCA is a fun experience in German... from an English version of Knoppix! Uhn selected uhn selected uhn selected...
And then ORCA stops all of the sudden... just imagine someone who is not only visually impaired but also a total noob at computers...
Am trying to help my friend and others, but this area is incredibly lacking in Linux...
Am short of starting from scratch to solve this but I don't have 2 or 3 decades to learn and implement... must try and find something more capable and customize-able....
Adriane seems nice but is lacking serviceability... I think maybe am not been able to convey my troubles clearly enough. Forgive me for my, not so good communication skills.
Any thoughts about this...???
13 • Orca on Manjaro Sonar (by linuxista on 2014-10-06 18:38:19 GMT from United States)
Manjaro has an accessibility project called Sonar. I can't vouch for it personally, but they do a good job generally. You may want to look into it. http://manjaro.org/2014/07/30/sonar-gnome-2014-1-is-out/
14 • Thanks linuxista! (by Baltazar on 2014-10-06 19:01:17 GMT from Puerto Rico)
Looks promising, am downloading right now to test!!! ... Hopefully it will work better than what I have tested so far... and on an not to new of a PC... will see!
15 • @12 Try Vinux (by Todd on 2014-10-06 19:32:37 GMT from United States)
I have turned a Visually impaired friend of mine onto Vinux (http://vinuxproject.org/downloads).
He says it has a couple minor flaws, but overall is able to be used.
16 • @10 (by jaws222 on 2014-10-06 19:34:19 GMT from United States)
"Xfce is my desktop manager of choice now but with one complaint on laptops. The display will not reopen once the lid is closed. Hope the Xfce people fix that. Yes, I've searched for answers and tried all the settings."
Yes, I just noticed this when I hooked up my Linux Lite with 2 external monitors. I do a multi-boot with grub installed in LL and have to lift the lid to see the boot menu. I haven't really poked around the power manager yet but there may be an option to set the laptop to "Do Nothing" when lid is closed similar to Windows. I've seen it in other Linux DE's, just not sure if it is in XFCE. It's a minor inconvenience, but still would be nice to fix it.
17 • Rolling releases (by Barnabyh on 2014-10-06 20:12:34 GMT from United Kingdom)
That sounds like one of the more interesting projects, Jesse. Thanks, can't wait to hear. Incidentally, I've just had my first minor problem on Debian Jessie. The update to Chromium 37 segfaults while Chrome 39 (dev) works fine.
18 • Rolling releases (by Goetz on 2014-10-06 20:21:03 GMT from Germany)
I liked and like arch. But after not updating it for 6 weeks due to a stay in a hospital, I recovered, but my Arch installation was almost dead.
19 • Rolling releases (by linuxista on 2014-10-06 20:32:24 GMT from United States)
Glad you recovered. Could you be more specific about the problem with near death update?
20 • re: 10, 16 xfce laptop screen closed (by Jimbo on 2014-10-06 22:04:28 GMT from New Zealand)
Re: xfce laptop screen closed; this is a defect in Light locker settings. Remove light locker and install xscreensaver. I think the defect may have been fixed now but not sure if it's in the Ubuntu repositories.
21 • More Sonar info (by mikef90000 on 2014-10-06 22:16:46 GMT from United States)
@12(Baltazar), here is the direct link to the Sonar GNU/LInux project:
A recent Linux Luddites podcast had an interview with the Sonar project founder Jonathan Nadeau:
IIRC the Sonar desktop uses MATE technology (in turn coming from GNOME 2/3) that Mr. Nadeau found to have the most up-to-date assistive technology compared to other DEs.
22 • Rolling releases experiment (by Robert Schiele on 2014-10-06 23:05:22 GMT from United States)
I'd like to quickly point out that Debian Sid is NOT a rolling release. It isn't a release, rolling or otherwise, which is intended to be run by normal users at all, and certainly not in a production machine. Absolutely no attempt is made to prevent breakages, which are both frequent and expected. Therefore including it in the experiment, the results of which I await with interest, amounts to expecting to be (and perform like) something it was never intended to be in the first place. Surely there must be some true rolling release distro out there which could be substituted.
23 • @21,Rolling Release Sid (by doctorordinaire on 2014-10-07 00:26:44 GMT from United States)
You're spot on re: Sid. That just won't fly. Aptosid is said to work. I've been using Sparky Linux for 2 years now. It's Debian Testing with some bells, whistles, & care for the seams one experiences in trying to run Testing as a rolling release. It's exactly what I want in a distro (except for the visual aesthetic, which anyone can change in 5 minutes anyway.)
24 • PCLOS anniversary. (by Kubelik on 2014-10-07 01:52:43 GMT from Denmark)
PCLOS 11 years? Texstar started with making extra packages to Mandrake/Mandriva. And later PCLOS started as an independant distro. A rolling distro so you don't have to reinstall or upgrade every now and then. Not with the latest under the hood, but the most used programs up to date, and printerdrivers, java etc installed so you have a ready to go machine. Good for older and newer PCs and noobs.
A usefull monthly magazine you also overcome to make. And there is a very competent Forum. - Thanks Texstar, Pinoc, Old Polack and the rest of the gang. You certainly deserve your part of the Linux landscape. - I am currently running the MATE edition side by side with some other distros. It just works.
25 • @22. References, facts and FUD? (by Kubelik on 2014-10-07 02:18:22 GMT from Denmark)
Did you see anyone from Debian pretend "that Debian Sid...is intended to be run by normal users... and ...in a production machine"?
26 • ... on the blinding proyect... (by Baltazar on 2014-10-07 02:28:52 GMT from Puerto Rico)
I have tried and will keep on trying to find a system for my friend...
So far, Knoppix's implementation of orca is not as easy as I would like and Majaros Sonar is somewhat useful... but it is not that user friendly... and I mean it is not noob friendly. Sure I can use it and it has many tools and features that prove to be helpful but there is this thing about it that makes it not that manageable with keyboard... yea I can hear the screams from some Gnome user about now on how Gnome has keyboard shortcuts and all...
It is just that I end up needing to use the mouse to point to item in menus and such... this is unpractical for the totally blind, even some partially blind might have a hard time up and running... though there is potential there...
I have been looking at some projects and will go on to download Vinux as well... I understand the difficulties in sustaining systems and programs for this kind of users. It is not easy...
I want to find something that I can give support to and that I fully understand... or at least as much as possible to be able to assist the user better. Understanding their needs helps me better assign the tools to them...
So far my problem with what i have tried comes from the fact that the user in question knows nothing of computers... which can be a good thing in a way, no bad habits. But this been the case I am trying to go about it like they would... learning by using the system and this is where its user-friendliness falls...
I can't just give them the disk and assume they will know what to do. In knoppix that would be futile since they need to write the correct boot argument to just boot to the Adriane interface... sure this can be set for the USB install by editing the boot argument but... that is something they wont be able to do. In Sonar this is a bit better... but I see them having trouble with the keyboard not been able to manage all aspects of the system in a graphical environment... or even a command line one. Sure I could go on to teach the arcane command and shortcuts with the abbreviated arcane names given to functions and programs that not even I can handle... and things get frustrating really fast, even for me...
Not to mention the horrible WWW and its massive pitfalls... Configuration of hardware an all those things they will need assistance in... How can they get something easy and self explanatory? Adrine seems like good in this regard, to some extend and Sonar is shooting for completeness which I appreciate... but I really don't see Gnome been a good fit in its current form for this.
I will see what I can do and keep on looking. I would like a review here on DW about this... just to share the frustration with all and attract attention to this area...
27 • PC-BSD (by Will B on 2014-10-07 02:52:09 GMT from United States)
PC-BSD is an excellent FreeBSD-derived system. It has lots of very helpful utilities (as noted in the review) and things that take forever in other OS's are a snap in PC-BSD. The folks behind PC-BSD are also very helpful and friendly, and don't kick you to the ground when you make small grammar or spelling errors. ;-)
My problem with PC-BSD is the quality of some of the ports (which I presume are from FreeBSD) as well as a hardware compatibility issue that has caused instability and several system freezes per minute. These issues aren't PC-BSD's fault as I experience the same thing on fresh FreeBSD, but it keeps me from using it. I really cannot wait for the day the system pausing and ports quality issues are much better, so I can make PC-BSD my main OS for good. :-)
28 • blind arch + PC-BSD (by bffs on 2014-10-07 03:35:30 GMT from Australia)
#26: try talking arch http://talkingarch.tk/
review - PC-BSD seems to be implementing cutting edge software more than other distros.
29 • ArchBSD (by msx on 2014-10-07 05:17:22 GMT from )
"Although probably not as widely used as the project's more popular ports, it is still an interesting concept, almost unique among Linux distributions, with only Gentoo Linux providing a similar system."
Hello Jesse, you might want to check ArchBSD.net
Sure, still experimental but already doing it very well.
30 • Rolling releases (by Niko Z. on 2014-10-07 08:17:25 GMT from Myanmar)
I thing this test is a great idea, I have always wanted to see a long-term comparative test of this nature.
It would be interesting to see Gentoo or one of it's derivatives included.
31 • @22 re:Debian Sid (by Reuben on 2014-10-07 08:53:59 GMT from United States)
I've used Debian Sid in the past as my desktop. It seemed fine. I can't remember any breakages. The only hitch is the freezes when approaching a new Stable release. I think Debian collected some statistics that show only a fraction of their users are using Stable.
As I've said in the past, the biggest source of problems for me in terms of updates breaking things is Fedora.
32 • @22 - Debian Sid as rolling release (by Hoos on 2014-10-07 11:25:03 GMT from Singapore)
Perhaps Sid was not meant to be a rolling release, but Semplice is a well-put together and coherent rolling release distro based on Sid and using Openbox as the window manager.
My installation has been ticking along since version 3 came out in Jan 2013. I update every 1 or 2 weeks, depending on whether I'm free. It's now at version 6.
Do I put a lot of effort into the updates? Not really. I merely check the Semplice forum for news of major update bugs, but there are hardly any serious issues posted there, either because it's not a busy forum, or it's generally trouble-free.
If, as is usual, there's nothing big posted, I dist-upgrade. I don't bother to check any bigger site or forum (e.g. siduction) for Debian Sid update news. Hasn't been a problem.
You don't get the usual barebones, manual config Openbox. You get an auto-generating/updating right-click Applications Menu, and with a graphical tool, you can pin programs to the panel for quick launch. There are also tools for various other settings so the user need not manually edit text config files (unless you want to).
All in all, it's a good looking, more colourful, bells and whistles implementation of Openbox, but it's still lightweight and very fast, even on old machines.
33 • Debian Sid (by linuxista on 2014-10-07 13:26:45 GMT from United States)
@31 I thought your comment was interesting, so I googled it. I came up with the following based on "popcon." These numbers show 73% using stable or old stable. I don't know how fair a statistical sample it is, and it's from 2010. Maybe someone else can find something better.
1.41 (etch) : 10781 11.4%
1.46 (lenny/stable) : 57983 61.3%
1.48 (testing) : 19776 20.9%
1.49 (unstable) : 4056 4.3%
34 • Debian Sid again (by linuxista on 2014-10-07 13:39:49 GMT from United States)
Here are current numbers from popcon http://popcon.debian.org/:
1.46 (lenny) : 6,948 : 4.17%
1.49 (squeeze) : 29,477 : 17.70%
1.56 (wheezy/stable) : 106,127 : 63.75%
1.61 (testing/unstable) : 23902 : 14.36%
total (excluding fringe) : 166454
These show Debian usage as even more conservative.
35 • Manjaro for the rolling releases test (by AnklefaceWroughtlandmire on 2014-10-07 15:24:20 GMT from Ecuador)
Your rolling releases test sounds fascinating, and I'm interested in seeing your results. I think you should also add Manjaro to the mix, since their way of doing things purportedly adds a buffer to any bugs coming out of Arch.
36 • Debian Sid (by Jesse on 2014-10-07 16:15:32 GMT from Canada)
>> "I'd like to quickly point out that Debian Sid is NOT a rolling release. It isn't a release, rolling or otherwise, which is intended to be run by normal users at all, and certainly not in a production machine. Absolutely no attempt is made to prevent breakages, which are both frequent and expected. "
I'd like to counter-point that most of the projects I will be reviewing do not have releases in the normal sense. Debian Sid, Arch and openSUSE Factory do not release in the usual sense. So your arguement excluding Debian doesn't really make sense.
Second, most rolling releases are not meant to be used by regular users. In fact, of the projects on my list only PCLinuxOS targets the general Linux population.
Third: No rolling releases are ever recommended for production use. Rolling is the opposite of what admins look for in a production environment. There isn't anything special about Debian Sid in that regard, so why pick on Debian? It's not really any different than any of the other projects in the trial.
37 • Rolling releases (by Götz on 2014-10-07 19:20:34 GMT from Germany)
re: "19 • Rolling releases (by linuxista on 2014-10-06 20:32:24 GMT from United States) ... Could you be more specific about the problem with near death update?"
It happened more than 2 years ago. I don't memorize the details anymore. During the time I was away, updates which required quite some additional manual work took place. I didn't have the time to catch up with that and switched to Mint.
38 • Jesse: Rolling Release Test (by linuxista on 2014-10-07 22:06:23 GMT from United States)
The rolling release test is an interesting idea. I also think that Manjaro is a significant omission, and I wonder if Jesse would entertain respectful requests to try to include it. It installs easily and is ready to go with all the codecs. In certain respects it is a more appropriate test subject than Arch. I don't think Arch is unstable at all, and many people do use it for a production environment. But if one builds it oneself from the core install image problems resulting from errors or omissions by a builder not fluent in the system could skew the test. (I've used Arch for years, but never built it from a core install.)
@37 It sounds like a flood of .pacnew files. While these require some manual work as you point out, I have found I can (not recommended) neglect them for long periods without any problem. If this was indeed the problem, however, "almost dead" would not be a fair characterization.
39 • Thanks to PC-LOS (by tinkerer on 2014-10-07 22:10:03 GMT from United States)
PCLOS was the first "real" distro that installed without issue, properly setup Xorg, and was usable from the start for a linux noob like me. Amazingly, a live PCLOS disk with KDE3 booted on a pentium laptop with 128kb of memory!! It was alway the attention to the little details that impressed me the most. Thank you Texstar.
40 • PCLOS anniversary (by Hombre-Loco on 2014-10-07 23:09:17 GMT from Nicaragua)
Congratulations to Pclos and thanks for good quality distros for 11 yrs..it's has always been one that has never caused any issues when i used it..
and while we are discussing RR linux ....PCLOS must be one of the most stable of those available..along with Manjaro which I have used for 2yrs all day every day..and have had no issues I rarely read of any major problems on the forums any issues that come up are usually are pretty much covered before stable updates...
I run Calculate (gentoo) and that hasn't broken on me at all yet....
PC BSD was a project i was trying out of curiosity after having a torrid time with Free bsd .... sadly it never really ever ran good...always something not right...then they up and changed to 64 bit only and pretty much just said to 32 bit users ...tough luck to you guys........I have tried Ghost BSD a few time and that has always ran better than PC BSD ever did...
41 • RR experiment (by Short Giant on 2014-10-07 23:17:14 GMT from United States)
Decades of linux and now here in 2014 we get the premier distro site announcing an experiment of comparisons to non-rr distros. Love it.
Okay but there's a better list of rr stuff to run with (as pointed out above the SID version of Deb seems strange to include in the study).
But feh ok.. meanwhile we have reports from many many rr users and non-rr users over the years. Good to have some info now amalgamated by the boss of this site. Thank you!
I predict a PCLOS win, btw. ;)
42 • @38,22--Debian Sid as rolling release (by Ralph on 2014-10-08 00:29:00 GMT from Canada)
It seems to me there is a critical difference between Sid and the other rolling releases. Sid is best viewed as a testing bed for the more stable versions of Debian (so one is likely to find devlopers and bug-testers running it), whereas distros like Arch, Chakra, and PCLOS are not really testing/developing for anyone else and are intended to be run by a small, but knowledgeable, segment of the Linux-using population as their main distro. More analogous distros for this comparison, I think, would be Aptosid (the old Sidux) or Siduction. These distros are intended to be run (at least potentially) as one's main distro and bring user-friendly strategies to the plate to accomplish this -- special scripts, for instance, or warnings about potential breakages towards which they will publish instructions to circumvent them, maybe even security updates. But with Sid you don't get security updates (you get a few critical ones with Testing though not from the Security Team) and you are left to more or less sink or swim on your own.
43 • Rolling Sid (by Somewhat Reticent on 2014-10-08 01:27:34 GMT from United States)
VSidO - be productive, with support.
Though not everyone is up to driving in a lean mean racing machine ...
44 • rolling release testing (by sunny on 2014-10-08 09:15:07 GMT from Ireland)
The right way of updating sid is to use apt-listbugs and pacmatic for arch. It will list the latest news in case manual intervention is needed before performing the actual update. It's meaningless to launch an update blindly, have it break the system, and then blame the rr distro when there was info available beforehand on required manual intervention.
There may be similar tools for the other proposed distro in the rr test.
45 • Rolling releases review (by Kazlu on 2014-10-08 11:02:05 GMT from France)
Great project Jesse. I think your choice of distros to review is nice, since you picked projects that are very different from each other and which are bases for many other distros, so information gathered on a distro on your test may be useful for several distros.
@38 linuxista: "In certain respects [Manjaro] is a more appropriate test subject than Arch."
Although reviewing Manjaro in itself makes sense, then why not review dozens of other rolling release distros out there? Aiming to keep the number of reviewed distros reasonable, the advantage of reviewing Arch over Manjaro is that the base code is used in the review. Information is thus relevant for distros based on Arch, which include Manjaro and distros based on Manjaro. Even if the management of updates by Manjaro implies that all information concerning Arch updates will not be applicable to Manjaro, some will.
Continuing: "But if one builds [Arch] oneself from the core install image problems resulting from errors or omissions by a builder not fluent in the system could skew the test."
Fair point. I don't know if Arch proposes live isos that would be installable, I don't think so, but it's the point of Bridge Linux, so maybe Bridge Linux would be a good starting base? Debian Sid has the same problem and, as #42 Ralph points out, it may be swapped for Siduction or Aptosid? But then we go back to my previous point in favor of using the base distro instead of a distro that is based on it...
46 • Install Arch efficiently (by Somewhat Reticent on 2014-10-08 13:14:33 GMT from United States)
Wouldn't the EvolutionLinux project at SourceForge facilitate this?
47 • Rolling Releases review (by linuxista on 2014-10-08 15:11:05 GMT from United States)
@45 : Your argument re Arch is the base code is a reasonable point. My experience and understanding is that aside from holding updates back a few weeks and occasionally holding some packages back, there is very little difference between Manjaro and Arch. The differences are in installation, hardware detection, some GUI tools, and a BFQ kernel. Your idea of using Bridge Linux would be ideal, it's just that, while I have used Manjaro, I've never installed from a Bridge Linux image and don't know myself their quality control. (I installed from ArchBang 5 or 6 years ago and it's been running ever since.) One could argue that Manjaro is becoming a significant player in its own right and anyone looking to dip their toes into an Arch based RR would do well to start with Manjaro in any case. But there are trade-offs with all the choices. Hopefully Jesse did an adequate installation.
48 • Another rolling release distro - Pisi (by Hoos on 2014-10-08 16:54:55 GMT from Singapore)
A unique rolling distro Jesse might want to try is Pisi Linux, with the pisi package manager. The original Pardus Linux used to use pisi, but the new Pardus is Debian-based. AFAIK, only Pisi Linux and Ikey's still-alpha Evolve OS presently use pisi-style package management. Evolve's is a forked version but the commands and syntax are more or less the same.
I think it's an interesting project, since pisi only downloads and installs the parts of packages that are different, when updating. That cuts down the size of updates.
Version 1.0 was only just released so it's pretty new. I installed it and am currently testing it on my laptop. I've only updated a few times but it's been smooth so far.
Seems a nice implementation of KDE with a good selection of useful applications pre-installed. I installed old Pardus long ago, and Pisi has a similar feel (installer, the first-use Kaptan program, KDE). You may disagree with the tons of cat wallpapers and the liberal use of dark pink and maroon in its default look but it's not ugly, and with Kaptan you can switch right away to a more sober theme.
I'm not sure how large their repository is if you want something other than the more common programs, but if your needs aren't very complicated I think it's worth trying if you have a 64-bit machine.
49 • @47 (by mandog on 2014-10-08 17:25:17 GMT from Peru)
There are a lot of differences between Arch and Manjaro the later uses different locations for some configuration files the BFQ kernel and multiple kernels is really just a gimmick and causes a lot of compatibility problems as does the nvidia config files that they have moved, xorg and xserver are different versions and of course Manjaro is using a lot patches as did Chakra, it is slowly moving away from arch compatibility
50 • More rolling releases (by Jesse on 2014-10-08 19:02:25 GMT from Canada)
In response to the people asking if I'll add distro X to the list, the answer is (sadly) no. There are a few reasons:
1. I have limited time/resources so five distributions is about the most I can realistically handle right now while also reviewing other distributions and keeping up with work, home life, etc.
2. Manjaro, Chakra, etc are typically based on Arch, which I am already covering. I specifially chose Debian and Arch because they form the base for so many other distributions.
3. Many of the projects people are suggesting I look at are more semi-rolling than full on rolling distributions. One of the reasons I am going with Arch and Debian Sid instead of Manjaro and Debian Testing is I want to get the full rolling experience rather than a semi-rolling experience.
4. I may do a similar trial next year in which I cover semi-rolling releases and compare my experiences with full rolling releases to semi-rolling distributions. Depending on how popular the idea is.
51 • jessie installer release (by chris h on 2014-10-09 01:07:09 GMT from United States)
I've installed jessie gnome on a couple of computers, using the net install version. The installs went well, using the expert install option. I don't want debian formatting my swap file. I can add the swap file to the fstab later.
The second install didn't recognize the root password that I thought I had entered. Fortunately, there is the Advanced Options, Rescue Mode on the cd. I got a root shell on my install and did a sudo passwd to set the root password.
I've been dist-upgrading aptosid and siduction based versions of jessie gnome every day for a long time now. It's nice to have a pure debian version.
52 • More hardware info needed from distros (by Ben Myers on 2014-10-09 04:44:01 GMT from United States)
I have one Linux box that I use regularly and I use several live distros to test hardware that I intend to sell. It is the latter where Linux is problematic for me. I know now that many leading and contemporary distros won't run at all (or well) on a laptop with an Intel Banias CPU. That's easy. I even put a newer Dothan CPU in a Thinkpad R51 and then coaxed it to boot Linux Mint. But it took two tries. Mint 17 Cinnamon kept crashing, but the less demanding Mint 17 XFCE booted up and ran OK. So whether it is Mint or another distro, here is the challenge: Why can't you simply state on the web pages for your distros the minimum hardware on which it will run successfully? Gee, Microsoft does it, but then they fib and give hardware requirements on which their Windows runs like a slug. For Mint, or any other distro with multiple desktops, say how much hardware EACH desktop requires, and state it clearly so people do not have to hunt through a web site for this nugget of info, or, worse yet, find out through trail and error that a distro won't run on their oldish computer. I am fairly sure that the ancient ATI Mobility RADEON 7500 with only 32MB of graphics memory was the reason why Cinnamon crashed, but I do not know for sure. So what is the minimum graphics memory needed to run Mint Cinnamon? Mint XFCE? Ubuntu? Lubuntu? Kubuntu? Fedora? and on and on. And system memory, too? And hard drive space? It would be nice to tell people the hardware needed, to save them some rude shocks. And, BTW, to keep from scaring them away from your distro.
OK, ya got a challenge there. Go for it. It's not rocket science.
53 • @52 hardware info (by Kazlu on 2014-10-09 15:07:37 GMT from France)
I supposed you missed that: Go to the Linux Mint website, pick the version with the desktop you want, you're driven to a blog post of the latest version that went out - the *very same place* to get the download links for the ISOs, so I suppose you already got there - with a "system requirements" paragraph. Granted, these are only minimal system requirements, meaning that below that, the OS won't run. If you have at least that, the OS should run, but not necessarily be fast. That's why they say, for example, "512 MB RAM (1GB recommended for a comfortable usage)". Is it not at least as much informative as Microsoft, since you mentioned it? But even after that, it's true that it's just basic information and not a guarantee. In your example the OS with Cinnamon started but then crashes, so I suppose you fulfilled the minimum system requirements but did not have much higher specs. And if it is related to graphics card... Well there is no magical solution there. A distro may eventually say "use a graphic card with X MB of video memory minimum", but that still won't be enough, because everything depends on how well your hardware is supported. And that depends on how much effort the manufacturer has put into building a Linux proprietary driver or how much information it has given to allow people to build a FLOSS driver (hint: often the answers are "not much" and "none", respectively). Almost all existing harware elements have been build to run Windows and it's not possible to test every configuration and every hardware combination on GNU/Linux. The *only* way to know if a distro will work on a PC is to try it. That's why several websites report every computer or piece of hardware on which X or Y distro has been tested, be it successfully or not. Just duckduckgo it, you should find some information. I tried "linux hardware compatibility" and got some interesting results (as well as broken links I have to admit :) ). If someone already tried your hardware, good, if not, or if you don't find anything useful enough, well, do like every one else do because it's the only way: try it. Live OS or installed OS, try it. It's not rocket science.
54 • @53 Hardware Info (by Ben Myers on 2014-10-10 00:39:22 GMT from United States)
Incomplete. How much graphics memory? Capable of 800x600 is not quite good enough. Ancient ISA cards with as little as 512MB of memory are capable of 800x600, too. But if one was ever silly enough to use 512MB graphics with Mint (or any other mainstream distro), I would expect either failure to boot or failure all but the most simple desktop to fail. Also, if these were my requirements, I think I would say PAE CPU HIGHLY recommended. Yes, I know you can run a non-PAE Banias laptop, but it's a PITA, not a positive "out of box" experience. Finally, I would promote the hardware requirements to more readily visible pages on the web site.
But then, I've done a lot of selling, anathema to many Linux people, and the requirements are part of selling. If the unwashed try a Linux distro on whatever random hardware they have and the distro craps out, that ain't selling. Right now, there are too many impediments to get many of the unwashed GUI-using people to try a desktop Linux. Maybe that's the way many people want it.
Please understand that I am trying to figure why desktop Linux is not so widely accepted. Incomplete statements of requirements are part of the problem. With this Windows mess that Microsoft has on its hands, there is maybe an 18-month window of opportunity to promote desktop Linux, and then Windows 10 hits the streets and the Microsoft hegemony is again unchallenged.
55 • @54 Windows 10 (by Rev_Don on 2014-10-10 03:09:00 GMT from United States)
" there is maybe an 18-month window of opportunity to promote desktop Linux, and then Windows 10 hits the streets and the Microsoft hegemony is again unchallenged."
More like 9 months. Win 10 should be out by the middle of 2015. At most it will be 13 months as they will make sure it's out prior to the Christmas selling season next year.
But that is neither here nor there. Windows 10 is and will fix the majority of things that people disliked about 8/8.1 so the time has already passed. If folks haven't already moved from Windows to Linux the vast majority of them aren't going to now. They'll wait for Win 10 instead.
56 • @55 18 or 9, what's the diff? (by Ben Myers on 2014-10-10 06:12:18 GMT from United States)
Mid-2015 is the optimistic date for the general release of Windows 10. Will Microsoft hit its mid-2015 target? When released, will it be reliable, stable and more secure? What is the selling price point, or will it follow a subscription model? How many Windows 10 versions will there be? The previews tell us it reverts back more or less to a Windows 7-like UI. But there is a long way to go before it is available in shrink wrap in the stores, so you can download it from the Microsoft borg mother ship, and many unanswered questions.
Whatever the Windows of opportunity is, there is some time to take advantage of it with a little spit and polish and some marketing orientation.
57 • @54 Of Linux and Windows and hardware compatibility (by KI on 2014-10-10 09:00:20 GMT from Belgium)
As I and many others have already pointed out a thousand times: The popularity of a given operating system depends mostly on in how many devices it comes pre-installed. Period.
We are seeing that very clearly with Android, which is based on Linux and yet it is the most popular OS in mobile devices. Is it intrinsically better or worse than similar products from Microsoft or Apple or any other company? It does not matter. It comes pre-installed in more devices than any other OS nowadays because it is sponsored by Google and therefore it is the most popular one.
Apple switched to Unix some years ago and that risky move helped it to survive and even to become competitive again. But they are selling their own hardware so the issue for them is mainly with peripherals (where they, as Linux, depend on the good will of manufacturers).
Of course, if we speak of the desktop the situation is a bit different, because one may say "hey, you can install Windows in any computer". Yes, but that is because in the desktop market no manufacturer would dare to produce a computer, a component or a peripheral that is not compatible with Windows. So Microsoft itself does not need to do the huge effort to ensure compatibility with every single piece of hardware on Earth. Manufacturers do that.
The free operating systems, and namely Linux, are the only OSs that need to do a pro-active effort to be compatible with all existing hardware. That is an endeavor of titanic proportions and one that it is impossible to fulfill unless Linux's share on the market is large enough to force manufactures to ensure compatibility (as they do for Microsoft and Apple).
The problem there is the heterogeneity of the free software ecosystem (Linux as an OS does not exist, even if we tend to speak as it did). The manufactures who actually care about Linux tend to produce drivers for either RHEL or Ubuntu. RHEL is fine but Ubuntu is released too often and therefore it is almost impossible for manufactures to keep producing drivers at the same pace. In addition quality control in Canonical is pathetic (release schedule the priority) and assuring backwards compatibility is not even on the agenda (bling-bling is the priority)...
58 • @54 hardware requirements, Windows (by Kazlu on 2014-10-10 09:05:52 GMT from France)
And now I agree with you. Maybe those requirements are outdated. I admit it's odd that Cinnamon is told to requide as much RAM as Xfce whereas KDE requires 4 times as much! The point is, it's easy to find. If you can find your way to the download spot (and it's ONE click away from the home page), you already are on the "hardware requirements" location.
I tried a couple of months ago to run Linux Mint 13 MATE live on a 512MB machine. It worked, but it was very, very slow. Yet I suppose it would have allowed me to install it, if I wanted to. Would it have given me a good impression on Linux if I was a newbie? No. But the live system worked, so there is a good chance the installation would have worked (I can't know for sure), and that's why the hardware requirements are for. The installed sustem would have been faster than the live one, but I don't know how usable it would have been. I tried to run Mageia live DVD with KDE on the same machine, for the sake of experience, aaaaand it didn't went well :) I couln't even load the live desktop.
I think it's clever from Mint to add the "1GB recommended for a comfortable usage". That's a fair warning for people wanting to try it on a computer with 512MB to 1GB of RAM. Still, you can always add more information, and you ideas are not bad, but you also want to avoid flooding people with information, that is discouraging. Just write the minimum... Even if everyone does not have the same definition of "minimum", so you cannot find something that suits everyone!
"Please understand that I am trying to figure why desktop Linux is not so widely accepted."
I don't think the lack of hardware requirements information is a significant reason for that. Not when you compare it to the fact that almost all PCs are build to run Windows and almost every PC you buy in a store is sold with Windows installed. This is a much, much bigger problem. Many people won't go looking for hardware requirements anyway, they won't try to install an OS. They won't use GNU/Linux unless they buy a computer with GNU/Linux preinstalled.
59 • PCLinuxOS birthday (by cykodrone on 2014-10-10 11:27:00 GMT from Canada)
Congrats, happy 11th, glad it and Texstar (Bill) is still around. I have fond memories of PCLinuxOS, I built a Core2 Duo E6700 around the middle 00s, when they were 'cutting edge' (and pricey, sheesh), I solely ran PCLinuxOS with the Nvidia driver, dual monitors, a 4:3 and a 16:9, both LCDs, I spread the workspace across both, back then it was no walk in the GUI park to get that to work (especially with diff aspect ratios), lol, lotta fun, good times. I would go back to it from Debian but sadly there's still on Raid 0 support OOTB. I'm kinda addicted to Debian Xfce now anyway.
60 • @57, Almost correct. (by Garon on 2014-10-10 11:43:42 GMT from United States)
Your comment has a lot of truth in it and I agree with most of it but you kind of fell off in the last few sentences. You said, "RHEL is fine but Ubuntu is released too often and therefore it is almost impossible for manufactures to keep producing drivers at the same pace. In addition quality control in Canonical is pathetic (release schedule the priority) and assuring backwards compatibility is not even on the agenda (bling-bling is the priority)..." is completely incorrect. The release schedules you speak of are not the stable versions. The LTS versions, which stands for Long Term Support, are the versions that are recommended for production machines and stable systems. The others are just test beds. Manufactures are smart enough to know that and you would think that by now most people in the Linux world would realize that. For my stable systems I only run a LTS version. I only install the in between versions to help with bug hunts and for fun. Quality control on LTS versions is nice indeed and I appreciate the stability. To judge a company by their test releases is foolish and gives a lot of false impressions. False impressions like that are one of the biggest dangers to the Linux ecosystem. On a side note, you can always get the latest applications for LTS versions so that is not a problem as some contend.
61 • @60 LTS (by KI on 2014-10-10 17:15:02 GMT from Belgium)
First of all, Canonical does not label non-LTS releases as "test releases". Not at all. They are normal releases. LTS releases tend to be more stable, but not initially, when they are still warm from the oven. You normally have to wait until the first or second major update (.1 or .2 versions) in order to install a reliable OS. Backwards compatibility issues are not considered at all from one LTS to the next. In addition, most people using Ubuntu are not running LTS releases, in part because Canonical seems to prefer having beta-testers (even if they are not called like that because they are running normal releases) than having professional users. This narrows the share of LTS releases making them less attractive targets for professional developers. If Canonical wants to be a serious company they need to adopt the RetHat model, where LTS are the only releases (with longer support spam) and the test releases are calling something completely different (Fedora).
62 • Continuation of conversation from #60 & #61 (by :wq on 2014-10-10 21:52:49 GMT from United States)
"The LTS versions, which stands for Long Term Support, are the versions that are recommended for production machines and stable systems . . . Manufactures are smart enough to know that and you would think that by now most people in the Linux world would realize that."
I'm not disagreeing with you in principle, but many (most?) pre-installed systems I've seen include the latest release of Ubuntu, regardless of whether or not it is an LTS release, and the upgrade instructions, where provided, are for the latest release of Ubuntu, regardless of whether or not it is an LTS release.
The latest release of Ubuntu at the moment also happens to be an LTS release, so I've had to use Internet Archive to provide a couple of examples.
1) https://web.archive.org/web/20140104122539/http://zareason.com/shop/Alto-4335.html (if you scroll down you will see that the setup defaulted to the latest release of Ubuntu at the time, which was 13.10)
2) https://web.archive.org/web/20131029033405/http://knowledge76.com/index.php/Version_Upgrade (no emphasis was placed on the latest LTS release, just the latest release period, which at the time was 13.10)
With the switch from 18 mos to 9 mos of support for non-LTS releases (starting with 13.04), and with the improvements of LTS point releases, perhaps less computer manufacturers will/do chase after the latest Ubuntu releases, and instead will/do stick with LTS releases; I have no definitive numbers, just previous observation which I noted. Perhaps Canonical isn't making it clear to manufacturers how it intends Ubuntu releases should be marketed.
I do question if cadence at any cost is a better approach than release-when-ready. I think there are downsides to being inflexibly adherent to either approach; a release can be pushed out before it is quite up to snuff, or a release can be delayed to a point where it is either outdated at launch, or the public grew bored with waiting and moved on to other offerings, and no longer cares about the bells and whistles this new release brings. I personally have enjoyed the extended primacy of Fedora 20, and the lengthened development of Fedora 21 has actually been refreshing. I know the Fedora Project has been toying with amending its scheduling strategy (https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1349), though I'm not sold on it being a productive or incisive measure in Fedora's particular case, at least not without addressing other issues. But it is clear that concrete release scheduling matters to some (particular commercial and institutional) users, such as Spotify (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7078824 & https://lists.debian.org/debian-publicity/2014/06/msg00014.html).
63 • testing/nonlts (by ben on 2014-10-10 23:02:03 GMT from United States)
I find it interesting people think that old stable versions have vastly better support. I built 12 new computers for work with AMD quad cores and installed wheezy(this was about a year ago) I had to add back ports for quite a few things, simply because the old 3.2 kernel that came with wheezy and the open graphics drivers did not support any of the computers.
honestly I net install Debian and immediately jump to testing, but only for my personal rigs. My boss wants the stable versions of things( I understand) so that was the only choice.
To sum up, I think depending on your hardware, a newer version my do better, I know this was the case with Ubuntu 13.10 over 13.04 for several of my sysytems in the past.
64 • Distro specific or generic Linux? (by M.Z. on 2014-10-10 23:05:36 GMT from United States)
@57 & 60
I was under the impression that most hardware was handled at a more generic level & the developers aimed for 'generic Linux', and the generic Linux drivers were then packaged by the various distributions. All Ubuntu drivers are pulled from Debian testing like the rest of the distro, right? I think the differences in hardware support most come down to what the various disros do with the drivers that are available from the manufactures who hopefully do some work with the upstream kernel folks. I might be wrong, but I think that is how it works. I would also guess that there is also work done by manufactures who want their hardware to work with certain versions of RHEL or Debian, but I would guess that there are more generic versions of such drivers. If I'm wrong I'd like to know, but that is how I thought it worked.
65 • Rolling PCLinuxOS (by linuxista on 2014-10-11 20:26:09 GMT from United States)
Regarding Jesse's full-rolling test, I'm having a hard time figuring out whether PCLinuxOS is considered full-rolling or part/semi-rolling. Generally it seems like it's classified as part-rolling (non-rolling core with rolling apps), but then there seems some mention of being able to set it up as full rolling. Anybody able to clarify?
66 • 65 • Rolling PCLinuxOS (by linuxista) (by Ika on 2014-10-12 17:49:21 GMT from Spain)
PCLinuxOS is a full rolling release.
The only thing it has to be manually upgraded is the Kernel, for obvious reasons.
67 • @64 • Purist distros and not (by Ben Myers on 2014-10-12 22:24:47 GMT from United States)
My perception is that Linux distros are divided into two camps with regard to drivers. There are purists who insist that if source code is not available for a driver, it does not get incorporated into the distro, period. An example of this is the absence of Broadcom wifi drivers from some distros, because Broadcom is unwilling to release driver source code. Then there are distros that incorporate proprietary drivers as long as they are stable, predictable and free of serious defects.
In some cases, you can still install the proprietary driver, but that's extra work for we who are unwashed. I like mine to plug and play with whatever hardware I happen to have.
But that's just me talking an outsider who is not part of the Linux developer community. Maybe someone closer to the code can elaborate.
68 • Hardware info (by frodopogo on 2014-10-13 06:30:05 GMT from United States)
When people buy Windows, they either get it installed in a computer, or it comes in a package with the hardware requirements on package in an obvious place. They either don't have to look for the requirements, or already know where to look.
LINUX on the other hand, commonly comes two ways.... either as a downloadable ISO, or on a DVD, CD or thumb drive available. The downloadable ISO is not really a newbie friendly thing, because you have to install an obscure program to burn it to disk... I remember having had to install it on Windows for my first Linux Mint install. Yes,there IS that hardware requirements paragraph, but that's easy to miss compared to having the info on the outside of a box. There needs to be some way of streamlining that process like:
1. Having the Windows ISO burning program available on the same page as the
2. Hardware requirements in LARGE PRINT
3. the button to download the ISO.
I can already hear some of you cringing at the idea of having a Windows program available on a Linux distro's site, but if they've got to hunt it down.... only people thoroughly ticked off at Microsoft (or the antivirus companies McAFEE!!!! GRRRRRR!!!!) like I was will have the drive to hunt everything down.
That's still really too many steps for the typical Windows user.... if there was a way to click on a button, and have the ISO burning software installed, download the ISO, check the MD5 sum, and even prompt them to put the right blank disk (or thumb drive) in the right drive. And it would help if it put an icon on the Windows desktop "Burn Linux Mint image to DVD" or somesuch.... the ISO burning program I got for Windows puts a menu item in Tools or something where you could easily miss it.
Another possibility is to have some kind of diagnostics run while booting a Live DVD that tests for minimum requirements and if they are not met, there should be a clear warning that problems will probably arise, and it's not the distro's fault.
The other possibility is that the hardware requirements could be printed on the DVD disk itself, if the disk with the distro is purchased.
Actually.... what there needs to be is a complete site for Windows refugees/Linux noobs that features ONLY noob-friendly distros, either has the ISOS stored there or links to download servers in an easy way, has the iso burning software for Windows, basically everything in one place. Sort of a Noob-friendly Distrowatch with no RC's, no Arch, no firewall or specialty distros, no ads for hacking secrets, etc. A Linux for Complete Dunces website!!! ;^D
In summary, even as friendly as Linux Mint is, so many of the ways of doing things are still based on ways of doing things that are common in the Linux world... there really isn't a recognition of just how different the Windows world is... it's a completely different culture.
Number of Comments: 68
Display mode: DWW Only • Comments Only • Both DWW and Comments
|• 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|
|• Issue 790 (2018-11-19): NetBSD 8.0, Bash tips and short-cuts, Fedora's networking benchmarked with FreeBSD, Ubuntu 18.04 to get ten years of support|
|• Issue 789 (2018-11-12): Fedora 29 Workstation and Silverblue, Haiku recovering from server outage, Fedora turns 15, Debian publishes updated media|
|• Issue 788 (2018-11-05): Clu Linux Live 6.0, examining RAM consumpion, finding support for older CPUs, more Steam support for running Windows games on Linux, update from Solus team|
|• Issue 787 (2018-10-29): Lubuntu 18.10, limiting application access to specific users, Haiku hardware compatibility list, IBM purchasing Red Hat|
|• Issue 786 (2018-10-22): elementary OS 5.0, why init keeps running, DragonFly BSD enables virtual machine memory resizing, KDE neon plans to drop older base|
|• Issue 785 (2018-10-15): Reborn OS 2018.09, Nitrux 1.0.15, swapping hard drives between computers, feren OS tries KDE spin, power savings coming to Linux|
|• Issue 784 (2018-10-08): Hamara 2.1, improving manual pages, UBports gets VoIP app, Fedora testing power saving feature|
|• Issue 783 (2018-10-01): Quirky 8.6, setting up dual booting with Ubuntu and FreeBSD, Lubuntu switching to LXQt, Mint works on performance improvements|
|• Issue 782 (2018-09-24): Bodhi Linux 5.0.0, Elive 3.0.0, Solus publishes ISO refresh, UBports invites feedback, Linux Torvalds plans temporary vacation|
|• Issue 781 (2018-09-17): Linux Mint 3 "Debian Edition", file systems for SSDs, MX makes installing Flatpaks easier, Arch team answers questions, Mageia reaches EOL|
|• Issue 780 (2018-09-10): Netrunner 2018.08 Rolling, Fedora improves language support, how to customize Kali Linux, finding the right video drivers|
|• Issue 779 (2018-09-03): Redcore 1806, keeping ISO downloads safe from tampering, Lubuntu makes Calamares more flexible, Ubuntu improves GNOME performance|
|• Issue 778 (2018-08-27): GuixSD 0.15.0, ReactOS 0.4.9, Steam supports Windows games on Linux, Haiku plans for beta, merging disk partitions|
|• Issue 777 (2018-08-20): YunoHost 220.127.116.11, limiting process resource usage, converting file systems on Fedora, Debian turns 25, Lubuntu migrating to Wayland|
|• Issue 776 (2018-08-13): NomadBSD 1.1, Maximum storage limits on Linux, openSUSE extends life for 42.3, updates to the Librem 5 phone interface|
|• Issue 775 (2018-08-06): Secure-K OS 18.5, Linux is about choice, Korora tests community spin, elementary OS hires developer, ReactOS boots on Btrfs|
|• Issue 774 (2018-07-30): Ubuntu MATE & Ubuntu Budgie 18.04, upgrading software from source, Lubuntu shifts focus, NetBSD changes support policy|
|• Issue 773 (2018-07-23): Peppermint OS 9, types of security used by different projects, Mint reacts to bugs in core packages, Slackware turns 25|
|• Issue 772 (2018-07-16): Hyperbola GNU/Linux-libre 0.2.4, UBports running desktop applications, OpenBSD auto-joins wi-fi networks, boot environments and zedenv|
|• Issue 771 (2018-07-09): Linux Lite 4.0, checking CPUs for bugs, configuring GRUB, Mint upgrade instructions, SUSE acquired by EQT|
|• Issue 770 (2018-07-02): Linux Mint 19, Solus polishes desktop experience, MintBox Mini 2, changes to Fedora's installer|
|• Issue 769 (2018-06-25): BunsenLabs Helium, counting Ubuntu users, UBports upgrading to 16.04, Fedora CoreOS, FreeBSD turns 25|
|• Issue 768 (2018-06-18): Devuan 2.0.0, using pkgsrc to manage software, the NOVA filesystem, OpenBSD handles successful cron output|
|• 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 or Linux Mint pre-installed with many more distributions supported. Visit Star Labs for information, to buy and get support.
|Random Distribution |
ArcheOS stands for Archaeological Operating System. It is a GNU/Linux live DVD distribution (versions 1.x based on PCLinuxOS, versions 2 and 3 on Kubuntu, version 4 on Debian GNU/Linux), with specialist software for archaeological purposes.