Language Selection

English French German Italian Portuguese Spanish

My Take On PocketLinux

Filed under
Linux
Reviews
-s

Distribution release PocketLinux 1.2 was announced on Distrowatch last night and Tuxmachines was excited to try it out. However, that excitement didn't last long. A smaller download of 370mb doesn't put it in my personal classification as a mini distro and in fact, I can't really see the point. If it's going to be small, then make it small enough to fit onto a 80mb cdr. If it's going to take a full cdr, why not use the space to include enough applications to make your distro attractive.

PocketLinux's claim to fame is its simplified Slackware installer and light version of KDE. However, the simplified installer really isn't any help as the newcomer who might be dissuaded by a Slackware install still must go through the most intimidating steps of cfdisking and/or setting up a root partition. The simplification of not having to pick applications might be welcome if it included at least gcc or the kernel sources. Further, they simplified it so much one doesn't even get to set up a normal user account or their internet connection specifics.

Upon boot, the internet connection is active however through probing and dhcp, then one finds KDE, KDE Light, openbox, or TWM to log into. The full version of KDE is at version 3.4.0 which is a little behind the curve by now and the light version was found to be way too light for my tastes. This might appeal to some whose machine specifications are running a little on the lowside as it uses OpenBox for the window manager and still provides a nice looking desktop. However, this reporter was becoming quite annoyed at the constant konqueror crashes. This occured in the full KDE or KDE Light.

Most of the expected system tools and programs seemed to be included, however it didn't seem to come with gcc. I find this rather inconvenient for a distro without a large repository of binary applications to install. All of this sits on top of a 2.4.29 kernel. 2.6 has been stable for quite some time now and is the standard for the desktop system. In addition, 2.4.29 isn't even the latest in the 2.4 series. Most of my other "extra" hardware was ignored as well, if you consider things like soundcard and tv card extras.

In comparing the full version to the light version of KDE, one can find they apparently met their goal of a scaled down desktop environment. In this first example of the settings/preference menus, one is quite limited in their choices. Kcontrol, ObConf, and panel configuration is included in the light version and that may be adequate for some.

    

I'm not so sure the same can be said for the tools menu however. One could speculate that menu to be quite inadequate.

    

For your consideration, further comparisons:

    

    

    

So, I would say Tuxmachines was a little disappointed with PocketLinux at this time. I find the simplifications haphazardly thought out and inadequate. Granted the light version was fast performing, however it wasn't very stable. I experienced enough crashes to dissuade anyone. And what's the advantage of a 370mb download?

Perhaps I'm missing the point of this distribution, but am not inclined to care as even if it was planned a little better, it's too far behind the current technology available from other vendors. Whereas any person who can hammer a distro together that will actually install and boot deserves some credit, I just don't really see the point or any advantages in PocketLinux. Perhaps as a livecd it'd make more sense.

Distroreviews has also published a review of PocketLinux. Although I haven't read it and can't say, perhaps he found it more pleasing.

More Screenshots in the gallery.

More in Tux Machines

Scrivener Writing Software has a Linux Version

In some ways, Scrivener is the very embodiment of anti-Linux, philosophically. Scrivener is a writing program, used by authors. In Linux, one strings together well developed and intensely tested tools on data streams to produce a result. So, to author a complex project, create files and edit them in a simple text editor, using some markdown. Keep the files organized in the file system and use file names carefully chosen to keep them in order in their respective directories. when it comes time to make project-wide modifications, use grep and sed to process all of the files at once or selected files. Eventually, run the files through LaTeX to produce beautiful output. Then, put the final product in a directory where people can find it on Gopher.

Gopher? Anyway …

On the other hand, emacs is the ultimate linux program. Emacs is a text editor that is so powerful and has so many community-contributed “modes” (like add-ins) that it can be used as a word processor, an email client, a calendar, a PIM, a web browser, an operating system, to make coffee, or to stop that table with the short leg from rocking back and forth. So, in this sense, a piece of software that does everything is also linux, philosophically.

And so, Scrivener, despite what I said above, is in a way the very embodiment of Linux, philosophically.

I’ve been using Scrivener on a Mac for some time now, and a while back I tried it on Linux. Scrivener for the Mac is a commercial product you must pay money for, though it is not expensive, but the Linux version, being highly experimental and probably unsafe, is free. But then again, this is Linux. We eat unsafe experimental free software for breakfast. So much that we usually skip lunch. Because we’re still fixing breakfast. As it were.

Details with Screen Shots Here

Anyway, here’s what Scrivener does. It does everything. The full blown Mac version has more features than the Linux version, but both are feature rich. To me, the most important things are: A document is organised in “scenes” which can be willy nilly moved around in relation to each other in a linear or hierarchical system. The documents are recursive, so a document can hold other documents, and the default is to have only the text in the lower level document as part of the final product (though this is entirely optional). A document can be defined as a “folder” which is really just a document that has a file folder icon representing it to make you feel like it is a folder.

Associated with the project, and with each separate document, is a note taking area. So, you can jot notes project-wide as you work, like “Don’t forget to write the chapter where everyone dies at the end,” or you can write notes on a given document like “Is this where I should use the joke about the slushy in the bathroom at Target?” Each scene also has a number of attributes such as a “label” and a “status” and keywords. I think keywords may not be implemented in the Linux version yet.

Typically a project has one major folder that has all the actual writing distributed among scenes in it, and one or more additional folders in which you put stuff that is not in the product you are working on, but could be, or was but you pulled it out, or that includes research material.

You can work on one scene at a time. Scenes have meta-data and document notes.

The scenes, folders, and everything are all held together with a binder typically displayed on the left side of the Scrivener application window, showing the hierarchy. A number of templates come with the program to create pre-organized binder paradigms, or you can just create one from scratch. You can change the icons on the folders/scenes to remind you of what they are. When a scene is active in the central editing window, you can display an “inspector” on the right side, showing the card (I’ll get to that later) on top the meta data, and the document or project notes. In the Mac version you can create additional meta-data categories.

An individual scene can be displayed in the editing window. Or, scenes can be shown as a collection of scenes in what is known as “Scrivenings mode.” Scrivenings mode is more or less standard word processing mode where all the text is simply there to scroll through, though scene titles may or may not be shown (optional). A lot of people love the corkboard option. I remember when PZ Myers discovered Scrivener he raved about it. The corkboard is a corkboard (as you may have guessed) with 3 x 5 inch virtual index cards, one per scene, that you can move around and organize as though that was going to help you get your thoughts together. The corkboard has the scene title and some notes on what the scene is, which is yet another form of meta-data. I like the corkboard mode, but really, I don’t think it is the most useful features. Come for the corkboard, stay for the binder and the document and project notes!

Community chest: Storage firms need to pay open-source debts

Linux and *BSD have completely changed the storage market. They are the core of so many storage products, allowing startups and established vendors alike to bring new products to the market more rapidly than previously possible. Almost every vendor I talk to these days has built their system on top of these and then there are the number of vendors who are using Samba implementations for their NAS functionality. Sometimes they move on from Samba but almost all version 1 NAS boxen are built on top of it. Read more

Black Lab SDK 1.8 released

QT Creator - for QT 5 Gambas 3 - Visual Basic for Linux Ubuntu Quickly - Quick and dirty development tool for python emacs and Xemacs - Advanced Text Editor Anjuta and Glade - C++ RAD development tool for GTK Netbeans - Java development environment GNAT-GPS - IDE for the following programming languages. Ada, C, JavaScript, Pascal and Python Idle - IDE for Python Scite - Text Editor Read more

Did Red Hat’s CTO Walk – Or Was He Pushed?

He went on to say that some within Red Hat speculate that tensions between Stevens and Paul Cormier, Red Hat’s president of products and technologies, might be responsible, although there doesn’t appear to have been any current argument between the two. Cormier will take over Stevens’ duties until a replacement is found. Vaughan-Nichols also said that others at Red Hat had opined that Stevens might’ve left because he’d risen as high as he could within the company and with no new advancement opportunities open to him, he’d decided to move on. If this was the case, why did he leave so abruptly? Stevens had been at Red Hat for nearly ten years. If he was leaving merely because “I’ve done all I can here and it’s time to seek my fortune elsewhere,” we’d expect him to work out some kind of notice and stay on the job long enough for Red Hat to find a suitable replacement. Turning in a resignation that’s effective immediately is not the ideal way to walk out the door for the last time. It smells of burning bridges. Read more