The PcLos saga goes on.

2009 is on the table with a beta.

Kernel 2.6.26.6.tex2? GCC v.x?

Several apps with version numbers listed.

How does PcLos compare with Mandriva which has their standards committee that included Debian(secrets of compatibility in their changelog)?

A whole lot of questions before official release?

I didn't know there was a "saga"... I'll tell you how PCLinuxOS compares...PCLinuxOS is Mandriva done right.

Ironic that a rolling release puts out a deadend beta.

What's so deadend about it? You wouldn't use any Beta as you main install, would you?

Even though PCLinuxOS is a rolling release, new releases are required every so often for users to be able to boot the CD on newer hardware. Also, some people occasionally bork their installs and have to reinstall. Reinstalling from an updated ISO makes life much easier.

Let's get something straight. If you don't like PCLinuxOS, don't use it. Badmouthing any Linux distro is downright bad for Linux in general. The enemy is not another disto, but the proprietary software overloards in Redmond, WA and Cupertino, CA. Infighting among distros is doing Linux harm when we should be united against proprietary software vendors, instead. There's something good to be said about every Linux distro out there. Try and keep it positive, will you?

Rolling release eventually got too cumbersome. My original WinMe took more than 10 hours to update to current version auto-updated by Redmond dot net strategy(at ISP servers).

Software is to use whoever or whatever you can, scalable if we are lucky; no one can corner the market.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Rippers tend to market PcLos too hard nosed. Add more Debian apps because RPM not all that compatible with newer kernels(RedHat abandoned many RPM support). So, it is not criticism, but an emphasized direction that apt-get is already in PcLos.

Targz2rpm will add even more depth to PcLos? Publish symlinks to add and blacklist to adopt apps in PcLos?

Have fun, write something good about PcLos and its technology(rolling and scalable)? Which will help gather more developers?

There is no comparison between a commercially developed distribution and a small distro developed by a hand full of volunteers. I might remind you that Texstar created this distro to share with his friends, however those friends also wanted to share and the community just keeps growing. We like stability over 'bleeding edge' and will do our best to keep it that way. I've tried, and continually try other distros to see what's out there, but keep PCLOS as my main OS.

Linux is Linux, desktops and choices of packages are another animal altogether. So why fight over who's best. Choose what's best for you and let others do the same.

RPM is not all that compatible with newer kernels? Did anyone tell Novell and Mandriva? And to think that Novell is very heavily involved in kernel development... I guess they're just beating on a dead horse with their distros? Oh my...the laughter... Do you even have a clue?

1. .deb and dpkg are fine packaging tools. However, RPM is the accepted standard, according to the Linux Standard Base. Details are here:

http://refspecs.linux-foundation.org/LSB_3.2.0/LSB-Core-generic/LSB-Core-generic/book1.html

2. As Ruel points out, Mandriva and Novell/openSUSE both use RPM. Red Hat/Fedora has not abandoned RPM, either. In fact, they are re-investing in the package format:

http://www.redhatmagazine.com/2007/02/08/the-story-of-rpm/

Most variants (e.g., PCLinuxOS, CentOS, etc.) derived from these three upstream distros use RPM (not sure if Foresight/rPath does). If anything, RPM tends to be favored by the most commercially successful distributions. Ubuntu is the only non-RPM distribution to achieve any kind of commercial traction. But, it has not been able to generate the level of commercial revenue that Red Hat, Novell, and Mandriva have, despite eclipsing all three in total usage.

3. Debian and its derivatives (e.g., Ubuntu, Dream Linux, Sidux, etc.) also operates under a rolling release strategy. Yet, these distributions also produce periodic releases. This is what PCLinuxOS is doing with 2009. Downloading updates simply becomes too time consuming, after a certain point.

4. Most distributions neither encourage nor support installs of beta releases for long term usage. Betas are for testing. A good example of Canonical's position may be found on the Ubuntu site for Intrepid Ibex, their upcoming release for Ubuntu and variants:

"Note: This is a beta release. Do not install it on production machines. The final stable version will be released on October 30th, 2008."

Source: http://www.ubuntu.com/testing/intrepid/beta

Congrats to Tex and the Ripper gang. I am anxiously looking forward to their next release. This should be an exciting season, with new releases coming from PCLinuxOS, Mandriva, openSUSE, Fedora, and Ubuntu.

RedHat rpm used 9 partitions in v7.0 kernel 2.4.x?

New kernels has different architecture and partition in v2.6.x, different directories and file names, many obsoleted. So, you can never find all the existing rpm files supported by any distros.

Rpm files are not kernel independnet, thus casual users did not see why RedHat RPM conversion program for newer kernels does not support all their old rpm programs. RedHat even let Oracle support their RHELv4.0.

New Linux kernels are not backward compatible to kernel 2.2.x or earlier versions. Newbies need Linux historical facts, not clues.

Sensible distros use only rpm programs that can work with newer kernel and its reusable files. Linux kernels are nothing without killer apps or many packages that can be scaled up.

RPM (RedHat Packet Manager) is a packet manager as is dpkg (Debian package manager). They are containers for binaries. What does it mean? It means the distro dev will pre-compile the applications (./configure make make install) and box them using rpm or deb. The kernel version is totally irrelevant as applications are built against libraries (glibc for example) and the compiler (gcc or other depending on app requirements). The only packages built against the kernel are the modules and those use the dkms (dynamic kernel module) where the modules are built for each kernel independently. Debian has now started to use dkms for their own kernel module builds so here Debian is behind.

The reason application for kernel-2.2 are not supported is that the compiler at the time is completely obsolete now and trying to build applications from the 2.2 era is impossible. Give me the name of one single application from the 2.2 era that is still used without having been updated to be compatible with newer compiler (that means no update since 2004 and no patch to adapt for newer compiler).