Language Selection

English French German Italian Portuguese Spanish

PCLinuxOS N1PTT-TR3 RELEASED!

Filed under
PCLOS

The Ripper Gang is pleased to announce the first public beta ISO release of what will ultimately become PCLinuxOS 2009. Due to some very personal issues, Texstar has taken a temporary leave of absence, but not to worry folks, he'll be back very soon.

This beta iso features kernel 2.6.26.6.tex2, KDE 3.5.10, Open Office 2.4.1, Firefox 3.0.3, Thunderbird 2.0.0.14, Frostwire, Ktorrent, Amarok, Flash, Java JRE, Compiz-Fusion 3D and much more.

We decided to use kde3-5-10 as our default desktop as the we could not achieve a similar functionality from kde4. We will however offer kde4 as an alternative desktop environment available from the repo once we stabilize it.

We request that only our more experienced PCLinuxOS users test this beta release and report any issues with it in the forum provided specially for it.

More Here




Saga?

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

Saga indeed

Ironic that a rolling release puts out a deadend beta.

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?

PCLinuxOS vs Mandriva vs any Linux OS

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.

What are you talking about?

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?

Congrats... and some perspective

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.

RPM to kernel relation

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).

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

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