Although Mandrake 9.0 is a breeze to install, there are a few important things that Debian does better. Nicholas Petreley lists the pros and cons of Mandrake when compared to Debian and sets the record straight about his first Xoops column and his opinion of Britney Spears.
Mandrake 9.0 & Xoops Revisited
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSAlert.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
How user-friendly is Debian (not LindowsOS, Xandros or another distro based on Debian)?
I thought Debian was for more experienced users. Some time ago Mandrake was compared to Gentoo which also didn’t seem apropriate.
Its not for the people who are afraid of the command line, but once you get used to it, i think its much more “friendly” than other distros. I’m usually quite lost on a RedHat system trying to fix stuff that shouldnt be wrong in the first place.
I dont think it was a good idea for him to compare Mandrake to Debian, they go after TOTALLY different crowds. Although..i do know a lot of debian users who used Mandrake as their first distro before switching to Debian.
Debian is for experienced users. If you’re not in that group and you still want the Debian feel, Libranet is recommended. While not Debian in the purest sense, it is certainly a lot closer to Debian than Lindows, Xandros, etc. (It doesn’t have nearly as many hacks put into it.)
It complained about two missing dependencies, libXft.so.2, and libfontconfig.so.1
Yup, I have seen this too when dealing with RPM. But as you run into these dependency problems, just keep telling yourself that Linux is ready for the desktop.
everyone complains about unrecoverable Errors Such as “Invalid Page Faults” or “General Protection Faults” in Internet Explorer
Yup, I have seen this too when dealing with Windows. But as you run into these dependency problems, just keep telling yourself that Windows is ready for the desktop.
Shuddup
Reference: http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;276393
Of course, your point would valid, assuming that programs in Linux didn’t crash either
On the contrary, find me any program for Windows who’s instalation tells you that it can’t find libXft.so.2, and libfontconfig.so.1.
Yeah, that’s probably the STUPIDEST comment I’ve ever seen, how about I substitute that with *.dll instead. I never said programs never crashed in Linux, however I did sucessfully make your comment look stupid. You have library problems no matter WHAT OS you are using, and that’s the bottom line.
or any other app wich doesn’t bundle every dll (dependency) with the installer.
just my 2 cents
btw debian was my first linux distro, and I never felt like hitting my head against a brick wall (unlike any win stuff)
Never seen that problem on my system, naturally i run a distro who can actually PROPERLY find/download dependencies. Linux isnt the problem, its deadbeat distros.
I completely agree Richard, the two aren’t comparible. I went through RH, SuSe, MDK, Slack and ended up with Libranet (Debian based) and I have to say that I love it. Apt-Get==”godlike” (cannot think of any better adjective). And after someone pointed me to alien (converts rpms=>tgz) I haven’t had a bitch about Debian.
“Never seen that problem on my system, naturally i run a distro who can actually PROPERLY find/download dependencies. Linux isnt the problem, its deadbeat distros.”
What? Who really cares if you have to fix a dependency yourself, it’s not like people install new software every day. How do you define a deadbeat distro? I know I don’t know of one, since EVERYONE is capable of gaining the knowledge required to manage their own computers.
Fixing a single dependency isnt that bad, i’ve done it many times when i used to run RedHat 6.1, but when the dependencies have dependencies and those dependencies have dependencies…geezus.. It’s not impossible to do, but doing “apt-get install package-name” and having the computer do that work for me is much nicer.
People often say now “Debian is useless, you can have apt in any distro”, sure that may be true, but why oh WHY do we keep seeing reviews complain about dependency hell? Obviously something isnt right.
I think Deb is ok, don’t get me wrong, but I’ve been a RedHat user since 4.whatever (I don’t count my attempts with pre 1993 distributions since I spit at them and went back to DOS heh) and I’ve yet to see a SERIOUS dependency problem, sure I get frustrated sometimes, but hey I can’t complain. I’ve had bigger headaches with ./configure && make (Which I also have no problem with) than I do with RPM.
You can use apt for RPM based systems, just go to http://www.freshrpms.net and download it, and install the program you need. If you need a fancy graphical frontend, how about synaptic?
just my 2 cents…
I tried Mandrake for a while. The initial impression inspires awe. The hardware detection is extremely good. It has good utilities. The “update” function sounds good, but in practice errored out most of the time. Finally, I could go about an hour before the overall responsiveness of the system slowed to a crawl, requiring a reboot. I hadn’t seen stability like this since Windows 3.1.
I have tried Debian a few times in the past, and never got to try apt, because I never got the system working. My next stab at Debian was Knoppix, absolutely idiot proof, but not the sort of system one would use apt for.
Libranet was my next attempt. Yes, it is easier to maintain. It differs from Debian in being a little more up to date, offering very good hardware detection, and having some very good utility front ends. I even recompiled my kernel (it was a mistake, but the mistake worked [g]).
Apt works fairly well. It is great for security updates, but many programs are far behind what is available elsewhere (Mozilla and Scribus come to mind). Apt works even better with a graphical front end, and as others have said many times, Synaptic is the way to go.
So yes, I agree with the article. I have kept Libranet (i.e. Debian as it should be) and Mandrake languishes. Libranet resides in a dual boot system with Windows 2000.
However I did sucessfully make your comment look stupid.
Actually, you did nothing of the sort. You used an argument known as a ‘Red Herring’, which is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. I brought up dependency hell, you came back with GPFs in Internet Explorer?
Any VB app …or any other app wich doesn’t bundle every dll (dependency) with the installer.
Starting with WinME, VB6 dependency files are built into the OS, so you can run VB apps without installers. Of course, any additional OCX files and any other DLL files needed must go into the installer, but its common in Win32 that enough thought go into the installation to include the needed files, rather than leave the user guessing.
“Never seen that problem on my system, naturally i run a distro who can actually PROPERLY find/download dependencies. Linux isnt the problem, its deadbeat distros.”
Ahhh yes, the classic “you’re using the wrong distro” argument. Yes, Linux is just the kernel right? So anytime someone brings up depency hell, stability issues with the modern desktops, the slow GUI rendering engine, the shoddy application support, the half-assed attempts at trying to clone MS apps, or the shitty font rendering, it’s always nice to fall back on the “Linux isn’t the problem” argument. Truly, that’s almost as bad as the religous zealots’ “you just have to have faith” argument.
What? Who really cares if you have to fix a dependency yourself, it’s not like people install new software every day. How do you define a deadbeat distro? I know I don’t know of one, since EVERYONE is capable of gaining the knowledge required to manage their own computers.
And of course, when you have zealots screaming about how Linux is ready for the desktop and have attitudes like this (the only way they could possibly justify this stance), it is pretty clear that they have absolutely no understanding of the mindset of the everyday, average computer user.
“I brought up dependency hell, you came back with GPFs in Internet Explorer? ”
Yeah, go look at the DLL hell listed in that article, you are describing LIBRARY hell as am I.
i personally prefer dependency hell over dll hell, as in dependency hell, you solve a couple of dependencys at install time, or use urpmi for it, or use apt instead.
in dll hell the trouble starts when an install replaces a dll with a new version and breaks an old app, or an uninstall removes something that breaks a working program, or whatever messes up your windows install over and over again leading to a clean reinstall. Not to mention the registry, but that’s got nothing to do with dependencies
Ahhh yes, the classic “you’re using the wrong distro” argument. Yes, Linux is just the kernel right? So anytime someone brings up depency hell, stability issues with the modern desktops, the slow GUI rendering engine, the shoddy application support, the half-assed attempts at trying to clone MS apps, or the shitty font rendering, it’s always nice to fall back on the “Linux isn’t the problem” argument. Truly, that’s almost as bad as the religous zealots’ “you just have to have faith” argument.
I did not mean “linux is just the kernel”, but technically it is. Now to clarify my statement… You cant say “linux is plagued by dependency problems”, because thats a lie, plain and simple. Some linux distros may still be plagued by that problem, but i run debian here and i have yet to satisfy a dependency myself since i started. “this game requires directx 7.1 or higher”, i have seen that a few times when i ran windows though. You download a game demo off the net, and it doesnt come with the newest DX version, so ya gotta go and download that yourself (i ran Win95, no WindowsUpdate for me). You cant put all linux distros in the same basket, they are VERY different from one another (some more different than others).
Have a good Christmas eve everyone!
<snip>…WHY do we keep seeing reviews complain about dependency hell? Obviously something isnt right.
What is not right is the dynamic compilation of programs. If programmer knows certain functions are needed for his program to work, well then dammit compile it in. Hard drive space is cheap. Bandwidith isn’t, I know, but I can always wish.
I switched to Debian after I saw my brother using dselect. The install process is the biggest hurdle for new users and was a huge hurdle for me. The two things you <em>really</em> need to know are partitioning your harddrive(s) and installing kernel modules (knowing which ones you need etc). If you’ve ever reorganized harddrive partitions and compiled your own working kernel then these aren’t so bad and you’ll know what’s happening. Read the docs. Find a debian buddy. Once installed it’s lean, mean, and clean. dselect rules (front end for apt and dpkg etc).
In a way the difficult install is a good thing–particulary for people who want to learn. It discourages people from the Win 9x habit of fixing problems by reinstalling. The best way to learn it is to actually take advantage the system, learn how it works, and fix the problem. For anything short of a hardware problem, you shouldn’t even have to reboot. For people who are interesting in Learning the system it’s a great environment and pretty well documented (dwww is also extremely cool).
In this regard I think it’s actually much easier to use than super user-friendly distributions and OS’s which are “so easy it’s hard” as my friend well describes them. In this regard it’s much easier to use too because once you really know what the problem is and understand it, the fix you apply will reliably “just work”.
In fact a lot of the problems people describe with library problems in compiling their own apps (not in the usual distro stream) are the result of ignorance about how the library system works and where make and configure look to find them dependencies. A little research will tell you how to set a certain environment variable, what to set it to, and hey, whaddaya know! it now just works.
If you aren’t really interested in learning how it all works and just want to surf the web and whatever I don’t recommend it. In fact I don’t recommend any distro of linux at all.
dselect is the spawn of Satan. Back in the Hamm and Slink days, it was great. Now that we have over 10,000 packages with the release of Woody, dselect is just unbearable. In fact, it recently got split out of the dpkg package because it will be REMOVED from the distribution soon. The replacement was going to be “deity”, but I’m pretty sure it’s going to be “aptitude” instead now.
And Darius, even if someone shows you an example of DLL hell, you’ll talk about XP handling it by keeping separate copies of the DLL in question (which, by the way, is a horrid non-solution and makes shared libraries very much non-shared anymore). But, we can parallel your argument by saying that we have APT which solves the dependency problem (in a far more correct manner than the XP/DLL solution). So, you were saying?
First off I want to say that Mandrake has the BEST hardware detection and Xconfiguration install taht I have ever seen in any distribution other than Corel Linux.
You want to compare mandrake to debian, here you go, they’re exactly the same, there is nothing debian can do that mandrake can’t.
I installed Mandrake 9.0 with no packages, only those neccessary to the system and X with BlackBox as the WM. I then elected to install Mozilla. From there I downloaded APT-RPM and built the system up with KDE Beta and so on. I have never had a problem with either distribution except configuring X in debian. Both systems are wonderful, but Mandrake takes a little bit of that grunt work out of the install.
For giggles I also installed a Basic Multimedia system on another system and it seemed to have most every package you’d expect to see on a self respecting distro. I’m really curious if the user used RPM-Drake which WILL hunt down dependencies (if configured and told to do so). Half-ass reviews of users who would rather say “this distro can’t do this” when a simple google search will link you to one of a hundred mailing lists/forums online that will answer questions.
Every distro is wonderful, but you must first know how to use linux in a whole before you can bash the system. When was the last time you were able to turn a computer on and say “Work”?? Yeah never. Mandrake has one heck of a vocal user base and they know what people want and they’re willing to do it, look at the mandrake club. I would reccomend and distrribution of linux as they can all do the exact same thing, I swear.
Okay so it sounds like he used RPM-Drake, but didn’t configure it properly, still stands.
The only pro-debian argument he has is for Apt, which is available for mandrake.
So here’s my problem still. The author who wrote this review obviously has the skill of knowing how to sorta half ass use linux, but what can you learn about a distro that has been in developement for over seven years in a few hours? This absolutely amazes me that people can be this dense to think that they can give a solid review after using a distro for a day. This dimwit can’t even configure his own system.
Want to call yourself a “linux hacker” then learn to customize your system. A real linux hacker will NEVER have to re-install a system, they should be able to upgrade and build their systems up on their own without having to dump the system every other month for a fresh install. This goes back to my original thread on the knoppix review and the difference between experienced and not experienced. An experienced reviewer who wants to be taken seriously will identify problems and then calculate the time to solve them and reflect on the issues with solving the problems, not sit there and whine that they just don’t work. And then to go and talk about pop-culture and britney spears, obviously we have ANOTHER 15 year old reviewer.
There’s a difference between knowing and using linux, some of you kids have yet to figure that out.
And Darius, even if someone shows you an example of DLL hell, you’ll talk about XP handling it by keeping separate copies of the DLL in question (which, by the way, is a horrid non-solution and makes shared libraries very much non-shared anymore).
Yes, I will say that DLL hell is a problem (I never said it wasn’t), but in the case of dependency hell on *nix, it is all a matter of degree.
But, we can parallel your argument by saying that we have APT which solves the dependency problem
So you then admit that there is a dependency problem and you need apt to fix it. This leads me to believe that RPM causes major dependency problems and anything that uses it is not ready for the desktop (which was the whole point of my original post). If Joe User were to get one of those library error messages, he better be using a distro that offers telephone support. Otherwise, forget about it .. he’ll throw it in the trash before he goes anywhere near Google or linuxdocs.org. (And yes, this is the reality that is Joe User. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs a serious reality check. Joe User doesn’t care about fixing his own problems. If you can’t or won’t do it for him, he’s not interested.)
Now, if you need apt to fix the problem, how easy is it to get apt in a ‘non-apt’ distro? If it is not obvious (and I mean like the ‘AOL’ kind of obvious), then you might as well throw all non-apt distros out the window, except for Lycoris, where Joe User can use it and simply be limited to whatever is in their repository of apps.
So, we’re now left with apt-based systems and I gotta say right off the cuff that Debian an’t ready for Joe User (not yet anyway). Anything that requires Joe User to be familiar with kernel modules is just useless on the desktop.
This leaves us with, what …. Xandros, Lindows, and Libranet. (Did I leave anything out?) I won’t knock these distros because I have not tried them, but they’d better be a whole hell of a lot better than the mess that I’ve seen, else Linux will have to wait awhile longer before it is ‘truly’ ready. (At which point it will be so ‘dumbed down’ and commercialized, you won’t even recognize it in its current form.)
So you then admit that there is a dependency problem and you need apt to fix it. This leads me to believe that RPM causes major dependency problems and anything that uses it is not ready for the desktop (which was the whole point of my original post). If Joe User were to get one of those library error messages, he better be using a distro that offers telephone support. Otherwise, forget about it .. he’ll throw it in the trash before he goes anywhere near Google or linuxdocs.org. (And yes, this is the reality that is Joe User. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs a serious reality check. Joe User doesn’t care about fixing his own problems. If you can’t or won’t do it for him, he’s not interested.)
RPM causes dependency problems just as much as a .deb package does. You’re comparing apples and oranges here, apt is a binary installer that installs dependencies as well, apt4rpm and urpmi do the exact same thing. You forget that people are not stupid, especially those who want to try linux. Granted there are people out there who think a computer is a typewriter that can view pictures and play pretty music, but these people have trouble with even windows. I don’t think anyone ever said that linux was ever ready for a user who has never used a computer before, but someone who has familairized themselves with windows for a while should have no trouble with a vanilla install of mandrake and with the extensive package listing should not need to install anything besides what they get on the install.
Most all software packages have a detailed homesite with pleantiful documentation where anyone with enough patience can fix their linux related problems. Linux has a high learning curve, but is also rewarding in the fact that once you manage to fix your own problems you are becoming more independent from both windows and from others, which can boost the old ego/self esteem.
Linux is more than mature to be a viable workstation for anyone the only thing holding linux back is popularity, it’s just as easy to use linux as it is windows, just no one can ask the local “computer expert” about how to do whatever in linux. People have become acustomed to Windows and in some cases MacOS and have set their original experiences up as standards. It is with the growing popularity of linux user groups and linux advocates that linux will begin to gain more popularity and in turn more of the market share. Mandrake assumes a user is familiar with a computer but not the operating system so it installs the most common packages and configures as much hardware as it can at the install so all the average user has to do is explore by trial and error what it is that linux is capable of.
So no, you’re wrong, apt is not the redeemingly great quality of debian and if you think that you really need to explore it more. Debian is wonderful because it is the most non-comercial based distribution out there and it holds true the values of free software. Apt was designed to help make a more uniform system of upgrading and installing by making the steps of installing dependencies go away and also choosing packages through a searchable index. The other things that you can pride yourself on as a debian user is the best net install next to the BSD varients, a minimal install, and best of all a highly customizeable system as there is limitless possibilities to a base install debian system.
Debian was famous long before Apt, but I don’t know if you actually know of the days of dpkg and dselect …
Well I don’t know about it being a spawn of satan but I’ll concede that from my limited experience with aptitude that it’s probably better. But the architecture that make dselect, aptitude and diety possible is what is really and truely cool about Debian. dselect was just what I saw first.
A number of issues you have mention have already been fixed. Font renderation with FreeType 2 and XFT2, IMHO, is nicer than ClearType on my 96dpi LCD screen.
Another thing you brought up is dependancy. All major distribution already have a fix for this. For Mandrake (which half the article is about), they use URPMI, and when you open a RPM, a nice wizard prompts up, and downloads dependancies from the Net (I heard if the dependancies are available on Mandrake’s CD, it would use it, but I have never actually used it).
For Red Hat, the current #1, have something similar, but not free (unless the dependancy is available on CD).
As for the apps, all of the apps, technically and UI-wise, doesn’t clone MS apps per se. I use KOffice a lot on Linux, no way the design of MS Office IMHO. I use KDevelop Gideon and GCC a lot, nothing like Visual Studio may I add. I use Opera, naturally not a Linux-only app, neither a MS clone. But the second most use browser is Mozilla (which isn’t either Linux-only, but most used on Linux) – not a IE clone isn’t it?
Yeah, there is some MS clones (Evolution anyone?), but that doesn’t mean everything is a MS clone. Besides, those who do clone MS stuff clone for the reason that it would ease the migration from MS to Linux.
As for application support, you can’t really blame it on Linux. Linux has no where the amount of market share of Windows, naturally most ISVs couldn’t care less about Linux. It isn’t something we can fix (unless maybe we can lobby for a law that requires all desktop software to have a Linux version…).
As for the slow GUI rendering system, I actually find it faster on NVidia cards, except in comparison with Windows XP. But again, not a problem of Linux per se. Rather a problem with the lack of drivers. NVidia and recently ATI make Linux drivers, but neither have as much investments as the Windows drivers. But that’s 3D. For me, KDE 3.1 RC1 compiled with GCC 3.2 (really should get RC5, but I’m lazy :-(, coupled with Linux 2.4.19, and XFree 4.3, it is more responsive than Windows XP, even though Linux is on a slower machine with half the RAM. If I were daring enough to try out KDE 3.1 and XFree86 4.3 (which is really really really really really really hard to install manually) on a 2.5.x kernel with the low latency patch, I’m sure the performance would go up.
As for stability, since KDE 3.0 and GNOME 2.0, not counting betas of desktop, I never experience a crash. A few minor bugs, yes (I have a few minor bugs on Windows too), but stability is very good.
You know me as a pragmatic guy, I’m not just saying all that because I’m a Linux fan. Linux is fixing them or have already fixed them. If you use a old distribution, I don’t think you should judge Linux negatively in this manner. If you give Linux 6 more months, all the issues you mentioned would be fixed in modern distributions (Red Hat, SuSE, Mandrake etc.). Give it time.
For programs being compiled statically. It is absolute stupidity that people keep using shared libraries. GNUCash needs what, 63 libraries to be installed?
http://www.techseekers.net/modules.php?name=Reviews&file=index&rop=…
Mindwarp, do you even understand what the purpose of shared libraries are? Because you surely don’t seem to understand them. Most Linux programs are NOT compiled statically, and that is a GOOD thing. It reduces disk space usage, encourages code reuse, and encourages similar feature sets across programs.
Also, they (most Linux programs) don’t modify the libraries they use and then distributed hacked up versions for use with their program, thus mucking up any other program who intended to use the original without the hackery. If they do modify them, it’s typically only after submitting a patch to the library’s upstream maintainer which got accepted and is being distributed for everyone to use.
So, yes, gnucash requires some 34 lib packages (in Debian) to operate, but that isn’t necessarily a bad thing at all. It simply means that there is ample functionality in the program to require so many different libraries, each of which is dedicated to a specific purpose.
Please know what you are talking about before commenting on it.
Not using shared libraries also causes problems. If a program is staticly linked to a broken library, then when every a new version of library is release to fix it you would have to recompile the program against the new version of the library.
Back to GNUCash. 63 libraries. Each library is under development by a different group of people. Everytime, one of these libraries is upgrade a new version of GNUCash would have to be release…
Resently a security bug was found in the Standard C library. 99% of all program in Linux use this library. Solution, recompile every program on the system…
I’m a programmer and like shared libraries. I’ve had a case where a shared library I created was broken; because the programs are not staticly linked, I was able to just fix the problem and install the new library. All the program using the library were now fixed (I think at the time I had about 20 programs using it; not sure because I didn’t have to track them all down and recompile them).