Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Libranet 2.7 Released

michael posted more than 12 years ago | from the power-of-pure-penguins dept.

Debian 224

Jon wrote in with news that Libranet 2.7 has been released. I've never tried Libranet, but Debian 3.0 is a fine, up-to-date OS with the usual Debian installation (harder than necessary), so if Libranet offers that Debian goodness with a better installer it should be an excellent choice for both experienced and newbie users.

cancel ×

224 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

thank gawd (-1)

I Have a Hard (538104) | more than 12 years ago | (#4209293)

just what we need, yet more linux!

REMEMBERING THE SLASHDOT READERs KILLED ON 9/11 (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4209355)

I hope that there is a special memorial planned on the Slashdot homepage this 9/11 for all those Slashdot readers killed.

Who cares? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4209299)

Linux sucks and only the nerdiest of people really care about this anyway.

Re:Who cares? (1)

rumba (70920) | more than 12 years ago | (#4209568)

You're in the wrong place. I suggest www.stupidity.com

SECOND POST (-1)

GhostseTroll (582659) | more than 12 years ago | (#4209303)

SECOND POST, FOO'S!!!!!

sldkfjlsdkfjlsdjkflskdjflksdjflsdkjflskjflksj

I hope 2.7 fixes the bugs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4209314)

I installed Libranet 2.6 on my Red Hat box, and it was rooted within 4 hours. Gaping security holes, though I never found them. Had to uninstall it and reboot.

Re:I hope 2.7 fixes the bugs (-1)

diaper_tales (575224) | more than 12 years ago | (#4209395)

what next? fdisk!??! c:\documents and settings\administrator\my documents\malda_sucking_giant_cocks_left_and_right .mov ?!@?#!???

Re:I hope 2.7 fixes the bugs (1)

sevynd2 (574128) | more than 12 years ago | (#4209436)

Where did you get 2.6 ? they dont offer it anywhere. Only 2.0 and 2.7

Re:I hope 2.7 fixes the bugs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4209497)

Nelson laugh *HA HA*

yes, but it still infringes copyrights (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4209564)


It's obvious to me what happened to Napster. They allowed files to be hosted on renegade Linux Apache servers. These computers not only served copyrighted materials, but they also were portals for hackers and script kiddies to execute DOS attacks on many websites. The RIAA clearly realizes the importance of IIS and the evilness associated with Apache, and is willing to go to extreme measures to ensure that these Linux fools are shutdown for good. Good riddance to bad rubbish!

Ya. (-1, Troll)

grumpygrodyguy (603716) | more than 12 years ago | (#4209332)

Installing Linux is such a pain in the ass.

Re:Ya. (-1)

diaper_tales (575224) | more than 12 years ago | (#4209415)

no it isn't, that's some pencil-dicked lunix fag trying to cornhole you while you're installing it.

Re:Ya. (1)

grumpygrodyguy (603716) | more than 12 years ago | (#4209623)

Installing Linux is such a pain in the ass.

Look mods, this wasn't meant as a flame. It's the truth.

don't be fooled -- Debian 3 sucks my short hairs (-1)

Sexual Asspussy (453406) | more than 12 years ago | (#4209336)

Debian: the Linux that's so hard to make usable, every user feels like a power user. what a piece of cow shit.

Debian based distros (1)

Troy H Parker (600654) | more than 12 years ago | (#4209347)

Anyone remember Progeny Debian? I grew somewhat fond of that distro, too bad nothing became of it.

Storm, another promising Debian based distro that I was sad to see fade away.

Re:Debian based distros (2)

Demona (7994) | more than 12 years ago | (#4209394)

I still use my last burned copy of Progeny to do initial installs when I want a Debian system, then follow the conversion instructions [progeny.com] to upgrade to the latest Debian, restoring from my own apt-cache archives when possible to avoid unnecessary use of bandwidth. The Progeny installer has just given me less hassles on a broad range of hardware, from old to new, although this may change with the next Debian 3.x update. Never did give Libranet a try, but it looks like that'll have to change.

We're still around... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4209426)

...and our tools are a part of Debian 3.0 now. Check out hackers.progeny.com for some examples.

Jeff Licquia
Progeny Employee
(though I'm no spokesperson)

Re:Debian based distros (1)

scabbers (320851) | more than 12 years ago | (#4209644)

hmmm... I am not quite sure what to think of this (and other distros based on other ones).
On the one hand: sure if they have some good idea to improve and want to make money out of it, why not.
On the other Hand: the improvement has to be real worth it!! Otherwise people (like me, too) will stick to the original.

Re:Debian based distros (1)

chadm1967 (144897) | more than 12 years ago | (#4209735)

I've been using it (Libranet) for over two years. It's VERY worth it.

I tried the beta... (1)

aao-brad (542582) | more than 12 years ago | (#4209348)

I tried the beta in an effort to find a distribution that I would be comfortable with. The install goes rather well, and the distribution uses the awesome apt-get package management system. The only reason I didn't keep it around is because I was trying other distros. Libranet is pretty clean compared to some of the others I have tried, and I'm a complete newbie... Go figure.

Is this free? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4209349)

I must be a moron, I can't see where to download this for free!

Re:Is this free? (2, Informative)

jonestor (443666) | more than 12 years ago | (#4209367)

You can download it at the linuxiso [linuxiso.org] site.

http://www.linuxiso.org/distro.php?distro=31 [linuxiso.org]

Re:Is this free? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4209392)

The version you've linked to is 2.0, the last major release, not the just-released 2.7.

2.7 won't be available for download for ~6 months or so, long enough to try & make back the development money before offering it up. That's been their pattern in the past.

Re:Is this free? (2, Informative)

sevynd2 (574128) | more than 12 years ago | (#4209397)

Version 2.7 of libranet is not free , they will not offer it for free either. They say in the message boards that it si because not enough people buy it. They also say that they want 100,000 users in 3 months. Nice 5 million dollar income from a debian rip off Hopefully they will make a free version but until then you have to download version 2.0

Re:Is this free? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4209480)

Isn't this a GPL violation?

Re:Is this free? (1)

OrangeSpyderMan (589635) | more than 12 years ago | (#4209526)

No it isn't. Go and read the GPL. This really gets me... people thinking GPL==free downloads on the net.

Re:Is this free? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4209612)

what gets me is people confusing the test operator == for the assignment operator =

Duh, free, except for bandwidth costs is reasonable.

Re:Is this free? (1)

OrangeSpyderMan (589635) | more than 12 years ago | (#4209662)

Duh, free, except for bandwidth costs is reasonable.
Grr. It's not up to you how they distribute it, that is my point.

And worry about == and = if you want but until the the "three bar equal sign" is on my keyboard, I'm gonna do what i want.

Re:Is this free? (1, Troll)

fault0 (514452) | more than 12 years ago | (#4209603)

Uhm, no. The GPL stipulates that you must give the source if asked at the same price that offered the application. So, if FOO.COM sold GNU tar cd's for $500,000, then they don't have to give the source for anything less than $500,000 (with the binary-if-offered of GNU tar as well, they couldn't charge you $500,000 for the binary and $500,000 for the source as well).

Re:Is this free? (1)

tal256 (128219) | more than 12 years ago | (#4209546)

Libranet is not a Debian rip off. Libranet takes Debian and adds enhancements. Enhancements that people want. Also, remember that if we get lots of orders, then this means we can spend more resources on helping the Linux community. Right now we only have the resources to focus on just the distribution. - Tal a Libranet developer

Re:Is this free? (1)

sevynd2 (574128) | more than 12 years ago | (#4209609)

Enhancements ? Yeah great, the only thing that you provide is your admin menu , and a new installer. Dont fluff yourself buddy. Your doing the samething that everyone else is in the distro race, your just one of the few that force people to buy your product.

Re:Is this free? (2)

fault0 (514452) | more than 12 years ago | (#4209664)

Jeez, nobody is forcing you to use it (I use Debian/Unstable personally). If you think that Libranet is a Debian ripoff, you obviously don't understand the concept and spirit of Free Software and the GPL.

Remember, it's free as in speech, not beer.
Also keep in mind that they DO offer the last major version free, I think.

Re:Is this free? (1)

sevynd2 (574128) | more than 12 years ago | (#4209680)

Find it :) they dont , they publicly state that they dont. Reason: they didnt get enough money from 2.0 users. It is also not free speach you have to pay 45 bucks to download what they have to say.

Libranet Enhancements (1)

tal256 (128219) | more than 12 years ago | (#4209670)

Having a central system administration program is a BIG feature for anyone from a newbie to a seasons sysadmin. Having a good easy to use installer with hardware detection is important especially for people new to Linux, or those setting up lots of machines. You may have time to spend a few hours/days/months tweaking your system, but many people want a system that is ready to go as soon as it's installed.

People also argue, that hey, want up-to-date Debian, just use Debian unstable, get GNOME for experimental, KDE from another source, and XFree86 4.2 from yet another. True, IFF you are quite experienced at using the Debian packaging system, and willing to pick up the pieces when somthing breaks.

Libranet is designed to be a system ready to go from the moment the install is finished. No need to install extra packages, fight with hardware configuration, etc. At the same time it's Debian based so you have the power to do anything you want with your system and have the huge Debian archive as a ready to use resource.

- Tal a Libranet developer

Re:Libranet Enhancements (1)

sevynd2 (574128) | more than 12 years ago | (#4209704)

Tal , your absolutly right. The libranet team has the right idea. You are helping the community with time saving functionality. However, you force users to pay for it. I am willing to listen to what you have to say but if you want me to buy your distro you have to sell it to me, without giving me selling points that I can find in other distrobutions for free. I am a firm believer that if you love the distro, support the distro. However what you are asking is support the distro and maybe you will love it or maybe you will find its not right for you. Either way you get your money right?

Re:Libranet Enhancements (1)

mo wiggley (599290) | more than 12 years ago | (#4209732)

Libranet offers a refund if disatisfied. I have used it, and I love it. The main extra for me was the non-RTFM oriented support community. If you dont like it, tell them, get back your money, no problem. Tal also takes regular part in the support forum, which is class a good.

Re:Libranet Enhancements (1)

tal256 (128219) | more than 12 years ago | (#4209747)

If users don't pay for it, the developers don't have any money to continue development. This isn't conjuncture, this is a fact. Development costs money, so without money there can be no distribution.

In the case of Debian, developers are either getting paid to work on Debian as part of their jobs, or they work in their free time. Bandwidth, hardware, etc. is all donated. In the case of Libranet funding needs to come from the users.

- Tal

Re:Is this free? (2)

schon (31600) | more than 12 years ago | (#4209726)

They say in the message boards that it si because not enough people buy it.

Doesn't make any sense to me. I can't download it, I can't try it out... if I can't try it out, I won't buy it. I'm not gonna shell out cash for something without knowing what it's like - especially when there's freely downloadable alternatives.

I've bought Slackware (multiple versions, from Slackware 96 through to 8.1), and it's well worth the money.. during the time it wasn't up to snuff for Desktop use, I bought Mandrake.. both distros were downloaded first, and bought later.

They also say that they want 100,000 users in 3 months.

And I want a toilet made out of solid gold, but some things just aren't in the cards.

If they want to increase their user base, they need to make ISO's available for download.

Libranet rocks (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4209358)

I've been using the Libranet 2.0 Essentials free .iso download for about a month now. Libranet is great!
It features scripts for recompiling the kernel (works) and installing NVidia drivers (almost worked, but was easy to fix and has since been updated).
It's much faster than SuSE 7.2 was on the same machine, even making KDE fun to use. And that was before the kernel recompile.
Oh, and did I mention hardware autodetection?
Their "XAdminmenu" is worth having, too, and I understand 2.7 has improvements.

Seriously, go get this!

Hmmm (4, Interesting)

term0r (471206) | more than 12 years ago | (#4209374)

Considering this is basically Debain 3.0 along with KDE 3, Gnome 2 and OpenOffice, then isn't this just a Woody CD along with an extra's CD, with a better installer?

Talking of which, when I last installed Woody, it took about 5 - 10 minutes, and was the simplest installer I have used to install a linux distro for a while. I dont know what all the gripe is about Debians installer. As long as you can handle selecting what packages you want, and install a module for your network card (and if you can't do this, why are you running linux?) then I do not believe the Debian installer is a very hard installer to use.

All of this is coming from a Slackware user from way back.

Re:Hmmm (1)

Dran (581588) | more than 12 years ago | (#4209406)

What the...?! The installer for Libranet is FINE! Jeez... how could you ever say that?! ;)

Re:Hmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4209421)

> As long as you can handle selecting what packages you want, and install a module for your network card (and if you can't do this, why are you running linux?) then I do not believe the Debian installer is a very hard installer to use.

Libranet's aimed at a newer-than-you-are user who doesn't necessarily know what packages to install, and doesn't necessarily know their NIC (and video, and audio, and ...) chipset.

They're running Linux because they want to try a different/better OS, not just because they're 133t enough like you.

exactly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4209457)

and if you can't do this, why are you running linux?
Hell, real men would forgoe any freak'n GUI or installer of any sort and just go source. Anyone that has any 'non-standard' (like that _rare_ ATI Rage Pro </sarcasm>) can damn well suffer until they know every detail and tweakable aspect of the operating environment.

Also, I should point out that since I have driven in traffic drunk many times then it is logical to say that the claims of drunk driving being safe are lies and only ramblings of the foolish... if you can't operate a motor vehicle with a bit of mind and sexual performance enhancing chemicals in your system then why do you have a license in the first place?

Re:Hmmm (1)

CarrionBird (589738) | more than 12 years ago | (#4209548)

Why not say.....

hey if you can't write your own drivers, why are you running linux?

or

if you can't write your own shell scripts, why are you running linux?

Another bit of "silly user, linux is for real men", thinking.

It's not that Debain is extremely hard, it's not. It's just an attempt to make it more accessable to pepole who aren't as advanced as others.

Re:Hmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4209693)

Well-put. I wish I had some mod points.

Re:Hmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4209617)

This explains quite a lot.

Re:Hmmm (2)

bogie (31020) | more than 12 years ago | (#4209669)

But it obviously is difficult to use for most people, especially in comparsion to most of the other distros out there. Why do debian users continue insist that this is the opposite? I've used Corel, Stormix, Progeny, and Libranet and they all managed to put out good easy to use installers years ago. Why are Debian users so against adopting something so common for modern OS's? It could could only help their user base. And yes I do know about the efforts going on now, but considering Debian 4.0 or whatever the next big release won't be out for a long long time Debian is just shooting itself in the foot by not making this their biggest priority.

Workstation OSes - the more the merrier! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4209379)


The interesting thing about this is how (IMO) anyone who's any spent any serious time using Windows 2000 can see that you do indeed get what you pay for.
It's stable (as in doesn't crash), has the world's best development tools, and, amazingly, you can play all the latest games on it. Mafia, Medal of Honor, Battlefield 1942, it's all good.

Oddly enough, most Linux users (who naturally tend to be more, let's say 'advanced') are fascinated by the idea of licking their own genitals.
It comes from the well-grounded fear that no one else will want to. So naturally, when their hacked up, good for nothin OS fails to provide them with sexual gratification
they dream of licking themselves to ecstasy.

There are some good papers on the matter, sorry I can't provide the links but Google can ;)

libranet is a debian distribution? (1, Offtopic)

edrugtrader (442064) | more than 12 years ago | (#4209381)

sounds like a research paper database. better check the IP and copyrights...... nah, i'll just sue them now.

I think I'm running Libranet... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4209382)

I've done so many apt-get installs/upgrades that I'm not sure you can still call it Libranet.

I'm waiting to take a peek at Xandros [xandros.com] which is also a Debian-based disribution. Should be out in the next month or so.

Xandros? (2)

stoolpigeon (454276) | more than 12 years ago | (#4209437)

Don't you mean Corel Linux?

.

Love it! (2, Insightful)

Myuu (529245) | more than 12 years ago | (#4209398)

I have the feeling that there is going to be a lot of anti-libranet commentary on this, but I have to say that I love it greatly.

I have been running it for 3 weeks without any problem.

The Pros:
-Great Control Panel, itll even recompile your kernel for you. I tried it, does a good job
-Install sets up your CD burner!
-A heck of a lot of packages on one cd
-even at 2.0 (what, did they skip a couple numbers =P) it came with really current packages

Cons:
-Old KDE and Gnome

Libranet has the ease of SUSE with the power of debian.
I have gotten 3 people on linux using libra.
I'm definitely staying with it (and I've tried out SuSe, RH, Mandrake, Slack, and Debian)

Re:Love it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4209503)

And just what power is SuSE lacking exactly?

Re:Love it! (1)

jsantos (113796) | more than 12 years ago | (#4209560)

Why? Debian's of course!

Re:Love it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4209640)

Clearly the question is: What power does Debian give you that SuSE can't provide?

Re:Love it! (2, Insightful)

ilias (409618) | more than 12 years ago | (#4209504)

Old KDE and Gnome? I believe Libranet 2.7 ships with KDE 3.0 and Gnome 2.0. These are not old.

Re:Love it! (1)

Myuu (529245) | more than 12 years ago | (#4209517)

I meant the older version. sorry

don't worry about it (2)

MORTAR_COMBAT! (589963) | more than 12 years ago | (#4209745)

you included in your post that you were talking about version 2.0. if other people are idiots and want to start flaming, then hey, that's there problem.

what's really concerning is that you are obviously a user and advocate of the OS, and their own developers are flaming you, when all they had to say was, "Version 2.7 comes with KDE xxx and Gnome xxx". But no, they decide to go the "stupid moron, what do you mean old" route.

Re:Love it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4209741)

if the parent poster has been using it for 3 weeks, and 2.7 *just* came out...

so, english and math are not your subjects of noticeable skill...

Re:Love it! (1)

tal256 (128219) | more than 12 years ago | (#4209515)

It comes with GNOME 2.0.1 and KDE 3.0.3, that's hardly old.

Re:Love it! (2)

MORTAR_COMBAT! (589963) | more than 12 years ago | (#4209675)

get a clue before you attack an obviously happy (and recommending) user of your OS. there were SEVERAL in his post.

Clue #1 he has been running it for 3 weeks
Clue #2 he specifically mentions it being version 2.0

Re:Love it! (-1)

The Anime Troll (577873) | more than 12 years ago | (#4209649)

Does it do apostrophes?

Installation not so hard -- and not so important (5, Insightful)

Publicus (415536) | more than 12 years ago | (#4209416)

I've said this before. The Debian installation just isn't that hard. I'd like to hear some specific points about what makes it difficult other than that it isn't X based, but rather console based.

What I don't think is stressed often enough is that you only need to install Debian ONCE. I'm running it on several machines (home/business) and I haven't even had to reboot to upgrade.

apt-get dist-upgrade

Love it, love it, love it.

Re:Installation not so hard -- and not so importan (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4209461)

> I've said this before. The Debian installation just isn't that hard. I'd like to hear some specific points about what makes it difficult other than that it isn't X based, but rather console based.

It asks the user for specific hardware modules to be used; most people don't know their NIC/audio/video chipsets offhand, and don't really want to. Modern Linux installers don't ask for such details, they figure it out for themselves and do the right things. Console/GUI is less important than the "what hardware module should I use? You tell me!" questions.

> What I don't think is stressed often enough is that you only need to install Debian ONCE. I'm running it on several machines (home/business) and I haven't even had to reboot to upgrade.

What's also not stressed often enough is that *any* OS install is a new-to-the-OS user's first impression. If that first impression goes well, there is a larger tolerance for whatever minor quirks occur later on - a larger well of goodwill available when problems crop up. If the install was a strain, then later problems may well cause a newbie to just give up, as they won't want to keep on having to be Such An Expert just to use a frickin' computer. Modern OSs also understand this.

it takes some effort to get a workstation setup (2)

Trepidity (597) | more than 12 years ago | (#4209465)

The default Debian install, since it's designed to handle all sorts of uses of the OS, just installs the base. Your average user wants other stuff -- X11 for example -- that it doesn't install by default. Not sure if this has changed, but when I installed Debian I had to manually install X11 by using dselect after the base install finished. And dselect is not the most user-friendly tool. It also took me a long time to get fonts to look decent (by carefully perusing the Linux Font Deuglification HOWTO), but that may be more a Linux/X problem than a Debian one. Setting up my CD burner was also a bit annoying -- I had to mess with modconf to load the ide-scsi module and pass ignore=hdc to the ide-cd module. Not too hard when reading the HOWTOs, but not something I'd want to explain to a non-computer type person how to do.

The upgrading is definitely nice though.

Re:it takes some effort to get a workstation setup (2)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 12 years ago | (#4209638)

Not sure if this has changed, but when I installed Debian I had to manually install X11 by using dselect after the base install finished. And dselect is not the most user-friendly tool.

Debian has had tasksel since before potato. You don't run dselect, you check the little box next to the X option, and you're done. I haven't run dselect during an install (or at all) in three years. Similarly there are little check boxes for Gnome, KDE, C/C++ development, DNS server, Apache, DHCP server, database stuff and lots more. Basically what you'd get with any distribution. Just say 'yes' when it asks if you want to run tasksel, and no when it asks you if you want to run dselect and you're set.

As for fonts, it used to be as simple as 'apt-get install msttcorefonts'. Now you need to actually have the font package [spineless.org] already on your system and unzipped before running the previously mentioned command.

Re:Installation not so hard -- and not so importan (2)

JanneM (7445) | more than 12 years ago | (#4209513)

I tried to install Woody on my old laptop. A few things are really lacking with the installer. First, I wanted to keep one of the partitions where I had my /home. The problem was, all partitions are identified only with /dev/hdaX - with no size indication or other information, it was a hit.and-miss affair to remember which partition had been mounted where. Also, there is a bug with the installer that precludes a net install over pcmcia hardware with a fixed IP adress. There are plenty of other UI disasters, but those two sort of stood out.

Second, the initial package selection systems are _really_ lacking. The simplified task-centered selection seemed like a good idea, but did not work in practice. As it is an old machine, I did not want X or any X applications on it, so I deselected that task. On the other hand, I did want developer stuff, so I selected that. Unfortunately, that resulted in it pulling down X and a lot of related stuff anyway. If there is supposed to be such a task division, it needs to be done well, or not at all. I then ended up in the app for individual package selection. I started to browse it - but hit Enter by mistake, and was dumped out of the program, without a warning and without a chance to undo the action. Not good.

So now I had a bare Woody install - really bare, like in "I need to apt-get less" bare. This was fine with me. For some reason, however, I had a 2.2 kernel. This both annoyed and surprised me, as Woody is supposed to use the 2.4 kernel. No problem - I just pull down a newer kernel package. Unfortunately, the newer kernel packages all had a pcmcia module package that was incompatible with the kernel itself.

I was about to get the kernel source and compile it for myself, but when rebooting to the 2.2 kernel (for the fifth or sixth time that day) I got a kernel panic when trying to boot the machine. As i had been at this for the better part of six hours, I gave up, got the Redhat boot disks, and got a functional, configured, X-less installation done with minimal fuss in two hours.

/Janne

Re:Installation not so hard -- and not so importan (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4209524)

> For some reason, however, I had a 2.2 kernel. This both annoyed and surprised me, as Woody is supposed to use the 2.4 kernel.

2.2's the default kernel; you need to (and did) install 2.4 afterwards.

Re:Installation not so hard -- and not so importan (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4209573)

you can also install with the 2.4 kernel at the start of installation using option bf24

boot: bf24

Re:Installation not so hard -- and not so importan (2)

dvdeug (5033) | more than 12 years ago | (#4209635)

I did not want X or any X applications on it, so I deselected that task. On the other hand, I did want developer stuff, so I selected that. Unfortunately, that resulted in it pulling down X and a lot of related stuff anyway. If there is supposed to be such a task division, it needs to be done well, or not at all.

I'm not sure how much better this could be done. A developers task that does not include a GUI library seems lacking; and GUI library will logically depend on X stuff.

Re:Installation not so hard -- and not so importan (2)

JanneM (7445) | more than 12 years ago | (#4209681)

There could be several things. Split the choice of developer tools into a 'basic' and 'X-related' part; make the 'X server' choice active whenever you choose devel tools; remove the 'X' part altogether; bake the 'devel' option into the other options, so they would 'know' which devel packages to install.

Presenting a choice that in fact is not doable is not the way to do it, however.

/Janne

Re:Installation not so hard -- and not so importan (2)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 12 years ago | (#4209677)

all partitions are identified only with /dev/hdaX - with no size indication or other information

If you choose the "Partition your hard disk" option, it will show you the filesystem type and size of existing partitions when it runs cfdisk. I consider the lack of partition lables a design flaw in the msdos partition table format. If you're using other patrition table types it will correctly show you the labels too.

Also, there is a bug with the installer that precludes a net install over pcmcia hardware with a fixed IP adress.

I just did this today and it worked fine. You must have experienced user error.

So now I had a bare Woody install - really bare, like in "I need to apt-get less" bare.

This is not an ideal solution, but it sounds like what you wanted was a bare system, plus the "build-essential" meta package. It will install all of the stuff you wanted (libc-dev, less, gcc, make, etc...) without X. If you want other non standard development libraries you'll still have to load them yourself, but it's a mere 'apt-get' away. The build-essential package is great for when you want a minimalist development environment without all the typing.

Re:Installation not so hard -- and not so importan (2)

fault0 (514452) | more than 12 years ago | (#4209629)

It comes from anecdodal evidence. Plop a newbie right in front of a Debian installer, and they probably won't be able to do it.

I've heard the "I tried installing Debian as my first distro because I heard it's good, but I could install it, gave up, and installed Redhat/Mandrake/SuSE.. then after a year when I became more experienced, I switched back to Debian" story quite a lot.

Debian Install (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4209418)

Mãe estou no Slashdot ...

Aguimar Neto

More info (3, Informative)

term0r (471206) | more than 12 years ago | (#4209419)

Also for a good bit of information of what Libranet has check out this [distrowatch.com]

For those that think X is slow.. (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4209422)

...and can read instructions try Gentoo.

. . . and have access to a lot of bandwidth (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4209663)

i just wished someone offered source cds (.iso download, jigdo download, or just plain selling them)

for people without the bandwith, their just out of luck with gentoo (for now. . . there has been some discussion about a source cd in their forums)

Linux distribution or food?? (1)

kcbrown (7426) | more than 12 years ago | (#4209427)

From their web site:

We built it for our own use and used Debian Hamm ... to do so.

...

We are located in the Vancouver area of British Columbia, Canada.

Hmm...sounds like they started by trying to make some Canadian backbacon, eh?

Couldn't find any beer on their website, though...

:-)

Re:Linux distribution or food?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4209455)

On behalf of all Canadians everywhere, I ask that you please kill yourself at once. Thank you.

No Free Download? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4209452)

Doesn't GNU require that I be able to download this for free, ie, for bandwidth costs only?

Looks to me like there is no "free" option for obtaining this distribution. Is this a violation?

Re:No Free Download? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4209471)

who covers the cost of bandwidth? Is there some place that you can sign up for and pay a per bandwidth fee to download?

Re:No Free Download? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4209601)

Read the post. He said "free" as in, free except for bandwidth costs.

Re:No Free Download? (3, Insightful)

MORTAR_COMBAT! (589963) | more than 12 years ago | (#4209590)

well, maybe this is a troll, maybe it isn't.

but no, the GNU license doesn't require you to be able to download it for free. it only states that if you get the binaries from them, they have to provide the source at cost of media.

so if you don't get the binary distro from libranet, they have no reason to give you the source.

what I don't understand, is why the first person to get the binaries and source, doesn't just post it on linuxiso or something. libranet can't really stop them, because the GPL also grants the right to redistribute.

anyway...

GPL doesn't require free distribution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4209602)

No. The GPL requires that if they give you the binaries, they're required to give you access to the source as well. And you can do whatever you want (subject to the GPL) with the source.

The GPL means that someone else can buy it and redistribute it for free, but the author is under no obligation to do so. (And that only applies to the GPL components, which may or may not include the installer and other Libranet-specific components.)

Read the GPL [gnu.org]

The "cost of distribution" part only refers to distributing the source code to accompany binaries; it doesn't refer to distribution as a whole. The GPL isn't about making all software free as in beer; it's about making sure that all users have access to the source code, and they can do whatever they want with such code. The "all software free as in beer" bit is just a bonus...

No way I'm going to install LinuxBra (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4209478)

Folks this distro is for women.

Maybe I'm used to it (1)

glubbs (526448) | more than 12 years ago | (#4209486)

Maybe I've installed Debian so many times now that it's just second nature for me... with three computers running it, it's not that hard to do it a lot. :-)

All I use is the first .iso image, edit apt sources by hand (uncommenting the first three), add in my network card's module, make sure I choose "advanced" instead of "simple" install, and I quit dselect as soon as I'm dumped into it (worthless, in my opinion). Every question is straightforward (cfdisk is easy, hostname, IP, gateway, dns, hit the enter key a bunch of times to install everything from the cd, enter root password, create user and then get to installing software)...

Of course, this leaves me with a ~60 to ~80meg OS, and I immediately apt up to sid and install anything I need. I like this method because I know there's little to nothing installed that I don't need.

First tell me what you're talking about. (3, Insightful)

fm6 (162816) | more than 12 years ago | (#4209528)

Both the Slashdot story and the Libranet main web page lack any indication of WTF Libranet is!!!!! Had to dig around before I found out that it was a distro. Come on people! I realize that writing goodful is not anybody's priority -- but "animal, vegetable or mineral" is the first part of any description.

Re:First tell me what you're talking about. (3, Funny)

rodolfo.borges (415394) | more than 12 years ago | (#4209559)

I also noticed that.
But it was easly solved with the "About Libranet" button on their main page..

(If I just copy/paste'd this about page [libranet.com] I would certainly get an "Informative" moderation point.. :)

Re:First tell me what you're talking about. (3, Insightful)

stoolpigeon (454276) | more than 12 years ago | (#4209589)

You've got to be kidding

Jon wrote in with news that Libranet 2.7 has been released. I've never tried Libranet, but Debian 3.0 is a fine, up-to-date OS with the usual Debian installation (harder than necessary), so if Libranet offers that Debian goodness with a better installer it should be an excellent choice for both experienced and newbie users.

If you can't figure out from the context that Libranet is a Debian based distro from this description- and then you went to the Libranet home page and couldn't figure it out- then you leave me w/questions as well. Questions like "How does someone this stupid figure out how to start a browser and get on the web?"

Prices (3, Interesting)

SomeOtherGuy (179082) | more than 12 years ago | (#4209545)

I see that they charge for upgrades from one version to the next. (I.E. --> Existing Libranet user $39.95) Does that not kind of make apt-get dist-upgrade a bit useless?

Either way -- if I were going to purchase a new Linux distro, I would give this one a shot. With Debian "Clones" (storm, corel, etal) it has always been a bit of a catch-22, because you have all the power of apt-get, but apt-get is only as good as the updates (and frequency of said updates) waiting on the other end.

Re:Prices (1)

ilias (409618) | more than 12 years ago | (#4209703)

Well, my experience with Libranet is that they do a good job at shipping a stable system with newer packages than Debian Stable (e.g. XFree86, KDE and GNOME).

The Libranet team provides good support and they are very nice people (hi Tal and Jon!). Also, the Libranet user community is very nice and friendly as well.

On the other hand, in this sort of economic climate, the upgrade price is a bit steep (USD $39.95 for the CDs). But you can also download the ISO for USD $10 less (USD $29.95). I don't think this is such a bad deal.

Personally, I'll probably wait a bit before I upgrade. I'm very happy with my Libranet 2.0 system at the moment and I don't really need KDE 3.0 and GNOME 2.0.

Libranet (5, Informative)

crystal dragon (69701) | more than 12 years ago | (#4209566)

I currently use both Debian and Libranet on my home systems. While I personally find Debian easy to install and configure, I think that Libranet has done an exemplarly job in making their install very easy. It has hardware autodetection, can set up a burner and zip drive and allows you to easily configure a network or dial up connection in a way that a novice will understand.

There are other benefits as well. They have a package called XAdminmenu that logically groups many administration tools together, a control panel of sort, that is easy to use and properly annotated so that a new user can configure their system. There is also an active user community that is very newbie-friendly. Plus the support provided by their staff is exceptional and often goes beyond the offerings of other software firms.

Naturally there are also the benefits of being a Debian-based distribution. While they base their current release on Woody, you can easily bump it up to Sid if you wish too. And for new users, once they master APT (or Synaptic or GNOME-APT) they will be introduced to Linux with out the hassle of dependency hell. That is worth something right there.

In short, you get a slightly more polished version of Woody, with current software, support, and a pleasent Linux experience for very little dollars. That in itself is a bonus to our community.

For those that bitched: download the 2.0 iso from their site and give it a whirl, then give me your opinion. Otherwise be happy and stick to your distro of choice.

It's not hard to install (2, Informative)

OrangeHairMan (560161) | more than 12 years ago | (#4209572)

the usual Debian installation (harder than necessary)

I hate how everybody always hates on the Debian installer. Seriously, when I first installed Debian (second distro, I was a newbie), I had no problem giving it the six disks, then having it download the packages I wanted, and configuring windowmaker. If people actually bothered to read the installation manual, they'll figure out that the step-by-step installation isn't hard. And if you have to maintain the same distribution for many different platforms and kernels, you can't use a pretty X11 installer, and you have to have the installer be modular.

This is not intended to be a flame at all, and I appricate everybody's feedback. :)

Cheers, Orange

Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but... (2)

Mwongozi (176765) | more than 12 years ago | (#4209575)

Is the new Libranet based on Debian 3.0? I can't seem to find anywhere that will say so.

Re:Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but... (1)

tal256 (128219) | more than 12 years ago | (#4209587)

Yes, Libranet 2.7 is based on Debian Woody (3.0). This is mentioned on the features [libranet.com] page.

- Tal

debian is not uptodate (1)

dcstimm (556797) | more than 12 years ago | (#4209605)

does debian sid (unstable)even have xfree86 4.2.0 yet?

Re:debian is not uptodate (1)

damiam (409504) | more than 12 years ago | (#4209701)

There are beta packages of XFree86 4.2, but no, it's not in unstable. It will make it into sid when it builds without any serious bugs on all 11+ architectures.

My Experiences... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4209655)

I tried Libranet for a while... It was a decent distro but..

1. I found their community to be very cold to newbies. (especially one certain user I don't care for but wont mention his name)

2. You have to pay every release for an upgrade...

3. They have no place where you can get a list of security advisories for their distrobution.

Re:My Experiences... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4209686)

They have no place where you can get a list of security advisories for their distrobution.

But I thought Linux was secure!

GayTUX (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4209676)

Evangalismn means the product dosen't have anything *REAL* to sale. IT's a shame about that disgusting huge penguin taking over the site, otherwise I might have been interested in giving it a try.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?