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!

Ubuntu Beware: Installing Debian with Anaconda

timothy posted more than 9 years ago | from the hey-we're-all-in-the-same-gang dept.

Debian 43

Chris writes "Progeny Linux does Debian one step better. If you like Ubuntu you'll love Progeny. A slick GNOME desktop, a solid Debian core, and the Anaconda installer have made Progeny my new desktop of choice. Progeny has also recently become part of the Linux Core Consortium (LCC) to implement Linux Standard Base (LSB) 2.0. Watch your back Ubuntu for Progeny's new 'Progeny Debian 2.0 Developer Edition RC1' release. At OSDir we just had to install this distro, and take some screenshots. Our screenshot tour will take you from boot, through the installation, to the desktop. Then we'll have a look at the taskbar, menus, system configuration, and a few of the newly added features of this great distro."

cancel ×

43 comments

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

FP! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10894952)

Meh, I was bored.

Easy install Debian? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10894954)

Looks a lot like the installer for RedHat/Fedora... is this the same? If so, where's the torrent? All I see are screenshot links...

Re:Easy install Debian? (2, Informative)

burns210 (572621) | more than 9 years ago | (#10895253)

The article says 'with anaconda'... Anaconda is the redhat-used installed for their distro. Also used by gentoo and fedora.

Re:Easy install Debian? (1)

dleifelohcs (777508) | more than 9 years ago | (#10895537)

gentoo.... Anaconda?

Surely this must be some sort of a hack.

Gentoo is installed via commandline.

Re:Easy install Debian? (1)

Mornelithe (83633) | more than 9 years ago | (#10895681)

http://www.vidalinux.com/ [vidalinux.com]

Gentoo underneath, easy installation on top (not that typing stuff verbatim from the web site isn't easy, but you get what I mean).

pleasures of OSS (2, Interesting)

ilyaa1 (831859) | more than 9 years ago | (#10894956)

Looking at those screenshots, it's interesting how the installer, for instance, is essentially copied from RedHat. I suppose that's the pleasure of OSS - you can take the best of what's around, and if you know a better way to put it all together - do it.

Re:pleasures of OSS (1)

MattJakel (815179) | more than 9 years ago | (#10894990)

Looking at those screenshots, it's interesting how the installer, for instance, is essentially copied from RedHat. That may be true, but that installer is based on GNOME anyway, so it's not as if RedHat had done anything truly original with it anyway. They simply applied the widely used desktop environment to their installation.

Re:pleasures of OSS (1)

M1FCJ (586251) | more than 9 years ago | (#10896017)

GNOME is a desktop environment. GTK is a toolkit. Anaconda is an installation application. Can you spot the differences?

Re:pleasures of OSS (1)

node 3 (115640) | more than 9 years ago | (#10895016)

Looking at those screenshots, it's interesting how the installer, for instance, is essentially copied from RedHat.

Did you even read the article headline?

Re:pleasures of OSS (2, Informative)

FlipmodePlaya (719010) | more than 9 years ago | (#10895130)

To clarify, Anaconda is Red Hat's installer... Check the Wikipedia article here [wikipedia.org] . Note that the article actually mentions Progeny, as well as a Gentoo distro using the installer. The inspiration for the name was pretty cool, as well. Some other child of the grand-parent implied that Anaconda was 'Gnome based', and I believe they meant GTK...

Re:pleasures of OSS (1)

ilyaa1 (831859) | more than 9 years ago | (#10895133)

ok, good point...

Difference much? (3, Informative)

jgaynor (205453) | more than 9 years ago | (#10895017)


Pardon me but I don't see much of a difference here . . .

1) Debian
2) Gnome
3) Easy installation
4) Profit?

So it's got LSB standardization - Yay. With an hour of work I bet you could turn either into the other. Why the hard sell? I'm not a fanboy of either but bickering about distros does nothing but fragment the userbase at large.

In other news, by the time I'm done writing this someone will probably have posted why gentoo is superior to both of these.

Re:Difference much? (4, Informative)

theantix (466036) | more than 9 years ago | (#10895792)

You're right, the two projects have seemingly a lot in common with either other. So long as they both contribute bugfixes and upgrades back to Debian proper, does it really matter that the userbase is fragmented? If someone using Progeny Debian Gnome files a bug report that gets fixed back to Debian, which is also fixed in Ubuntu -- does it really matter to me that they weren't using Ubuntu?

The fact is, these new Debian/Gnome distros (UserLinux too) are all working together. Any extra engineering and quality assurance that these distributions all provide should be appreciated by all the parties involved.

Sir Mix-A-Lot (0, Offtopic)

TechSam (576638) | more than 9 years ago | (#10895056)

To quote Sir Mix-A-Lot My anaconda don't want none unless you've got Ubuntu hon.

From Ian Murdock (2, Interesting)

Jacked (785403) | more than 9 years ago | (#10895154)

Not necessarily relevant, but, I find it interesting that Progeny was founded by the creator of Debian: Ian Murdock.

Their web site: http://www.progeny.com/ [progeny.com]

I'll stick with Ubuntu, thanks. (2, Insightful)

node 3 (115640) | more than 9 years ago | (#10895185)

Progeny seems like it's a fairly good distro, but for me, I'd rather stick with Ubuntu if I'm going to stray from a pure Debian install.

Progeny's site (btw, a link in the article would have been nice, it's Progeny [progeny.com] ) calls themselves "the linux platform company" and has a very conservative, professional (in a business sense) look. That's not for me. Ubuntu, on the other hand, is very human oriented. Looking at their site (Ubuntu [ubuntulinux.org] ), the first thing they do is explain the name as, ""Ubuntu" is an ancient African word, meaning "humanity to others". Ubuntu also means "I am what I am because of who we all are". The Ubuntu Linux distribution brings the spirit of Ubuntu to the software world.".

From a pure philosophically aesthetic standpoint, Ubuntu is far more appealing to me than Progeny. Ubuntu is great, it's Debian (like Progeny) and it stays in parity with the most current GNOME releases. Anaconda is one of the last things on my checklist of why I'd switch distros.

That's not to say I dislike Progeny, or that I wouldn't want to run it. In fact, I probably wouldn't have made any of these points had the article not been so aggressive towards Ubuntu.

This isn't like your standard corporate system where you have to root for your competitors to lose. With this diversity, we all win. Good job, and best wishes to the Progeny team. Maybe some day I'll try your distro.

For now, though, it's Ubuntu for me.

Re:I'll stick with Ubuntu, thanks. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10895359)

STFU PUSSY

Feeling Warm and Fuzzy? (4, Informative)

reallocate (142797) | more than 8 years ago | (#10896822)

>> "This isn't like your standard corporate system where you have to root for your competitors to lose. With this diversity, we all win."

Geez, I bet you feel so warm and fuzzy all over. Remind me never to hire you.

Get a clue: Ubuntu is a product of the Canonical Corporation, as in "Corporation". It is backed by South African Mark Shuttlesworth, a rather wealthy guy you may have heard about when he bought a $20 million joyride to orbit. I have no reason to doubt his sincerity about all this "ubuntu philosophy" stuff, but it is a common advertising hook in South Africa.

Linux distributions should be judged on their technical and aesthetic merits, not on the pseudo-philosophical image they project for PR purposes. (You do understand that Progeny's site is designed to appeal to the market they want to sell to, and that Ubuntu's site is designed to appeal to people like you? You're being manipulated in either case.)

Feeling like you don't understand? (1)

node 3 (115640) | more than 8 years ago | (#10904029)

Geez, I bet you feel so warm and fuzzy all over. Remind me never to hire you.

Yes, I do feel "warm and fuzzy all over". Most of my personal use of computers is because I *ENJOY* it, not because it's some tool that I *must* use.

As for hiring me, don't worry about it, if you're such an asshole, I'd quickly correct any such mistake if it were ever to occur.

Get a clue: Ubuntu is a product of the Canonical Corporation, as in "Corporation". It is backed by South African Mark Shuttlesworth, a rather wealthy guy you may have heard about when he bought a $20 million joyride to orbit. I have no reason to doubt his sincerity about all this "ubuntu philosophy" stuff, but it is a common advertising hook in South Africa.

Don't be such a simpleton. I never said Ubuntu wasn't backed by a corporation. The distro itself is designed and run in a human-centered fashion. I don't care if it's backed by a corporation as long as that corporation is run by people who want first and foremost to change the world for the better, and only secondarily want to bilk that world for all it can. I don't know about the man ultimately behind Ubuntu, but I do know about the way the distro itself is designed, and I like that very much. It's also one of the things that makes Apple such a great corporation, and the lack of this virtue is what makes Microsoft so awful.

Linux distributions should be judged on their technical and aesthetic merits, not on the pseudo-philosophical image they project for PR purposes. (You do understand that Progeny's site is designed to appeal to the market they want to sell to, and that Ubuntu's site is designed to appeal to people like you? You're being manipulated in either case.)

I do realize all of that. But the point is their site design tends to show the philosophy they follow, and the philosophy they follow will manifest itself in the choices they make.

This isn't like some huge corporation who has their site design so divorced from their product design that the two are wholly unrelated. Even large corporations have to maintain some parity in the image they wish to portray and the reality of their product. Progeny and Ubuntu have both chosen to take on different focii. Progeny seems to want to be your company's Linux, and Ubuntu wants to be your home Linux.

But you even realize this (without appearing to understand the implications) when you say, "Linux distributions should be judged on their technical and aesthetic merits".

Technically, Ubuntu is Debian, as is Progeny. For me, the best (technically) distro is Debian, so from that point of view, there's little to differentiate them. However, Progeny has chosen to go the LSB 2.0 and Anaconda route. Yawn, I really don't care about those two features (not enough to switch distros). Ubuntu differentiates itself by basing it's release schedule to GNOME's. This is a plus that actually affects my computer experience directly.

Maybe this is all an illusion, but for now, Ubuntu is technically superior and aesthetically superior (which you admit are your two criteria). When things change enough to make a difference, and it's a good time to do so, I'll switch distros. No big deal.

That's all. They're essentially the same, but a little different. If I'm going to choose between the two, I'm going to pick the one that's different in the ways that I care about. What's your problem with that?

Actually, I know what your problem with it is: you don't fully grasp that it's not enough for something to be "technically superior" without also being "human centric". For you, it's enough to be "technically superior" and "human compatible". Once you integrate "human centric" into your definition of "technically superior", you'll begin to understand. Certainly there are cases where human-centricity is not so important, or when technical differences are enough to overshadow usability/aesthetics/comfort, etc., but the choice in Linux distros for my desktop is not one of them.

Re:Feeling like you don't understand? (1)

reallocate (142797) | more than 8 years ago | (#10904460)

>> Most of my personal use of computers is because I *ENJOY* it, not because it's some tool that I *must* use.

Most people use computers for the same reason they use cars and refrigerators: as a means to an end, i.e., a tool.

>> (Ubuntu) is designed and run in a human-centered fashion. I don't care if it's backed by a corporation as long as that corporation is run by people who want first and foremost to change the world for the better, and only secondarily want to bilk that world

Ignoring the fact that a phrase like "human-centered fashion" is devoid of meaning, how do you know? You've got some postings on their website, some PR hype, and some cute artwork. How does that lead you to conclude that they're changing the world? Or, if indeed they are, that it is for the better? Any chance that Ubuntu's public face makes you feel they share your own biases, rather than Big Evil Corporation?

As for trying to "bilk the world", you apparently have a bias against the notion of profit. If so, I suggest you find an alternative means of producing surpluses and expanding wealth, because history shows relying on our better natures won't get you there.

>> ...their site design tends to show the philosophy they follow, and the philosophy they follow will manifest itself in the choices they make.

I don't have any reason to assume the first clause is true, nor any reason to assume the second clause is true. Even if it is true, it is just a CD full of software. What impact can their choices possible have?

>> ...you don't fully grasp that it's not enough for something to be "technically superior" without also being "human centric". For you, it's enough to be "technically superior" and "human compatible"...

You're building a scarecrow argument. I never said any such thing. What I see your arguing is that you think Ubuntu is "human-centric" because of their website design (as if you honestly believe they did not create that site with the express purpose of making you feel that way.) But, in any case, I still don't know what "human-centric" means.

Re:Feeling like you don't understand? (1)

node 3 (115640) | more than 9 years ago | (#10904981)

Most people use computers for the same reason they use cars and refrigerators: as a means to an end, i.e., a tool.

So? My post didn't tell others what to pick, it stated what *I* pick.

Ignoring the fact that a phrase like "human-centered fashion" is devoid of meaning,

That you don't understand it, does not make it devoid of meaning. A "human-centered fashion" is one where, when a choice is presented, one would ask, "how does our choice benefit people?" instead of "how does our choice benefit [something other than people, like profits or delivery time, etc]?"

You've got some postings on their website, some PR hype, and some cute artwork. How does that lead you to conclude that they're changing the world? Or, if indeed they are, that it is for the better? Any chance that Ubuntu's public face makes you feel they share your own biases, rather than Big Evil Corporation?

I also have a distro which has choices made that are things a person (namely, me) wants, instead of the types of choices a business wants. I even stated this could all be an illusion (did you even *read* my post?). If it's smoke-and-mirrors, fine. It'll show up. Sony is a good example. They give you an image of a futuristic wonderland, but the reality is things *don't* work the way you'd want, because Sony artificially and overwhelmingly cripples their products to only work (or work well) with Sony-sanctioned technologies. If Ubuntu is a corporate desktop in disguise, it'll show too. For now it hasn't. Pay attention to posts you reply to.

As for trying to "bilk the world", you apparently have a bias against the notion of profit. If so, I suggest you find an alternative means of producing surpluses and expanding wealth, because history shows relying on our better natures won't get you there.

I have absolutely nothing against profit. You are projecting your false view of reality. I fully understand and comprehend the need for production. What I don't do is worship it as the highest virture. What's the point of profit if it doesn't better *my* life? Nothing, that's what. Just because some people require the profit-motive to do something doesn't mean that all people require it.

I realize Bill Gates won't make Windows better just for the morality of it, he'll do it primarily for the money he can get. Linus, on the other hand, will make Linux better for reasons I value. You're acting like I'm stupid for prefering Linus' way over Gates' way. You appear to promote the idea that I should honor those who would exploit me.

I reject that notion 100%. Do you? If so, then what's your problem with me making *my* choice? All I did was state why *I* choose Ubuntu.

>> ...their site design tends to show the philosophy they follow, and the philosophy they follow will manifest itself in the choices they make.

I don't have any reason to assume the first clause is true, nor any reason to assume the second clause is true. Even if it is true, it is just a CD full of software. What impact can their choices possible have?


Then you do not understand the word "philosophy". Everything you do follows a philosophy (or a set of philosophies), whether you intend it or not. It's by definition, and it's irrefutable. The rest follows.

I do not have perfect knowledge, but what I assess as the philosophies behind Ubuntu and Progeny, I prefer Ubuntu. I also state that Progeny is also probably pretty good. Don't you listen? I'm stating that Debian, Ubuntu and Progeny are all good (I'm only guessing with Progeny), but that I like Ubuntu better. What's your problem?

You're building a scarecrow argument. I never said any such thing.

You're building quite a scarecrow yourself. I'm just following the logic of what you've written.

What I see your arguing is that you think Ubuntu is "human-centric" because of their website design

No, the philosophy behind their website design, and their website content, the choices they've made for their distro, the postings of their engineers, etc and so on.

(as if you honestly believe they did not create that site with the express purpose of making you feel that way.)

Then let me clear it up for you: I fully believe they designed their site with the express purpose of communicating a feeling to me. I've never said otherwise, and in fact have been *constantly* saying exactly that. This isn't, in and of itself, a bad thing.

What's bad is when the image is such a lie that to believe the image is to welcome harm to one's self (such as with Sony or Microsoft--not that their images aren't at least partly (even mostly) accurate, but that they are directly contradicted by reality in ways that are detrimental to the consumer).

But, in any case, I still don't know what "human-centric" means.

See above.

Re:Feeling like you don't understand? (1)

reallocate (142797) | more than 9 years ago | (#10906214)

>> ...instead of "how does our choice benefit [something other than people, like profits or delivery time, etc]?"

Profits benefit people. That's why we want to make a profit. The only alternative is loss.

>> also have a distro which has choices made that are things a person (namely, me) wants, instead of the types of choices a business wants.

Fine. Although I've been using Ubuntu and don't see any of their choices leap out as significantly different than any other Debian-based distribution. Besides, all those businesses are full of people. Don't their needs count as "human-centric"? Why is it that ou are "human-centric" while someone who wants to buy an OS to run his business is not?

>> Sony is a good example. They give you an image of a futuristic wonderland, but the reality is things *don't* work the way you'd want, because Sony artificially and overwhelmingly cripples their products to only work (or work well) with Sony-sanctioned technologies.

Strange rant. What promised wonderland? If Sony thinks they'll sell more products by ensuring they won't work with the competition, that's their right. Why shouldn't they encourage people to buy more Sony stuff?

>> ..you do not understand the word "philosophy".

Of course, I do. You're asserting that you know Ubuntu's philosophy is "human-centric" because they say so on their website and because you like the site's design. I'm saying you have no way of knowing that the site, and the hype, was not intentionally generated to create exactly that impression. For all you know, it was written by PR flacks in Johannesburg.

>> What's bad is when the image is such a lie that to believe the image is to welcome harm to one's self (such as with Sony or Microsoft--not that their images aren't at least partly (even mostly) accurate, but that they are directly contradicted by reality in ways that are detrimental to the consumer).


How can the advertising images of Sony or Microsoft harm anyone? I don't know what reality you're thinking of, but it is rather difficult for me to entertain the notion that the difference people notice between advertising and reality can harm them. It's just advertising.

Re:Feeling like you don't understand? (1)

node 3 (115640) | more than 9 years ago | (#10907298)

Profits benefit people. That's why we want to make a profit. The only alternative is loss.

I never said profits are bad. In fact, I've already said they are good. Profits, however, are not the always best thing for people, which is what your simple Ayn Randian notion implies.

Some profits are not good to take. Ford, for example, should have either taken a complete loss on the Pinto (and not released it), or taken *less* profits (there goes your premise) and fixed the exploding gas tank problem.

Please tell me how the profits benefitted the people who burned to death in accidents that should not have been fatal?

Don't their needs count as "human-centric"? Why is it that ou are "human-centric" while someone who wants to buy an OS to run his business is not?

Because when people are doing the bidding of a business, they are not generally acting as people, they are acting as components of a system. Anything which caters to a business is not human-centric, even though it involves people.

That does not mean businesses do not serve people, or that their choices don't affect people directly. What it means is that when coming up with some business-oriented product or service, you don't think "how will this help people?", you think "how will this help a business?" (if you *do* ask, "how will this help people?" (hoping to make their lives better), then you are people-oriented, even if you are targeting your product to businesses, and are totally fine by me)

Because I suspect you are having problem treating a business (which is a concept) as something real, let's take a concrete example: a ship. When you make a product that serves the needs of a ship (like the engine, or an automatic barnacle remover), you are not thinking "how will this affect the people?" you are thinking "how will this affect the ship?" The implication is that some person wants the ship running well for some (human) purpose.

Up to this point, it's all well and good. Make a business run better, I'm all for that.

But you are somehow arguing that I should choose this business-centric system for my own personal use. Remember, I only stated why *I* use Ubuntu, not why some business should (in fact, I implied that a business might prefer Progeny).

The problem I have with the notion that "what's good for business is what's good for America/people/whatever" is that it is absolutely not necessarily true. It can be, but many times is not. It's just as stupid as claiming "what's good for a ship is good for people".

Strange rant. What promised wonderland? If Sony thinks they'll sell more products by ensuring they won't work with the competition, that's their right. Why shouldn't they encourage people to buy more Sony stuff?

Have you never seen a Sony ad? They tend to show some guy (businessman, generally) who goes home after a hard day at the office and is immersed in a technological wonderland (escapism, really).

Looks cool, until you try it. Sony products are extremely cool, but are also extremely frustrating.

Your question, though, belies you lack of understanding in what I'm saying. I'm not saying Sony doesn't have the right to do whatever they want so much as saying that *I* will not support their actions if I don't like them. Sony wants to make things that would be amazingly cool if they weren't so hobbled? Fine for them. But why should I not call them out for not making the nobler choices?

It's as though you're saying, I, as an individual, have no place passing judgment on a corporation beyond the simple, "will I buy their product or not?"

Of course, I do. You're asserting that you know Ubuntu's philosophy is "human-centric" because they say so on their website and because you like the site's design. I'm saying you have no way of knowing that the site, and the hype, was not intentionally generated to create exactly that impression. For all you know, it was written by PR flacks in Johannesburg.

Listen, I'll say it again for at least the third time: THEY COULD BE FAKING THEIR PHILOSOPHY 100%. OK? Got it? I never, *ONCE* claimed to know for certain. What I do know is that their actions *SO FAR* have matched my impression. As long as that's true, it doesn't really matter (directly) if they are faking or not. However, I *do* happen to believe it. I'm more than happy to change my mind. Do you have any reason for me not to? Do you not believe a corporation can do good things aside from seeking profit? In general, I say the same thing about Apple. I know they are about profits, but their chosen way of earning them is to make products that revolve around the person. This is a good thing.

You are taking a horribly simple absolutist view here. It's as though it's either 100% corporate "lie, cheat and steal" your way to the top, or 100% hippy commune magical paradise.

How can the advertising images of Sony or Microsoft harm anyone? I don't know what reality you're thinking of, but it is rather difficult for me to entertain the notion that the difference people notice between advertising and reality can harm them. It's just advertising.

Read very carefully. What I said was, "What's bad is when the image is such a lie that to believe the image is to welcome harm to one's self". It's not the lie that harms (in this case), but believing the lie (specifically, acting on that belief). MS says that Windows is secure and reliable. OK, believe them at your own peril. In fact, many people do, and they all tend to accumulate spyware and virii. Had they not believed the (extraordinarily) false message, they might have been more cautious.

Re:Feeling like you don't understand? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10909749)

Heh, you remind me of Erik Naggum, and I mean that in a positive way. Thanks for the interesting posts.

Re:Feeling like you don't understand? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10906535)

You really think linus gives a flying fuck about you? Shit now you are getting into the mac centric illusionary world here son. Linus could give two flying shits about you or what you want with linux. EVERYTHING he changes is because of COMPANIES asking for changes. Not some pissant who thinks of linux usage as a philisophical basis for their work. ITS JUST A FUCKING OPERATING SYSTEM. Stop treating it like it will save the world. 100 years from now no one will give a shit about you, linux, or linus; save some computer historians. Get over yourself.

Re:Feeling Warm and Fuzzy? (1)

poofyhairguy82 (635386) | more than 9 years ago | (#10941359)

Linux distributions should be judged on their technical and aesthetic merits, not on the pseudo-philosophical image they project for PR purposes.



And Ubuntu has many good technical merits to stand on. Its a wonderful mix of Fedora (easy to install, gnome based) and Debian (many packages that work, fast). If its not your thing, fine, but don't bite off someone's head for it.


You do understand that Progeny's site is designed to appeal to the market they want to sell to, and that Ubuntu's site is designed to appeal to people like you? You're being manipulated in either case.

Being manipulated? Into what? Ubuntu is as free as your time using it is. If anything the new age marketing tells you it has a healthy budget which is needed for its survival. Many things in this world wrap themselves in a coat of candy; it what we now call "a finished product" in marketingland.

Netcraft confirms it - Debian is Dead (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10895205)

Netcraft confirms it - Debian is Dead Old.

Move along, nothing to see here.

Re:Netcraft confirms it - Debian is Dead (1)

Paul d'Aoust (679461) | more than 9 years ago | (#10895782)

dude, are you serious? Debian is the Choice of a New Generation. There seem to be a plethora of Debian-spawn springing up all over the place. Exciting to see. Starting with Mandrake and moving to Gentoo, I discovered how much better a package manager is when it's tied to a repository (Portage, in Gentoo's case). That's why, when I went looking for a new distro (hard drive crashed, didn't want to spend days compiling X, GNOME, and friends), I went to a Debian-based system. (I coulda gone with Fedora instead, because its maintainers host an online repository, but I thought Ubuntu looked pretty.)

Operating systems like Debian, Fedora, and Gentoo are just simply easier to use... really, it makes Windows look rather silly, with its 'go find your own software' paradigm.

Re:Netcraft confirms it - Debian is Dead (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#10896408)

Dude - I use Fedora.

Also, "Debian is the choice of the GNU generation." Pity stable doesn't have GNU (I mean new) package versions.

Benefit (1)

n0tv3ry3lite (833715) | more than 9 years ago | (#10895257)

The only benefit I see in this is maybe an easier install, for new users, but for those who already have a distro they're happy with, it certainly isn't a reason to switch.

torrent anyone? (1)

acidrain (35064) | more than 9 years ago | (#10895281)

Anyone hosting a torrent of this?

Re:torrent anyone? (1)

kayen_telva (676872) | more than 9 years ago | (#10895327)

you may want to read the release notes before downloading; seems aimed at server installs.
not a bad thing, just sayin''
release notes here [progeny.com]

Re:torrent anyone? (0, Troll)

vasqzr (619165) | more than 8 years ago | (#10897141)


Anyone hosting a torrent of this?

Apparently not.

In case anyone at Progeny is listening...

No torrent = no download = no users.

features ? (2, Interesting)

kayen_telva (676872) | more than 9 years ago | (#10895308)

any humans install this yet ? the screenshot borgs dont dole out any real info ;) j/k
does it have nice "control panels" like mandrake,
suse and mepis have to setup various hardware and service options ?
selinux ? support options ? apt-get and debian source compatibility ?
visit the site right? already there. I'll let you know what I find..

how is this an ubuntu competitor ?? (2, Interesting)

kayen_telva (676872) | more than 9 years ago | (#10895376)

from the progeny website:
"aims to provide an unmatched "out of the box" environment for software
developers building applications for the Java, Mono/.NET and LAMP platforms.
"

This isn't needed anymroe... (1)

oldosadmin (759103) | more than 9 years ago | (#10895519)

Anyone who's installed Debian Sarge should realize that now Debian has the BEST tui in open source software. It was easy to use, gave me customizable options.

No WAY would I give up the power of the new debian-installer to get the feel of anaconda.

a slight missed chance (1)

dns_server (696283) | more than 9 years ago | (#10895573)

I installed debian this way when it with the first time progeny was mentioned on slashdot. it made it easyer to install than using the old installer, and you had a full os installed in no time.

With the new debian installer constantly being updated, i am starting to think progeny has missed it's chance. the new installer is far better than the old installer.
though debian does not have a good graphcal wizard based installer like anaconda, it is rapidly improveing, with a gtk+ based installer underway. making the debian port of anaconda a little less needed as it might have been if it where cereated a fiew years ago.

Yegads (1)

dasunt (249686) | more than 9 years ago | (#10895610)

With all the griping about Debian's installer, I wonder how many times one actually installs a new distro on bare metal.

I have the same debian installation going for the past three years. Sure, I've upgraded the distribution to the latest stable release, but it didn't require a reinstallation, only an apt-get dist-upgrade.

The debian installer may not be the easiest installer around, but it works on all the platforms out there, and the main objection -- dselect -- isn't difficult if you RTFM [debian.org]

Re:Yegads (1)

M1FCJ (586251) | more than 9 years ago | (#10896031)

Depends. If you are working as IT technician in a company, you might find yourself installing something on a box reasonably frequently. On the other hand you would be installing it "for a reason" so you probably will end up with SuSE/Redhat for Oracle or (insert commercial product here). Same for desktops.

If you are installing it for home, you might find (like you) you don't have to wipe your workstation so often but I have a spare PC for just this reason, installing new stuff, tinkering around. So I install something new every week or so on that box and use it for nothing else.

It all depends what you are after.

Re:Yegads (1)

dasunt (249686) | more than 8 years ago | (#10896473)

Depends. If you are working as IT technician in a company, you might find yourself installing something on a box reasonably frequently. On the other hand you would be installing it "for a reason" so you probably will end up with SuSE/Redhat for Oracle or (insert commercial product here). Same for desktops.

For debian servers in an IT environment, my impression is that most people skip dselect and install what they want through apt-get. Its trivial to make a quick list of packages you want on every server and run it through apt-get, then customize packages for the server's functions (web server gets apache, file server gets NFS, etc...)

A little more info (3, Interesting)

JavaRob (28971) | more than 9 years ago | (#10895976)

I jumped over to the Progeny Linux website [progeny.com] and found no mention of much of anything useful... you click on Products and Services and they just mention they provide security fixes for old RedHat distros. Okay...
Here's their actual download page for the ISOs, [componentizedlinux.org] and the distro description page [componentizedlinux.org] . It mentions a bit more about what you're getting -- for one, this is RC-1 (not the release yet). More detail:
Progeny Debian 2.0 Developer Edition aims to provide an unmatched "out of the box" environment for software developers building applications for the Java, Mono/.NET and LAMP platforms. Progeny Debian 2.0 Developer Edition also serves as a showcase for Componentized Linux and includes all Componentized Linux technologies. As such, it is also an excellent development platform for builders of Componentized Linux based custom distributions.
I'm probably going to try it out (I'm a Java and LAMP developer..); I might wait for the release, though.

Vs. Ubuntu (2, Interesting)

dorward (129628) | more than 8 years ago | (#10900113)

Ubuntu has a pretty transparent development process (yeah for mailing lists and development sources lists for apt) and is promising a regular (and reasonably frequent) release cycle.

I don't see mention of anything like this for Progeny yet. So its less attractive then Ubuntu to me right now.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>