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!

Overclockix 3.7 Released

michael posted more than 9 years ago | from the burn-baby-burn dept.

Debian 148

prostoalex writes "Overclockix 3.7 is released, available via bittorrent. It's a live Linux CD with a bunch of utilities for 'torturing' the PC hardware, hence the name. The authors seem to take a reasonable approach on graphical desktop, cutting out what they consider unnecessary eye candy, but leaving in the tools essential for effective GUI. 'Some new package highlights such as knoppix firewall, vlc, superkaramba, KDE 3.3.1, newer 2.6.7 kernel, NX client, and many more', the site says."

cancel ×

148 comments

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

first racism (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11371477)

michael is a nigger. i am pissing on him

Torture the computer? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11371478)

Is Windows ME on there?

Re:Torture the computer? (0, Offtopic)

roseblood (631824) | more than 9 years ago | (#11371545)

Nope, that'll be Longhorn, you know it needs 3d accelerated video cards? That is NEEDS, not can use them as an option.

Re:Torture the computer? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11371922)

This is old. The story was already posted on Fark [fark.com] .

Re:Torture the computer? (1)

Victor Antolini (725710) | more than 9 years ago | (#11371946)

Above url links to goatse (very obvious though)

Re:Torture the computer? (3, Funny)

Skidge (316075) | more than 9 years ago | (#11371577)

That would be against the Geneva Convention.

You know Slashdot has gone downhill when... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11371585)

Making a Windows ME joke gets you modded as troll.

Re:You know Slashdot has gone downhill when... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11371722)

in this case its +4 funny

Re:Torture the computer? (5, Funny)

christopherfinke (608750) | more than 9 years ago | (#11371741)

That would be torturing the user, not the computer.

[OT] Sig (1)

HeghmoH (13204) | more than 9 years ago | (#11372148)

Given the fact that a pyramid scheme is guaranteed to leave the vast majority of the people who get sucked into it with absolutely nothing, do you actually expect you have a good chance to get your free stuff? What makes you luckier than the next guy?

WHERE ART THOU MINIMAC? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11372152)

YOU GIBBED ME D00D!!

Kinda late... (2, Informative)

ThisNukes4u (752508) | more than 9 years ago | (#11371482)

Why is this being posted just now? Not that this isn't really interesting, but the link says it was released on December 7th...

Re:Kinda late... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11371488)

It's a reverse dupe. They meant to post it before and post it again now, but missed the first time.

Re:Kinda late... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11371501)

You must be new here.

Oh, no, wait... this guy's new here [slashdot.org]

Re:Kinda late... (1)

poopdeville (841677) | more than 9 years ago | (#11371930)

People often use the linguistic fragment "lol" when they're just marginally amused, as opposed to actually laughing aloud. Well, let me tell you something bucko. lol. And I mean it.

Re:Kinda late... (3, Insightful)

pronobozo (794672) | more than 9 years ago | (#11371504)

"Why is this being posted just now? Not that this isn't really interesting, but the link says it was released on December 7th..." Some of us can't keep up with every single release of every single program. Although we try.. some slip past. Did you know when it was released? seems to me you just found out today. :-) Not picking on you, just trying to figure out your point.

over cocks it (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11371490)

yah

no distributed.net client? (3, Interesting)

rahard (624274) | more than 9 years ago | (#11371495)

unfortunately, there's no distributed.net client. :(

does anybody have a bootable CD with dnetc client :)

Re:no distributed.net client? (1)

PornMaster (749461) | more than 9 years ago | (#11371601)

Got a floppy drive? You could run it from there. :)

Re:no distributed.net client? (2, Interesting)

rahard (624274) | more than 9 years ago | (#11371989)

Got a floppy drive? You could run it from there. :)
... if only I could find a good floppy disk.
These days, it is more difficult to find a working floppy drive and floppy disk.
It's even more expensive than blank CD!

new?!?! (2, Funny)

Coldglow (846952) | more than 9 years ago | (#11371497)

2.6.7 I hope you don't try an xfs filesystem or a nforce2 system on this kernel. woo superfase lameness

Re:new?!?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11371663)

Fucking idiot. I ran 2.6.7 on an nforce2 (Abit NF7-S) with XFS from when 2.6.7 came out, to the time 2.6.10 came out, and never had a single problem. It was probably the most solid kernel I have ever used, actually.

the 2.6.7 was indeed a good vintage (1)

Trepidity (597) | more than 9 years ago | (#11371718)

Although I share your appreciation for the finer points of the 2.6.7 vintage, I feel that there are other vintages of similar quality that are underappreciated. For example, after a rough taste of 2.6.0 and its immediate successors---which apparently didn't much care for my USB bus---I settled on a lovely compile of 2.6.4 which I cherished for several months with nary a complaint.

Re:the 2.6.7 was indeed a good vintage (1)

Rufus211 (221883) | more than 9 years ago | (#11371864)

I must say my good sir, you truely are mad.

Cutting out eye candy?? (3, Interesting)

kidgenius (704962) | more than 9 years ago | (#11371499)

Why include KDE then? Why not something lighter like fluxbox, rox, etc?

Re:Cutting out eye candy?? (3, Insightful)

Justin205 (662116) | more than 9 years ago | (#11371511)

Why include KDE then?

Some degree of familiarity to make it usable by non-Linux users? (i.e. Windows users who found it and want to play with it.)

Re:Cutting out eye candy?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11372447)

"Some degree of familiarity to make it usable by non-Linux users?"

This isn't meant as a troll but has it never occurred to anyone that it would be prudent to make it usable for Linux users? As someone who was weened on UNIX, KDE and Gnome are practically unusable. They're overly complex and confusing IMO and it's an increasing source of irritation that many of the good applications that are around today assume that they'll be ran in one of these "desktop" environments. It would be a good project for someone to adapt this Overclockix distro for Linux users.

Re:Cutting out eye candy?? (1)

Homology (639438) | more than 9 years ago | (#11372552)

This isn't meant as a troll but has it never occurred to anyone that it would be prudent to make it usable for Linux users? As someone who was weened on UNIX, KDE and Gnome are practically unusable. They're overly complex and confusing IMO and it's an increasing source of irritation that many of the good applications that are around today assume that they'll be ran in one of these "desktop" environments.

Then you'll find xfce [xfce.org] usable :

What is Xfce 4.2 ?
Xfce is a lightweight desktop environment for unix-like operating systems. It aims to be fast and lightweight, while still being visually appealing and easy to use.
Xfce 4.2 embodies the traditional UNIX philosophy of modularity and re-usability. It consists of a number of components that together provide the full functionality of the desktop environment. They are packaged separately and you can pick and choose from the available packages to create the best personal working environment.
Another priority of Xfce 4 is adhereance to standards, specifically those defined at freedesktop.org.

On an older laptop I use xfce because KDE/Gnome has such a long time to load.

mmm... Folding (3, Interesting)

PaintyThePirate (682047) | more than 9 years ago | (#11371506)

I've been using Overclockix for a few months for Folding@Home. It is brilliant in that you can set up a Folding box that needs no HDD, and a keyboard/video/mouse only to configure the Folding client.

Oh the violence! (-1, Offtopic)

nxtr (813179) | more than 9 years ago | (#11371507)

Torturing hardware? Cutting out eye candy? How graphically violent! Either that or I've been playing too much of Doom 3.

Overclocking damage via software, Possible on PCs? (5, Interesting)

10000000000000000000 (809085) | more than 9 years ago | (#11371512)

Do you remember the good old days? When software configuration had the power to wreak physical havoc on the machine components themselves?

ahhh, I recall a coworker telling me the other day about ancient IBM printers.

"Giant beasts!" they were described as. "Stacks of alternating row color feed paper as tall as a MAN!" he said. He was in school and was waiting in line to print out a program he held in his hands as several hundred punch cards. The woman at the front of the line inserted her cards and set the system running.

Apparently she sent some kind of malformatted instruction, because this printer (which was quite substantial in size itself - computers used to be so much more like washing machines and fridges didn't they :) slowly opened it's mechanical lid and began to shoot paper 10 feet out at amazing velocities.

It took some time for an instructor to get called in to stop the madness, and apparently a good amount of paper had been blown through by that point ¦D

anyhow, the point of my story is a question. is it still possible to wreak havoc on modern PC's via non-bios software instructions? theoretically? without any physical hardware modification?

just curious =)

Overclocking damage via software, Possible on HDs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11371568)

"anyhow, the point of my story is a question. is it still possible to wreak havoc on modern PC's via non-bios software instructions? theoretically? without any physical hardware modification?"

Hard Drives apparently need no help in that department.

Re:Overclocking damage via software, Possible on P (1)

Lafe (595258) | more than 9 years ago | (#11371573)

I guess this is a fairly common story. We had high-speed line-printers at my college as well. Great fun was had when we wrote a program to send page feeds to the printer in an infinite loop. The paper actually arced through the air. The lab assistants were less than amused.

Re:Overclocking damage via software, Possible on P (1)

Alien Being (18488) | more than 9 years ago | (#11371574)

"is it still possible to wreak havoc on modern PC's via non-bios software instructions?"

Why don't you just blast the thing with a shotgun?

Re:Overclocking damage via software, Possible on P (1)

10000000000000000000 (809085) | more than 9 years ago | (#11371597)

well, when I need to destroy the bad guy's PC it's likely he will have guards outside the door.

And it would have been a total waste of my time to buy this ninja outfit and grappling hook if I was just going to give away my position with a shotgun blast...of course, I suppose I could just carry a microwave gun, but have you priced those things lately?

I'm a ninja, man. Not bill gates!

Re:Overclocking damage via software, Possible on P (3, Funny)

Zorilla (791636) | more than 9 years ago | (#11371699)

Why don't you just blast the thing with a shotgun?

Compy 386 for sale!
Like used
Slightly Shotgunned

Re:Overclocking damage via software, Possible on P (3, Informative)

X-wes (629917) | more than 9 years ago | (#11371786)

For those of us who don't get the joke, this was the text of a fictional advertisement from HomestarRunner.com [homestarrunner.com] . It ran on Bubs' Concession Stand for Strong Bad's damaged computer after Bubs used his shotgun as an antivirus device.

Linky [homestarrunner.com]

Re:Overclocking damage via software, Possible on P (1)

AmberBlackCat (829689) | more than 9 years ago | (#11371801)

is it still possible to wreak havoc on modern PC's via non-bios software instructions? theoretically? without any physical hardware modification?

I haven't thought about this in a while, and I know more about software and hardware. Maybe it's possible to constantly write data to a critical cluster of a hard drive so that the cluster goes bad prematurely and renders the drive useless? If the computer's fan is software-controlled then maybe you can shut it off and burn the system out? I remember somebody telling me a story about it being possible to blow out an old SoundBlaster card with proper instructions but that was a long time ago. And this is all assuming you want to actually kill the hardware. If you just mean wreaking havoc in general then I suppose you can just hook up another line printer and launch paper in the air still. And I am a person who feels the same about my hardware that people feel about their pets so this whole topic is somewhat disturbing to me.

In my high school robotics class, the robotic arms were controlled by big boxes which connected to ports on the back of the computers. You'd send data and receive status with functions like out(port, value) and in(port). If all else fails, you can hook one of these to the computer and program it to swing hard into the monitor. This is just sickening.

Re:Overclocking damage via software, Possible on P (1)

mattyrobinson69 (751521) | more than 9 years ago | (#11372454)

The newer processors have thermal detection - if it gets too toasty, it'l overheat (although you might beable to change the critical point)

Apparently yes, but I haven't tested it (3, Interesting)

drgonzo59 (747139) | more than 9 years ago | (#11371860)

A while a ago I went looking for a video ram testing utility. The only one I was able to find was on this page created by this Russian guy at this website [testmem.nm.ru] . (It's mostly in Russian though, which I speak).

There I looked around and found this story [testmem.nm.ru] about this utility called S2KCt used to supposedly cool some athlon processors by using the S2K bus disconnect instruction.

The guy writes how he simultaneously ran his utility that does a cpu burn-in and S2KCt and ended up with a burnt motherboard. He says his "converter" burnt. And he wasn't overclocking the machine at the time. He seems to know enough about heat management since he develops similar programs (see below on that). Then later, he says,using similar hardware he tried to test a later version of S2KCt and his motherboard died again.

So that is what I have recently heard about hardware being damaged by software. Also take note, since the author himself writes utilities that cool and stress the CPU he is not a totally unbiased source.

Any computer engineers who can validate the story ?

Floppy drives (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11371884)

I remember reading, years and years ago, about the possibility of damaging a floppy drive by sending it an instruction to access a non-existent sector, which would be beyond the reach of the drive's "arm" (?). I would think that the floppy controller would just return an error but, in any case, that's what the text said.

The same text also mentioned changing the display settings (frequency I guess would be the factor here) quickly and continuously.

I guess you could also wear out some things, like the hard drive or floppy drive, but that would require a long time (but who knows, maybe an attacker could do it over a weekend when the target computer isn't being supervised); I also assume you could damage the speakers, at the very least if its physical volume control is turned all the way up.

tmegapscm

Re:Overclocking damage via software, Possible on P (3, Funny)

Brandybuck (704397) | more than 9 years ago | (#11371888)

I remember doing that (accidentally) a few times. Quite embarassing. But the really cool trick with some printers was to make themr actually "walk" across the room with a series of carefully timed carriage returns. Also you could get some printers to play music (of a sort).

Re:Overclocking damage via software, Possible on P (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 9 years ago | (#11371911)

anyhow, the point of my story is a question. is it still possible to wreak havoc on modern PC's via non-bios software instructions? theoretically? without any physical hardware modification?

Sure! Just e-mail the (l)user of the computer that his computer has a nasty virus that can only be eradicated by doing <damaging action> to computer. You don't even need to write any machine code!

Re:Overclocking damage via software, Possible on P (2, Insightful)

ihavnoid (749312) | more than 9 years ago | (#11371920)

First, what's 'non-bios'? There seems to be nothing that only the 'bios' can do. If the BIOS can do something, the OS (or kernel drivers) can do it too, without any code from the BIOS. What's the difference?
What I remember is, years ago, there was a virus that re-flashed the BIOS with garbage, so it would fail to boot. (I think it's the CIH virus. Somewhere around 1999.) A lot of people had gone crazy, and had to call the customer support to replace the BIOS flash.

Well, if a 'user application' could wreck your (maybe modern) PC, then that's not a feature, that's a critical security threat. (A DOS attack, I guess.)

Re:Overclocking damage via software, Possible on P (1)

tim_mathews (585933) | more than 9 years ago | (#11371933)

Well, some older CRT monitors could be damaged by giving them resolutions and refresh rates that they couldn't handle. There's a warning in one of the X man pages. The XF86Config one I suppose.

I had a KDS monitor that didn't come with instructions (that is I borrowed it from school) and one day I went to the library and when I came home it had stopped working. Anyway I took it apart and a little daughter board soldered on near where the horizontal refresh line came in (it had BNC connectors) had blackened itself. I would have fixed the board but the 8 pin chip that seemed to be the center of the board had been burned beyond recognition as had several small capacitors and the traces on the board. So I salvaged the flyback transformer, some power supply caps and left it for the trash men. I suppose that could have been caused by running it beyond spec, but I really don't know.

Re:Overclocking damage via software, Possible on P (2, Informative)

UncleScrooge (827071) | more than 9 years ago | (#11371938)

Yeah, ATiTool kills video cards. I know form first hand experience. ggrrmmble. 500% video card fried....

Paper throw! .... (2, Informative)

taniwha (70410) | more than 9 years ago | (#11372094)

Of course I remember the "good old days" when line printers were men and a chain break could embed it in the wall across the room ...

Seriously though what you describe was called a 'paper throw' and probably ment the operators had set the thing up wrong ... basicly those old line printers had a control tape - a short length of paper tape with a bunch of holes in it, each time the page advanced a line the tape did too - the tape was the same length as a page (every time the printer had moved to a new page the tape had gone around once) - when the printer got a line to print it looked at the first character on the line (think fortran CC) and if it was a number N look at the Nth column in the tape and skip forward until it finds a hole in the tape in that column. So for example when you print labels you throw on a special tape with holes that match where the labels start etc etc and by convention '1' skips to the start of the next page because column 1 always has exactly one hole punched in it that lines up with the start of the page - you get the idea.

So what's a 'paper throw'? well if the operators ever put on a tape that has a column M that has no holes punched in it anywhere and someone prints a line that sais 'skip to column M' the tape spins forever without printing anything and paper streams (horizontally) out of the printer missing the basket that's supposed to catch it ....

Firmware updates may wreak non-physical havoc (1)

Gnavpot (708731) | more than 9 years ago | (#11372330)

A lot of attached devices have replaceble firmware. Modems, routers, graphics cards, DVD burners, cameras etc. Sometimes the firmware download functionality is built into the firmware, meaning that a failed firmware update may prevent a new update attempt. I know one such example were a camera went tits up after a failed firmware update. It had to be sent in for repair which turned out to be quite expensive. Also I have heard of graphics cards which was rendered useless by a firmware update. Another not so scary example is some SpeedStream routers which will have to be reset on a physical button after a failed firmware update.

Superkaramba? (3, Interesting)

GameGod0 (680382) | more than 9 years ago | (#11371536)

Superkaramba isn't unncessary eye-candy?

Re:Superkaramba? (1)

codemachine (245871) | more than 9 years ago | (#11371552)

Good point.

Although maybe it is there as a tool to put excessive amounts of stress on the system. It certainly tortured my hardware when I last tried to run it.

Re:Superkaramba? (1)

slavemowgli (585321) | more than 9 years ago | (#11371905)

No. It's necessary eye-candy. ;)

Re:Superkaramba? (1)

houghi (78078) | more than 9 years ago | (#11371986)

No. It's necessary eye-candy. ;)

I looked at it and for me it's not necessary eye-candy.

Imagine (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11371541)

a beowulf cluster of Overclockix 3.7

Would the clockx go forward in time?

So useful for Windows OC'ers (4, Interesting)

roffles (850000) | more than 9 years ago | (#11371582)

One of the biggest problems when overclocking is testing stability, and when you're running windows it's hard to tell just what is causing the instability. I think this will be very successful in the OC community because not only will it provide an environment to push the hardware, but it likely won't crash as randomly as windows does, won't require repartitioning to get into linux, and will probably generate more informative error messages if you push things too hard.

Re:So useful for Windows OC'ers (4, Insightful)

toddestan (632714) | more than 9 years ago | (#11371716)

I'm not so sure it would be so useful if you plan on running Windows. From my experience, Linux seems to be a bit more tolerant of flakey hardware, and a system that's stable in Linux may not run Windows reliably at all.

Re:So useful for Windows OC'ers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11371892)

It used to be folklore that the opposite was true.

Linux tended to use clean code and take the attitude that the code was correct and problems external to the code were somebody else's problem. Widows had a reputation for including tons of messy work arounds for glossing over problems with flakey hardware.

Was the folklore wrong, or has something changed?

Re:So useful for Windows OC'ers (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11372016)

This was mostly true with Win9x, which never used STOPCLK instructions in its idle loop without running some third party utility like Rain or CPUCool. Thus, the CPU tended to get quite hot in Win9x, even when it wasn't doing anything.

Linux, BSD, and every WinNT variant use STOPCLK in their idle loops. This folklore is really no longer true.

Re:So useful for Windows OC'ers (1)

mattyrobinson69 (751521) | more than 9 years ago | (#11372472)

This might not be true in all circumstances, but it is for me:

I bought a new computer about 2 years ago, and the psu managed to damage (not completely fry) the motherboard (turned out to the the ram slots). Windows 98SE/2000/XP would fail to install every single time i tried, linux would install and run just fine, with an occasional crash.

Probably just a fluke though - the windows installers tickling the RAM in a particular way.

Re:So useful for Windows OC'ers (1)

The Green Skeleton (724532) | more than 9 years ago | (#11371822)

will probably generate more informative error messages
I dunno, blue smoke comming from under the headsink is pretty damn informative.

YALDISOAP (-1, Offtopic)

MasTRE (588396) | more than 9 years ago | (#11371602)

Yet Another Linux Distro In Search Of A Purpose.

Re:YALDISOAP (1)

PornMaster (749461) | more than 9 years ago | (#11371630)

Want to try making up a nice acronym expansion for Yggdrasil, which was one of the early distributions?

Re:YALDISOAP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11371655)

You Gotta Get Da Really Awesome Super Intelligent Linux

Re:YALDISOAP (1)

bluequartz (849583) | more than 9 years ago | (#11371661)

I will pass thanks :D

Re:YALDISOAP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11372029)

Your Grandpa's Git Daughter Raised A Stupid Idiot Loser

Is this useful for testing computer stability? (1)

antdude (79039) | more than 9 years ago | (#11371616)

Is this program useful to test system stability? I like to use cpuburn [sbcglobal.net] to see if my system can handle it like cooling.

Re:Is this useful for testing computer stability? (2, Informative)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 9 years ago | (#11371782)

it's useful because it's a live cd.

no possibility of fucking up the filesystems.

Burn-In (3, Informative)

mboverload (657893) | more than 9 years ago | (#11371659)

Some people are sure to mention this, but I want to put out the fire before it starts.

"Burn-In", aka running new components at their max to get them to run faster, is complete hemp. There is no evidence to support this, and you are just decreasing your machine's life. However, burning-in can show a faulty components.

Re:Burn-In (1)

mcc (14761) | more than 9 years ago | (#11371891)

However, burning-in can show a faulty components.

I just kind of assumed from the name that this was the point... since after you overclock the machine, you're likely to have faulty components you didn't before...

Re:Burn-In (1)

Bios_Hakr (68586) | more than 9 years ago | (#11371918)

The general theory is that if a component is going to fail, it'll do so within the first few months. I have drives and mobos that date back to the 486 days that still run without any problems at all.

The point is that you want to take a brand new part and stress it as much as possible. If it fails under a week of testing at full utilization, then it would probably have failed after a few months in your production system.

Better for both you and the vendor that you find problems early.

Re:Burn-In (4, Informative)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | more than 9 years ago | (#11372062)

I used to work at AMD's Austin fab. Your processor is already burned-in at the factory. Actually, we used the term to mean taking the processors and BAKING THEM IN OVENS for several days, and then returning them to our facility and testing them, where the defective ones were sorted out. I think "burning in" is just a word used by people who don't understand it properly, like "big iron" means anything larger than a Sun 220R these days.

Linux doesn't need any more distros (-1, Offtopic)

12421 (839885) | more than 9 years ago | (#11371681)

Linux doesn't need any more distros! Linux needs one standard distro.

Re:Linux doesn't need any more distros (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11371731)

Nice troll, but no it doesn't need one standard distro. I use FC3 as my webserver because it is stable and is easy to set up even without GUI, I use Slackware for my firewall because the installer can run on a system with only 16 megs of RAM, I use LFS as my desktop system because I like to know how stuff works under the hood.

It wouldn't be possible to combine these, they each serve their own purpose. If you want something that is easy to use and tries to appeal to people who don't like diversity then use Linspire.

Damn 503's.

Re:Linux doesn't need any more distros (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11371902)

haha yeah, use linspire you fucking monotone faggo

Re:Linux doesn't need any more distros (1)

mboverload (657893) | more than 9 years ago | (#11371743)

*Holds fist up*

I feel ya my brother!

Re:Linux doesn't need any more distros (3, Insightful)

HermanAB (661181) | more than 9 years ago | (#11371832)

Why? Why whould having one distro be better? Would you like to run my cell-phone version of embedded Linux on your desktop? Would you like to run a mainframe version of Linux on your PDA? Would you prefer to run a Linksys SOHO firewall version on your Notebook? Do you really need to edit documents on your MP3 player?

Re:Linux doesn't need any more distros (1)

12421 (839885) | more than 9 years ago | (#11371882)

Distro stands for "distribution". I would hardly call "Linksys SOHO firewall version" a distro (or even "version"). This is a customized OS designed for a specific purpose/device. However, there should only be one disro for desktops and one for servers. On desktops, lack of standardization is the main obstacle to Linux adoption.

Re:Linux doesn't need any more distros (1)

ak_hepcat (468765) | more than 9 years ago | (#11371901)

Meh.

You keep your single choice to yourself and let those who want and enjoy the freedom to create their own distributions do it. That's how innovations come about, you know.

Wait a sec... you're bill gates, aren't you? It was the no friends in the world that gave it away. Sorry, Bill, this ain't gonna be like Windows where it's your way or the hiway.

Re:Linux doesn't need any more distros (1)

12421 (839885) | more than 9 years ago | (#11371966)

That is the kind of mentality that prevents Linux from being adopted, especially on desktops. 99.9% users don't care about choice. They just want their computers to work and perform certain tasks.

Having many distributions creates these problems:
- Software that works on one distro might not work on another distro
- Task which is performed on one distro in one way is performed differently on anther distro. Therefore user can't accumulate Linux expertise.
- Different look and feel. Therefore user who has experience working with one distro feels uncomfortable with different distro.

Re:Linux doesn't need any more distros (1)

L.Bob.Rife (844620) | more than 9 years ago | (#11372019)

Users dont care about choice? Are you for real?

I've used at least 10 different distros in the 8 years I've been running various linux boxes, be it server or desktop.

Would I still be using linux if I had been stuck with only 1 distro? No way.

Have you ever considered that sometimes parallel research and design can come up with better results? Sure, there is some duplicated effort, and some dev work gets overlooked and lost, but you get a stronger product in the end.

If everyone focused on one way of doing things, it doesn't mean that the end result is twice as good than if people focused on two ways of doing things.

Re:Linux doesn't need any more distros (1)

12421 (839885) | more than 9 years ago | (#11372106)

Yes, most users don't care abut choice. Average shashdotter is not an average user.

Have you ever considered that sometimes parallel research and design can come up with better results?

Yes. There are advantages to having several approaches to the same problem and developing them in parallel. However, disadvantages far outweigh advantages. Having one single standard design is more important than having best design. Moreover, open source projects have very limited resources and it is better not to spread them among projects solving the same task. If projects working in parallel join, they are usually able to achieve more than each of them separately.

Re:Linux doesn't need any more distros (1)

novakyu (636495) | more than 9 years ago | (#11372518)

Having one single standard design is more important than having best design. Moreover, open source projects have very limited resources and it is better not to spread them among projects solving the same task. If projects working in parallel join, they are usually able to achieve more than each of them separately.

'Completely agree with your point---that is, as long as the "distro" (i.e. LFS) I use becomes the standard distro. Anyone who says otherwise is a dim-wit.

It's like trying to choose a standard language---it's not going to work, just as Esperanto didn't.

PS. Gosh, we can't even choose a standard unit system (one thing that might have the most benefit from having a uniform standard)! And I'm not talking about U.S. using "feet" and "miles"---even in scientific fields, SI isn't as standard as some would have the laypeople believe. However, in different specialized fields (spectroscopy, electrodynamics, etc.) there are "dominant" unit system (because that particular way of writing things out turns out to be convenient)---in the end, the best thing to do is let things be; and may the best distro/project win!

Re:Linux doesn't need any more distros (2, Informative)

Dot.Com.CEO (624226) | more than 9 years ago | (#11371934)

I am fed up of seeing this stupid comment on every other story posted in slashdot, and equally stupid replies by zealots who value "choice". There IS a standard distro. It is called Linux Standard Base. It is adhered to by Redhat and Novell and that means 99% of SUPPORTED workstations out there adhere to the standards. All the other distros, be it debian, gentoo, overclockix or whatever are either irrelevant (a distro to stress your hardware? Please...) or serve for a specific purpose (hobbyists, GPL freaks etc.). Just accept it and move on,

Re:Linux doesn't need any more distros (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11372178)

Corporate workstations, sure. Home workstations, hell no - no way in hell that RedHat and SuSE have 99% coverage.

Hell, I doubt they even have 99% in the 'real world', I've known Slackware nuts who would leave bodies on the floor if anyone approached their sacred boxxen while wearing a goofy crimson hat. ;)

At any rate, even RH and SuSE differ in where they're tossing stuff, what stuff they include, what they don't.

Like the spoon, there is no 'standard' distribution.

Re:Linux doesn't need any more distros (1)

Dot.Com.CEO (624226) | more than 9 years ago | (#11372525)

Well, no corporation would consider anything but Novell and Redhat, let's say, for the sake of being complete, Xandros and Sun JDS.

Re:Linux doesn't need any more distros (1)

Frankablu (812139) | more than 9 years ago | (#11372212)

You fail to see is that some of the "non standard - unsupported" linux distro's are a lot better then commercial distro's and infact some have better support. Where is the Linux Standard Base to claim a standard btw?

Re:Linux doesn't need any more distros (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11372384)

Face it, >99% of supported workstations run Windows or some proprietary Unix. The Linux Standard Base means zip. I use Debian, and think Debian should not necessarily follow LSB unless everyone truly thinks it is the best thing to do from a technical/engineering viewpoint.

Debian is the mothership. Within 20 years, almost all computers will run Debian or a derivative, because the "gravitational" gradient points toward Debian. Economic forces ultimately cannot be resisted, and the existence of Free software will make it impossible for similar proprietary software to generate revenue. The financial impetus to use Free software will become increasingly compelling in the next few years, and the obvious choice will be Debian.

Distributed Computing projects. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11371727)

last time I tried overclockix, the distributed computing projects were pre set up to give some other guy 'arkayne' credit.

Skip that.

eyecandy (0, Redundant)

reynaert (264437) | more than 9 years ago | (#11371749)

cutting out what they consider unnecessary eye candy, but leaving in the tools essential for effective GUI. 'Some new package highlights such as [...] superkaramba

/me wonders what is considered unnecessary eye candy...

Re:eyecandy (1)

Tarcastil (832141) | more than 9 years ago | (#11371841)

obviously not Enlightenment :)

Unnecessary eye candy... (1)

msimm (580077) | more than 9 years ago | (#11371954)

Is what I'd consider including every GUI known to man! Drives me nuts.

Superkaramba is one of the most underutilized pieces of functional eye candy around (and so is the theme packaging format in 3.3! You can download single file *complete* themes now!).

Anyhow, I think more really is sometimes less.

can u say "owned in 60-seconds" ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11371767)

can u say "owned in 60-seconds" ? i yhowt ro. never run a live os booted from someone's cd.

hence the name (2, Funny)

Trepidity (597) | more than 9 years ago | (#11371842)

That is indeed something of a tortuous name.

Apparently... (2, Funny)

jd (1658) | more than 9 years ago | (#11371854)

The server's hardware is being tortured right now. It's totally slashdotted.

ofverclokcisn (1)

MrP- (45616) | more than 9 years ago | (#11371935)

Isnt it tyiem f\or a new aroticel?

I saw this overcloxing icon for hours niw

Whers the hugens inmages?

slashdot newsss

KDE? (1, Troll)

eno2001 (527078) | more than 9 years ago | (#11371945)

Leaving out the unnecessary eye-candy? Wouldn't that be just about all of KDE? If they want to be truly thin, they can use twm. I don't get this contradiction though. KDE is anything but lightweight. Hell, even GNOME is lighter than KDE and it's still a beast.

My faith in a benevolent higher power is gone... (0, Redundant)

bazmonkey (555276) | more than 9 years ago | (#11371949)

They're cutting out unnecessary eye-candy and throwing in superkaramba.

For the love of God, tell me what the unnecessary ones were.

mo3 0p (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11372335)

ti8ed argumen7s [goat.cx]

knoppix with "readahead" and "bootchart" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11372342)

knoppix with "readahead" and "bootchart" makes quick boot from CD and visualize the result.

http://unit.aist.go.jp/itri/knoppix/readahead/inde x-en.html [aist.go.jp]

"readahead" is a tool to populate the page cache with data from files so that subsequent reads from these files will not block on disk I/O.
"bootchart" is a tool for performance analysis and visualization of the GNU/Linux boot process.

Ultimate stress test (3, Funny)

hairykrishna (740240) | more than 9 years ago | (#11372549)

1) Create interesting bootable linux distribution

2) Get posted on front page of /.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?