[sf-lug] PCLinux OS release

[Bobbie Sellers]

On 04/10/2013 11:28 PM, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Bobbie Sellers (bliss-sf4ever at dslextreme.com):
>
>> For anyone who may have been waiting for the 64bit version:
>> (pclinuxos64-kde-2013.04.iso).  The RC1 worked very well in live
>> mode on my old notebook and it impressed me no end that it
>> came with the nVidia drivers for my graphics chip set.
>> 	It comes with Kernel 3.2.18 and KDE 4.10.1.
>>
>> http://www.pclinuxos.com/?page_id=1867
> I think you're going to likke it.  I've been monitoring the PCLinuxOS
> 2013 release process.  It's been a little slow to propagate to the
> mirrors, but I gather that it must have made it out now.
>
> It's a Mandriva fork, so it'll be generally familiar to you.
>
>> And that didn't take long.  I booted up with it and it is
>> good.  No stutter when I messed severely with the panel
>> arrangement on the desktop.  (Many distros when I pull
>> my little tricks have to shut down momentarily). This one
>> just shrugged and removed the original panel. That is in
>> live CD mode.
> I'm guessing you went for the GNOME variant?
     Please note that i am using the KDE 4.10.1 version as indicated
in the file name title.
>
> PCLinuxOS is actually best known for its KDE4 setup, but they also fully
> support Enlightenment, Floxbox, IceWM, GNOME3, LXDE, Openbox, and Xfce.
>
> If you get tired of the bloat in GNOME3's GNOME Shell and the removal of
> 'Fallback Mode' (traditional GNOME Panel), don't forget you can use
> distros that furnish either MATE or Cinnamon, including but not limited
> to Linux Mint.
     The latest Gnome has a fallback choice of Classic mode but I am not
eager to try it as I ran Gnome 2.3 or however high they took it under
Mandriva for several weeks to see the differences from KDE 4.x and
I went back to KDE.  I found even the old version of Gnome not to
be as easy to use as KDE 4.x and that says a lot about the Gnome Desktop
environment.  I had to have the KDE files in the background as the Gnome
tools were not effective for my uses.

>>       Mageia by the way seems to have problems getting out their
>> next release.
> No they don't.
>
> They do one release per year.  Seems like they're on track for a May
> release, same as last year.
     I was told 9 months was the schedule.
>
> What you might mean is 'They didn't release when I wanted them to',
> which is perfectly fine logic for you if you don't care to try Mageia 3
> Beta 4, but doesn't support your stated conclusion.
     No I don't have the energy to try anything below RC1.

     bliss