[sf-lug] PCLinux OS release

Bobbie Sellers bliss-sf4ever at dslextreme.com
Thu Apr 11 10:50:56 PDT 2013

On 04/11/2013 10:40 AM, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Bobbie Sellers (bliss-sf4ever at dslextreme.com):
>>  From Linux Planet:
>>    Gnome 3.8 returns choice of Classic Desktop to the user.
>> <http://www.linuxplanet.com/news/gnome-3.8-debuts-new-open-source-linux-desktop.html>
> GNOME Classic (what is being referred to as 'Classic Desktop', there) is
> not the same as Fallback Mode, which as I said was eliminated as of
> GNOME 3.8.  GNOME Classic _is_ mentioned at the Wikipedia link I cited.
>> But next to Gnome 3.x that I have tried briefly 2.3 was light
>> and fast, but the tools were not too reliable and I refer to CD/DVD
>> writing specifically.
> BTW, cdrkit/wodim and dvd+rw-tools/growisofs work beautifully on any
> distribution under any DE or none.  Whenever you get tired of flaky
> graphical front-ends, they'll still be there.
> http://fy.chalmers.se/~appro/linux/DVD+RW/
> http://www.cdrkit.org/
> When I burn distros, I just stick to /usr/bin/wodim.  It always works,
> no muss, no fuss.
>> But so far is only a couple of years.
> Distro years are like dog years, I notice.  ;->
>> Still they are doing better than Mandriva or whatever they
>> will call the organization.
> Well, I warned you about Mandriva's prospects at the time of the mass
> departure of developers towards Mageia, didn't I?
>> I generally agree about the release timing but I think that a
>> "rolling release" as PCLinux is doing may be better in the long run.
> I personally really like rolling releases, provided the base OS
> from which they're derived is reliable and stable enough, _and_
> provided that the user is a non-novice who is prepared to fix occasional
> upgrade-related problems.
> The Aptosid, Siduction, and Semplice Linux installable live CDs qualify.
> Also CrunchBang and antiX.  On a good day, also the Elive betas.  Those
> all have in common being based on Debian testing/unstable rolling
> distributions, which thus I also include in that number (albeit they
> offer more choice that novices want and little handholding).  I'm not
> sure much else does, as there's a _lot_ of shaky behaviour in most other
> rolling distributions' base package sets.  The track record of Red Hat
> Rawhide, Mandrake/Mandriva Cooker, and OpenSUSE Tumbleweed for quality,
> for example, has been pretty hideous and saved only by the fact that
> they warn you that if/when it breaks, you get to keep both pieces.
> I.e., it's what it says on the tin, or pick your own preferred metaphor.
> I see from the filename you downloaded (pclinuxos64-kde-2013.04.iso)
> and burned that you didn't go for the KDE FullMonty edition.  Any
> particular reason?  Just curious.
     Full Monty is 32 bit so far and to start i have to remove a lot of 
stuff that
would make Windows users happy.  The term is Eye Candy, I believe.
     It exploits every possible effect possible with KDE 4.x.x.
     I find it cluttered and too much clutter hurts my eyes.  This may be an
effect of the refractory fatigue syndrome but i like to think of it as 
my aesthetic sensibility.


More information about the sf-lug mailing list