Adequacy front page
Stories Diaries Polls Users
Google

Web Adequacy.org
Home About Topics Rejects Abortions
This is an archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page if you have questions.
 Mandrake 8.2 : "a fucking disaster"

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
May 06, 2002
 Comments:
These are not my words, but the opinion of the respected Register journalist Thomas C Greene in Washington.
diaries

More diaries by iat
Millennium
Review: Linux Mandrake 8.2
World Cup Update #1
World Cup Update #2
World Cup Update #3
To be fair, Mr Greene in Washington admits that he has only had about 72 hours to play with Mandrake 8.2. I've been using Mandrake 8.2 for much longer and it is an understatement to describe it as "a fucking disaster". It is far, far worse. Along with the numerous shortcomings recognised by Mr Greene in Washington, I'd like to add broken font setup in Konqueror, numerous bugs introduced into KMail and dysfunctional Plug'n'Play to the Mandrake 8.2 List of Woe.

My gripes with Mandrake 8.2 (and other versions of Mandrake) boil down to Mandrakesoft's slapdash attitude. It is evident that Mandrake 8.2 has been rushed out onto the market without being properly tested. If Mandrakesoft want their distribution to be ready for mainstream acceptance, then they need to prevent niggling problems like these because their potential customers don't have the time, knowledge or inclination to resolve these issues on their behalf. Why should users bother to make Mandrake Linux function properly, when Windows works perfectly straight from the box?

If you want a stable, user-friendly operating system, look elsewhere.

       
Tweet

mhm! (none / 0) (#1)
by anti filidor on Mon May 6th, 2002 at 01:01:27 PM PST
I was running RedHat 7.2 pretty happily for a month or two, but I decided (Wanted to upgrade to KDE 3.0; I still haven't determined why I chose Mandrake) to give Mandrake 8.2 a shot.

The experience disgusted me, and I've thrown my hands up on Linux altogether for the time being.

The install was easy, but that was the only good part. I'd really like Linux to be a viable choice, but so far it's not at all.

So... (none / 0) (#2)
by budlite on Mon May 6th, 2002 at 02:49:12 PM PST
Go back to Redhat. Compared to anything else I've tried it's been a dream. Not even had a driver issue, which is more than can be said for Windows XP

hm (none / 0) (#5)
by anti filidor on Mon May 6th, 2002 at 03:43:31 PM PST
Since you seem to be a satisfied RedHat user, I'd like to ask you a few questions about it. It has to do with why I stopped using RedHat.

Firstly, does your machine lock up seemingly at random (not just X, the whole fucker)? Mine did with RedHat. It is not a hardware issue, as no other OS has ever had this problem or anything similar.

Secondly, do you run the newest beta or something? Upgrading to KDE 3.0 was going to take me hours (if it worked at all) on RedHat 7.2, because apparently whoever compiled the KDE RPMs for 7.2 was running the latest beta. That's what I heard, anyway.




Answers (none / 0) (#19)
by budlite on Mon May 6th, 2002 at 05:09:14 PM PST
Firstly: no
Secondly: no

I'm running a version I downloaded shortly after its initial release.

I did upgrade to KDE 3.0 for a time, but didn't see any major differences. But that's maybe because I was forced to reinstall yesterday, not long after installing Windows XP, which caused XP to refuse to boot (before anyone chips in, it was due to the fact that the kernel appeared to be missing, not simply because WinXP overwrote the MBR).

 
Mandrake, bleh (none / 0) (#7)
by detikon on Mon May 6th, 2002 at 04:00:57 PM PST
I've never liked Mandrake. Of course it is kind of nice to see that iat fianlly learned something. Maybe not. Maybe he still believe that Mandrake 8.2 is the latest version of linux rather than the latest Mandrake distro.

Mandrake has always be and always will be rather resource heavy. That's one reason I won't use it. There are others. The installer is another reason.

Go Debian (apt-get) or Red Hat (popular, RPM) for PCs and Yellow Dog for Macs. If you want Joe Schmo Linux go Desktop/LX.




Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

 
Nice Review.. (none / 0) (#3)
by DG on Mon May 6th, 2002 at 02:51:41 PM PST
I have to say it is better than the last one you did, I'm not trying to flame but, your last one seemed like so much "FUD", this one at least has a objective review instead of the "i don't like linux becuse it doesn't run the same stuff windows runs, even though i know it's not suppose to" crap you seem to like to put in there.. sorry just my thoughts.. I do agree though, mandrake isn't all that well structured. I tried it and it gave me a headache trying to get new rpms to work, ugh dependances hell. Give me freebsd or slackware or at least debian, windows xp is better than rpm based systems.. ugh it brought back my headache.
© 2002, DG. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

 
Ametures! (none / 0) (#4)
by because it isnt on Mon May 6th, 2002 at 03:29:34 PM PST
all U mandrake users suxor. I am so leet I installed slackware from toggle switches on the front of my athlon xp.

BEDTIME FOR WINBLOWS.
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

One word.. (none / 0) (#6)
by DG on Mon May 6th, 2002 at 04:00:13 PM PST
LAMER

couldn't resist :)
© 2002, DG. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

Yes. (none / 0) (#8)
by tkatchev on Mon May 6th, 2002 at 04:04:13 PM PST
Although you have to admit that he is persistent.

Just think, the lil' dude typed in 300+ megabytes of machine code by toggling flip-flips.


--
Peace and much love...

 
Let's face it, Mandrake (and Linux) is dying. (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by dmg on Mon May 6th, 2002 at 04:04:25 PM PST
Both on the desktop, where Windows XP has kicked its ass, and in the server room where corporations are realising that "Mission Critical" unix systems require mission critical operating systems, e.g. Solaris.

Meanwhile, back in the land of the sane, if you really MUST remove the perfectly good OS that came with your PC, you could do a hell of a lot worse than try BeOS R5.04 Developer Edition which is free (as in beer), runs bash, emacs, pearl plus all the other Unix crap you know and love, and makes Linux look like the steaming pile of ill-desgined crap it actually is.

As a side note, the BeOS software development libraries/frameworks are one of the best practical demonstrations of how C++ should be written.

The choice is not Linux / Windows, the choice for any sane person is Windows / OpenBSD / BeOS / MacOSX / Solaris.

time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration.
-- MC Hawking

Linux. (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by tkatchev on Mon May 6th, 2002 at 04:12:28 PM PST
Linux is mostly crap, although there is some good stuff coming out of gtk+ et al.

Mostly, Linux is good for cases when you need to install special-purpose applications -- for example, a Python developement platform, or heavy gimp usage, etc.

Useful for doing developement and such, since you usually have a separate machine for coding anyways.


--
Peace and much love...

There's only one reason to run Linux. (none / 0) (#12)
by dmg on Mon May 6th, 2002 at 04:20:53 PM PST
And that is to practice writing non-standard SQL for financial markets software using the powerful Sybase 11.9.2 database. That's the only reason it gets disk space on any of my machines. I keep meaning to try it out on OpenBSD in Linux compatibility mode, anything to get rid of Linux from my machine. If anyone out there has tried this, how did you get on ?

time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration.
-- MC Hawking

Oh shush. (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by tkatchev on Mon May 6th, 2002 at 04:28:00 PM PST
Look, professional software development and whatever you have running on your computer in your basement are two different worlds.

In the real world, Linux is useful for doing heavy-duty real work, as opposed to drawing forms and playing solitaire.

Linux is useful for precisely the reason it sucks so bad -- since it's nothing but a badly-glued collection of random packages somebody downloaded off the net, it becomes very easy to take it apart and install whatever obscure piece of software you need to get your job done.


--
Peace and much love...

yeah... (none / 0) (#18)
by detikon on Mon May 6th, 2002 at 05:03:23 PM PST
...I like OSS that way. Beats the hell out of installing a bunch of shit I'll never use that constantly runs in the background and uses up resources.




Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

computers dont have feelings, moron (none / 0) (#24)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon May 6th, 2002 at 07:11:12 PM PST
Beats the hell out of installing a bunch of shit I'll never use that constantly runs in the background and uses up resources.

Are you referring to a GUI? Whatever you're referring to, computer resources are meant to be used. There's nothing usefule about unused memory or an idle CPU. I like it when all my computer's memory is being used by apps or the file system buffer cache. I'm guessing your your naive and illogical rhetoric is borne of deficiencies in Lunix. It doesnt have to be that way. Seek help for your computer.

Technical note. (none / 0) (#26)
by The Mad Scientist on Mon May 6th, 2002 at 07:20:19 PM PST
If the memory is used as filesystem cache, then you are using the memory as the cache.

If there is a MSN Messenger occupying memory that could be used better, and you don't use it, then the memory is wasted.

I like my resources being free, used on few % at most by default, standing in full alert and being prepared to jump to 99.6% at the very microsecond they become necessary. And drop back to 0.9% couple milliseconds later.


check this out (none / 0) (#31)
by detikon on Mon May 6th, 2002 at 10:24:35 PM PST
You know you can remove MSN Messenger from Windows XP. It's a simple little registry edit. Be warned. Next time you download any critical updates from Microsoft...they'll re-install it for you.

Now where's that registry hack that stops Windows from wasting 20% of my bandwidth?




Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

moron (none / 0) (#33)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon May 6th, 2002 at 11:23:32 PM PST
I thought you computer geniuses loved config files. Notepad, File Open \windows\inf\sysoc.inf. Find msmsgs=msgrocm.dll,OcEntry,msmsgs.inf,hide,7 and rubout the word "hide". Save. Add/Remove Programs. Warning! Add/Remove is the kind of point and shoot interface you clods like to disparage except, as in this case, when it isnt originally there.

Now if you didnt know all this, shut up, MS designs with the expectation that you arent intelligent enough to read documentation; and they were right, you arent smart enough. I suppose you knew, innately, how to assign different banners to ttys according to local, serial or network connection?

What do you mean "wastes bandwidth?" If you're running an unnecessary chatty protocol or unnecessary services, dont (God forbid we "waste" electrons or tire the NIC.) Or do think your tcp transfers run at less than line speed on XP? You lunatix are dumber than leftovers. Go away.


well whoopee doo (none / 0) (#39)
by detikon on Wed May 8th, 2002 at 02:00:43 PM PST
Yes I know all about that little hack which make MSN Messenger available in Add/Remove Programs. However, you must consider the how MS sneaks it back on your system. Hopefully you're smart enough to not allow Windows to download and install anything without your approval. Unfortunately most Windows users are too stupid to understand anything beyond point and click. Make MS think you still have it installed with these tips.

As for 20% bandwidth consumption, read here.




Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

you're not very smart, are you? (none / 0) (#43)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu May 9th, 2002 at 12:10:21 PM PST
read here.

QOS that can be disabled is more than Lunix offers. What's you're point -- that you dont know how to administer XP? Save your breath, I didnt suspect you knew much of anything.

did you read it? (none / 0) (#46)
by detikon on Thu May 9th, 2002 at 02:01:14 PM PST
It you would have read the article I provided a link to you would have read that even if you disable it Windows still allocates 20% of your bandwidth unnecessarily.




Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

 
please learn something about VMs (none / 0) (#32)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon May 6th, 2002 at 10:48:05 PM PST
You make no sense. "Used better?" There's no better, there's simply "use". When you need it, the OS gives it to you so you dont have to play Clod-With-Personal-Feelings-For-Good-And-Bad-Programs Operating System. If you dont have enough virtual memory, run fewer programs. For example, dont run MSN Messenger. Duh. How is Lunix any different?

I like my resources being free,

You're an idiot.

Mind, Unix was designed for simplicity instead of 100% reliability, a design which is correct for average behavior but which needs to mutate into DUCT-TAPE OS (aka Solaris) for robust non-average behavior. You may be referring to such Lunix pearls as premature and buggy OOM killers, lack of over-commit, poor VM-balancing, blah, blah, blah -- the Lunix list is endless and in a constant state of flux. The only thing worse than the Lunix VM is the Lunix scheduler.

Get a real OS.

yeah that makes sense (none / 0) (#38)
by detikon on Wed May 8th, 2002 at 01:38:02 PM PST
Don't run MSN Messenger!?! Hello? MSN Messenger runs whether you use it or not. If you remove it MS politely reinstalls it for you next time you download critical updates. Microsoft claims it enhances your web browsing experience. No it just wastes resources unless you buy into the barely excepted .NET, passport MSN ISP, MSN Explorer over IE bullshit.




Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

 
Resource usage (none / 0) (#40)
by The Mad Scientist on Wed May 8th, 2002 at 02:41:35 PM PST
When a piece of memory is free, then when there is an allocation request, the system doesn't have to swap the memory page to disk. Voila, couple hundreds microseconds saved. If there is something unnecessary eating the RAM, well, okay with me as long as there is plenty of it still free.

When there is no communication on the network, the bandwidth is ready to be used immediately at the moment it is necessary. No waiting.

As your claim to not run Windows Messenger, the instructions how to achieve it are a bit nontrivial for any average Joe Click-the-mouse. Besides, the track record of the Corporation Whosse Name Shouldn't Be Spoken leaves few doubts they will use their updating system to force you to run whatever they will like, leaving you with choices to either put up and shut up, or tweak your system in complicated way - which quite takes away the "advantage" of "easy configuration".

I want as absolute control over my computer as possible. Its my right.


oh yes you can (none / 0) (#41)
by detikon on Thu May 9th, 2002 at 12:19:16 AM PST
MS doesn't mind you tweaking you system. That if you go out and spend more $$$ on PowerToys. Did you know MS is fighting for its right to "break" competing software? That's right. System resources being gobbled up by programs you don't even use leaving nothing for anyone else.

If you want full control of your Windows OS then keep an eye on the ongoing trial. Look for experts to prove that middleware like IE and Media Player can be removed from Windows XP. How will they do it? Windows XP Embedded. You know the version of XP that MS claims is exactly like XP but where you can actualy remove stuff. MS seems to be telling two different stories. Yes you can no you can't.

Windows Modular coming soon.




Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

 
go away (none / 0) (#44)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu May 9th, 2002 at 12:28:58 PM PST
When a piece of memory is free, then when there is an allocation request, the system doesn't have to swap the memory page to disk.

You idiot, swapping is not the same as utilizing all of memory. If you are swapping, you dont have enough memory to begin with. As long as you dont use them, you can load all your programs in memory at start up for the little difference it's going to make[*].

[*] Switching to a preloaded process will be faster than (1) loading it on demand, (2) working with it, (3) unloading it (4) goto 1. Let me ask you something: do you think a networkless workstation runs slower because it has several network servers sleeping on requests that will never come? Pay attention: process slots arent a lot of memory. If you dont use a process, all it consumes little more than a process slot.

 
when will you start making sense? (none / 0) (#45)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu May 9th, 2002 at 12:39:02 PM PST
When there is no communication on the network, the bandwidth is ready to be used immediately at the moment it is necessary. No waiting.

This makes absolutely no sense. bandwidth is constant; the width of the pipe doesnt change according to your scheduler's latency. You arent exactly computer illiterate, but your habit of anthropomorphizing os internals does make you incoherent. You simply dont know what you are talking about.

Anthropomorphizing OS internals? (none / 0) (#47)
by The Mad Scientist on Sat May 11th, 2002 at 11:26:40 AM PST
Maybe because my native language assigns genders even to inanimate objects, my English usage can be skewed this way.

 
Technical note to Linus: unify VM + buffer cache (none / 0) (#34)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon May 6th, 2002 at 11:30:57 PM PST
If the memory is used as filesystem cache, then you are using the memory as the cache.

What do you mean "if"?

 
oh editors (none / 0) (#30)
by detikon on Mon May 6th, 2002 at 10:19:54 PM PST
I believe the above comment should be deleted for copyright violation. Gee, lately it seems like everyone is doing your job but you.




Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

 
There's only one reason to run Linux. (none / 0) (#13)
by dmg on Mon May 6th, 2002 at 04:22:27 PM PST
And that is to practice my Transact-SQL using the powerful Sybase 11.9.2 database. I keep meaning to try it out on OpenBSD in Linux compatibility mode, I really dislike Linux. If anyone out there has tried this, how did you get on ?

time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration.
-- MC Hawking

 
"heavy gimp usage" ?!? (none / 0) (#15)
by zikzak on Mon May 6th, 2002 at 04:43:52 PM PST
Nobody makes heavy usage of Gimp. If you do a lot of graphics work then you absolutely do not work with a Unix-type OS.

Unless you're an idiot, that is.

ghod I am surrounded by idiots... (none / 0) (#16)
by tkatchev on Mon May 6th, 2002 at 04:53:54 PM PST
Look, if you're doing a lot of graphics work, then it is absolutely unimportant what OS you use.

Why bother, when you're effectively just running one application?

Gimp is actually very good for raster-based graphics. It beats Photoshop if you're not doing printing or fancy fonts.


--
Peace and much love...

Fine (none / 0) (#21)
by zikzak on Mon May 6th, 2002 at 05:35:30 PM PST
You find me a graphics shop full of graphic designers doing graphics work and I'll take back what I said. The Gimp only "beats" Photoshop if you don't make a living doing actual production work in graphics.

erm, oops (none / 0) (#23)
by zikzak on Mon May 6th, 2002 at 05:40:08 PM PST
That graphics shop full of those designers need to be using Gimp for the above post to make any sense.

 
not true (none / 0) (#27)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon May 6th, 2002 at 07:33:35 PM PST
if you're doing a lot of graphics work, then it is absolutely unimportant what OS you use

That's mostly true but the gimp itself is a very poor substitute for photoshop. Quite apart from its functional deficit compared to PS, the gimp has a very poor handle on ergonomics and designer work flow. I dont know anyone who would use it over PS for anything other than the occasional web graphic or effects masturbation. If you prepare multi-megabyte photos and collages for press, PS has no contender.

Come on. (none / 0) (#35)
by tkatchev on Mon May 6th, 2002 at 11:35:23 PM PST
Like I said, the Gimp is beats Photoshop if you're doing pure raster work -- that is, as soon as you start going into vector graphics (fancy text, etc.) or print work you can trow Gimp away.

For raster editing, Gimp has a much more efficient interface and gives you many more tools to work with.




--
Peace and much love...

 
Not if you want to print something, tkatchev (none / 0) (#37)
by Adam Rightmann on Tue May 7th, 2002 at 09:31:30 AM PST
If I didn't know you better, I would think you were trolling, instead I will chalk it up to being addled from your Lenten fast.

If you are professional graphic artists who needs to have paper output at one point, you won't be using The Gimp. Not if you need separations, Pantones or clean PostScript. Come back to me when the GIMP knows a little more about professional printing.

Yes, for dinky web graphics, the GIMP is fine.


A. Rightmann

ghod unholy baphometh (none / 0) (#42)
by tkatchev on Thu May 9th, 2002 at 12:41:50 AM PST
Look, I said not once but twice, in two different posts that Gimp is useless if you're doing print work.

Read the post you are replying to, please. Please. Please, I'm practically begging you... This pains me. Please.


--
Peace and much love...

 
Don't forget Dreamworks (none / 0) (#17)
by detikon on Mon May 6th, 2002 at 04:59:49 PM PST
Remeber them? The whole Shrek thing? Here's the story Linux was doing graphics rendering while the animator were using Windows desktops. Now with their newest film "Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron", Windows is nowhere to be found.

Full Story here.




Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

Oh shut up (none / 0) (#22)
by zikzak on Mon May 6th, 2002 at 05:37:39 PM PST
We're talking about 2D raster graphics editing, not 3D model rendering.

 
yeah, yeah, you can render at the bash prompt (none / 0) (#25)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon May 6th, 2002 at 07:19:51 PM PST
Lunix is a cheap way to boot a farm of FPUs. All they really need is a program loader.

 
OpenBSD 3.1 is out real soon now. (none / 0) (#10)
by dmg on Mon May 6th, 2002 at 04:10:48 PM PST
A secure OS built on top of a rock solid professionally designed kernel. OpenBSD 3.1 even has an elegantly designed linux compatibility layer.

And for sheer elitism you have to admire Theo deRaadt.

time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration.
-- MC Hawking

 
This is what you get... (none / 0) (#20)
by The Mad Scientist on Mon May 6th, 2002 at 05:11:21 PM PST
...when you rush to the market too fast.

When managers make decisions instead of engineers.

Quite agree. (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by because it isnt on Mon May 6th, 2002 at 08:00:08 PM PST
How is the GNU Hurd kernel today, by the way?
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

 
In other news (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by foon on Mon May 6th, 2002 at 07:56:54 PM PST
The soviet union is dead.

When has Communism ever been successful?


Why, just last weekend. (none / 0) (#36)
by Ernest Bludger on Mon May 6th, 2002 at 11:49:40 PM PST
In France.

 

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org. The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to legal@adequacy.org.