Burning software
in [Mandrake]
|
Prev: madwifi & ath_pci
Next: What is MRL?
From: Teilhard Knight on 1 Sep 2005 19:50 Aragorn wrote: > On Thursday 01 September 2005 22:06, Teilhard Knight stood up and > spoke the following words to the masses...: > >> Aragorn wrote: >>> On Thursday 01 September 2005 21:35, Teilhard Knight stood up and >>> spoke the following words to the masses...: >>> >>>> By the way, what's the Vanilla kernel? >>> >>> A vanilla kernel is a kernel compiled from the source code from the >>> kernel developer team headed by Linus Torvalds and Andrew Morton. >>> >>> The kernels one can download from http://www.kernel.org are the >>> vanilla sources. This in contrast to the distribution-specific >>> kernels, which have been patched by the distro makers. >>> >>> ;-) >> >> Thank you for the info. Do you think I should try one of those >> kernels for Debian? > > I don't see why not, if you feel like rolling your own. ;-) From my > own experiences and those of others, vanilla kernels are generally > more stable than distro-patched kernels. > > Most distributors patch their kernels to get some kind of "enhanced > funcionality" or "extra security". The Mandriva-specific kernels for > instance all come with the /supermount/ patch. > > Quite often however, the distro-specific patches result in a lesser > stable kernel, or a more bloated kernel, or a slower kernel, etc. > > The reason why most distributors patch their kernels is simply that > they pick a specific kernel from kernel.org - usually the latest > stable kernel - and stick to that one for the further development of > their newest distro. > > However, by the time their distro becomes production-ready, their > kernel is already outdated, in the sense that the newer vanilla > kernel already has the bugs properly fixed. > > In the meantime, the distributions have already patched up their > kernels with those "extra functionality" patches and have made some > (ususally inadequate) attempts to fix the same bugs, and many of their > "enhancement" patches may even _cause_ instabilities. > > Debian is also known not to feature the latest series of kernels but > rather to rely on time-proven software. If I recall correctly, then > the kernel that Debian considers to be stable at the moment is still a > 2.2-generation kernel. > > Good luck! ;-) Thank you. As I am playing with Debian just for fun, I feel adventurous and I am free to try whatever good suggestion I get. I didn't know about the vanilla kernels, but sounds interesting to try one. Thanks for your feedback. Teilhard
From: Teilhard Knight on 1 Sep 2005 19:54 Aragorn wrote: > On Thursday 01 September 2005 22:29, I stood up and spoke to > Teilhard... > > ... and with my sincere apologies for the many typos. My videocard > has been acting up again today. I've already had to blindly reboot > twice this evening, the last time being while I was in the middle of > replying to your post. > > Darn...! I'm really going to have to give this machine its upgrade > (and a thorough clean-out, because those intake fans are acting like a > vacuum cleaner)... :-/ No need to apologize. I do not even know where are the typos you are talking about. What is more important is that you fix your computer and you have have no more problems. Cordially, Teilhard.
From: Teilhard Knight on 1 Sep 2005 20:08 Aragorn wrote: > On Thursday 01 September 2005 22:12, Teilhard Knight stood up and > spoke the following words to the masses...: > >> Glad Nero worked fine on Fedora. It is one of the supported distros, >> but I need it for Mandrake, and it is not supported according to >> Nero's site. That's why I say Mandriva is not taken seriously. > > Sad but true... As far as I know, only four distributions are > actually taken seriously by proprietary software developers and/or > hardware manufacturers: RedHat, SuSE, Debian and Slackware. > > And then we are supposed to be grateful... "Hey, what's the matter? > We're supporting Gnu/Linux, aren't we?" > > The groundrule however in regards to proprietary software - excluding > driver modules! - is that if there is an /.rpm/ for RedHat or Fedora > Core, it will most likely install and run in Mandriva without much > hassle, _unless_ the proprietary software vendor clearly states that > it won't. > > Don't use the SuSE /.rpm's/ though; SuSE uses different locations in > the directory tree to install its software and configuration files. > > ;-) I sometimes ask myself whether Mandriva is taken as a distro for beginners. And Red Hat, Fedora, Debian, Suse, and Slackware are taken as distros for serious geeks. I do not recall it now, but I have come to many instances where mandriva is left aside. Even people in the groups and mailing lists of the "geeks's" distros are less friendly and engage in rather technical complexities. Little patience to the newbie. Teilhard.
From: Teilhard Knight on 1 Sep 2005 20:11 Jon Solberg wrote: > Teilhard Knight said the following on 2005-09-01 22:12: >> Crashdamage wrote: >> >>> On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 16:02:19 -0500, Teilhard Knight >>> <teilhk(a)privacy.net> wrote: >>> >>> Nero recently released a new version for Linux, just 2-3 weeks ago. >>> Very nice, does about any burning chore you might need. I like it >>> so well it's now replaced kb3 as my #1 burner for Linux. >>> >>> I used the Fedora rpm from Nero's website and it installed and runs >>> just >>> fine on my 10.1 box. You can download and try it free for 10 days, >>> then >>> just $19.95 U.S. for a license. >>> >>> http://www.nero.com/en/NeroLINUX.html >>> >> >> Glad Nero worked fine on Fedora. It is one of the supported distros, >> but I need it for Mandrake, and it is not supported according to >> Nero's site. > > Nero for Linux works just fine on Mandriva. Not that I can see _why_ > you should want to use it, when there are far more capable burning > software like K3B and GnomeBaker/Toaster. None of those work for me. :o( Teilhard.
From: Aragorn on 1 Sep 2005 20:59
On Friday 02 September 2005 02:08, Teilhard Knight stood up and spoke the following words to the masses...: > I sometimes ask myself whether Mandriva is taken as a distro for > beginners. And Red Hat, Fedora, Debian, Suse, and Slackware are taken > as distros for serious geeks. I do not recall it now, but I have come > to many instances where mandriva is left aside. Even people in the > groups and mailing lists of the "geeks's" distros are less friendly > and engage in rather technical complexities. Little patience to the > newbie. I believe that this situation came to be because of the fact that Mandrake/Mandriva have always focused on the desktop market and have only later on adopted the server market. RedHat, Debian and Slackware already had very solid reputations in the server market long before Mandrake/Mandriva forayed into it as well. SuSE is also a more desktop-oriented distribution, but it has more popularity because it's older than Mandrake/Mandriva and it used to come in a very extensive format, i.e. they used to offer the most packages of all commercial distributions. And now they have Novell as a Big Name to back them up... ;-) -- With kind regards, *Aragorn* (Registered Gnu/Linux user #223157) |