Flavours Vote Based On Ease of Usage

[abracadabra]

Digitarians choose your choice of OS

 

[mail2and]

ubuntu... thats the best!

 

[GNUrag]

Kubuntu ... That's the best..

 

[cool_dude_prav]

Ubuntu is the best... That we all know...

But @GNUrag.. wat is Kubuntu

Kubuntu ... That's the best..

 

[h4xbox]

Knoppix is emperor.
It cannot be beaten

 

[pradeep_chauhan]

why does every one forget gentoo?
Gentoo is THE best.

 

[GNUrag]

Kubuntu is the KDE cousin of Ubuntu, Its available from Ubuntu's archives but the download link is hidden from the main page..

Go here to download the Kubuntu daily images.
*archive.ubuntu.com/cdimage/kubuntu/

Its available in both Live and Install versions

 

[hafees]

What about Mandrake 10.1 ? it is really eye candy and is good to work with for a beginner.
and i m using pcq 2005 and this also impressed me.
but about Ubuntu, what i have is only a one cd distro(from digit). PCQ Linux 2005 comes with most of the tools (for developer as well as home user) bundled with. So i think it is more good than FC3 and Mandrake.
Also what about SuSE?? it has won the digit award!

 

[pradeep_chauhan]

One more good reason for using GENTOO.
Gentoo ports kernel 2.6.11 today faster than debian or fedora.
Gentoo rules.

 

[enoonmai]

Wow, didnt know that about Kubuntu. Must try it out, thanks, buddy! But among all the distros that I've used so far, Ubuntu gets my vote, even if its not on the list. Plus, is Linspire even true Linux? I dont think its totally GPL licensed, is it?

 

[cool_dude_prav]

Hey im currently d/l-ing the Kubuntu live CD...

Ill post here abt it l8r...

Hope it is Gud.. coz Mr.GNUrag himself has told hain na...

 

[ujjwal]

There is a distribution called Vector Linux ... I tried version 4.3 and it was quite easy to use - and yet quite fast (a combination unfortunately not so common).

BTW, enoonmai, no idea about its GPL, but as long as a distro uses the linux kernel it qualifies as a linux distro

 

[tuXian]

whatever but I like all live distro's, BTW i am impressed by debians hardware detection

 

[enoonmai]

BTW, enoonmai, no idea about its GPL, but as long as a distro uses the linux kernel it qualifies as a linux distro

Yup! I guess thats true. But I dug up a bit of info and here's what I found out. Linspire is NOT totally GPLed. The Linspire site says that parts of Linspire are GPLed, the kernel, KDE, etc. but the "biggie" programs like the Click N Run Repository, fonts, Flash and Java support, spell checker, etc. are not GPL. Plus, you cannot freely redistribute Linspire. So its not technically fully GPL and yet it doesnt violate GPL laws, kind of like SuSE. Ah, who cares, I am not going anywhere near Linspire.

 

[cool_dude_prav]

See this from the Distro Watch site...
*distrowatch.com/stats.php?section=popularity


Ubuntu is surely making waves...

Moved fom Rank 8 twelve months ago ...

To Rank 3 six months ago...

To Rank 1 three months ago...

And currently Ranked 1st for current month as well...

So... Where is tha thread which speaks of other linux distros as good? Lemme see and speak there

 

[GNUrag]

Yup! I guess thats true. But I dug up a bit of info and here's what I found out. Linspire is NOT totally GPLed. The Linspire site says that parts of Linspire are GPLed, the kernel, KDE, etc. but the "biggie" programs like the Click N Run Repository, fonts, Flash and Java support, spell checker, etc. are not GPL. Plus, you cannot freely redistribute Linspire. So its not technically fully GPL and yet it doesnt violate GPL laws, kind of like SuSE. Ah, who cares, I am not going anywhere near Linspire.

The GPL and other public licenses are valid on a single application (ifself) and are not applicable on a distribution as a whole. If one wishes to use a 100% Free-as-in-Freedom GNU/Linux distribution then he'll be better off with Debian. Even RedHat, PCQLinux, SuSE bundle some amount of non-free but redistributable software. A case in particular is nVidia's graphics drivers which are 100% Proprietary.

 

[enoonmai]

Man, I really gotta sit and pore over the GPL license laws. Now I get it, thanks. So, they can put GPL and non-GPL parts together and distribute it, but the GPL does not apply to distros themselves, right? Of course, I should have figured that considering how every other distro has some proprietary code in it. So, umm, tell me something else, let's see I buy Linspire, and I get access to the GPL source code in my my.Linspire account, and I decide to change it for my own use. Doesn't that mean it immediately ceases to be Linspire because of the modified code and the absence of the proprietary code such as CNR, etc.?

 

[GNUrag]

Man, I really gotta sit and pore over the GPL license laws.

The essays written by Stallman at *www.gnu.org/philosophy/ can be a good start. Especially the essays written under the section called Licensing Free Software available at :
*www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html#LicensingFreeSoftware

Remember, if you wanna get the GPL and Free software philosophy right you need to do a lot of reading.

Now I get it, thanks. So, they can put GPL and non-GPL parts together and distribute it,

As long as the application's license says that it is redistributable, no one can stop the vendors from bundling it in their distributions. However, a Non-Free software can also be freely redistributable. Just as i said about the nvidia drivers, same is applicable to the Proprietary Sun Java Virtual Machine, Realplayer plugin, Macromedia Flash Plugin etc. etc.. these are all proprietary software but they are freely redistributable as per their license, and hence the vendours shamelessly bundle these cr@ppy software and nullify the meaning of freedom.

but the GPL does not apply to distros themselves, right?

The distributions cannot be licensed with GPL or any other free public license, since it is not an original peice of work. Distributions are based on various contributors and independent software authors. However, the distributions can be copyrighted.

Of course, I should have figured that considering how every other distro has some proprietary code in it.

Sometimes the distribution vendours are helpless themselves. Its the people who demand that they want Flash player, Sun Java, etc. etc.. so they have to include some proprietary software in it.

So, umm, tell me something else, let's see I buy Linspire, and I get access to the GPL source code in my my.Linspire account, and I decide to change it for my own use. Doesn't that mean it immediately ceases to be Linspire because of the modified code and the absence of the proprietary code such as CNR, etc.?

No, it will not cease to be linspire. I can explain, if you elaborate more on this.

 

[enoonmai]

I figured that part about reading a lot to get the GPL/FSF/OSS logic properly. Thanks for the links, I will definitely go through them.

Coming to the part about the Flash, RP, Java plugins, etc. I understand that they're only freely redistributable. So since they are proprietary, does that also mean that the source code for these software are not made public and that I cannot modify/redistribute these without explicit permission from the companies, and if I do get permission, I gotta purchase a license or something along those lines to be able to modify it, like a game engine license? (that was the first analogy I could think of)

The distributions cannot be licensed with GPL or any other free public license, since it is not an original peice of work. Distributions are based on various contributors and independent software authors. However, the distributions can be copyrighted.

Hmm, so if they're copyrighted and it says that I should not be able to take a piece of their OS, like the rpm, and then tweak it without their permission, then thats again not freedom, is it? Do they do stuff like that? So, if its copyrighted, then I lose my freedom to modify the copyrighted parts the way I see fit and can touch only the parts of it that are covered under a free public license, right? Correct me if I have misunderstood this part.

Sometimes the distribution vendours are helpless themselves. Its the people who demand that they want Flash player, Sun Java, etc. etc.. so they have to include some proprietary software in it.

True, but if I see the situation as an end user, then I at a big disadvantage without these, aren't I? Considering how many websites use Flash and other proprietary formats such as WM, RP, QT, etc. abound on the Web, then a Linux user who wants to stick to his freedom would have to sacrifice all of these, right? That is unless, the format themselves are open sourced or another open source format replaces these. If I remember right, this was a major uproar when Compuserve claimed exclusive rights on the GIF format and demanded royalties. So, if I were to replace my Windows desktop with a Linux one that sticks to the free software policies, then a lot of my functionality suddenly becomes restricted because everyone out there is using a proprietary format. What is your take on this?

As for the Linspire part, this is what I am referring to:
Taken from the Linspire Licensing website here:
*www.linspire.com/lindows_products_license.php

As discussed above, parts of the Linspire product are licensed under the GPL. Linspire fully supports the use and redistribution of those parts of Linspire which are covered under the GPL. There are, however, also 3rd-party components in Linspire which are not GPL (installer, CNR Technology, fonts, spell checker, Flash, Java, etc.).

Those who have obtained a copy of Linspire can find the source code for any of the GPL portions of Linspire in their my.linspire account or on the computer if they purchased Linspire pre-installed on a new computer. These individuals are free to modify and redistribute those GPL portions of Linspire found there. To honor our trademark and to avoid confusion among Linspire customers who wish to obtain a full and complete copy of Linspire, such products should not be called "Linspire," since they would be a different product (since they wouldn't have the non-GPL licensed parts, Linspire support, etc.)

Linspire wishes to insure that everyone purchasing the official Linspire product, gets the complete version, all 3rd-party components legally licensed, as well as full support from Linspire. We wish to avoid having anyone confused, assuming they are getting the full Linspire product, support, etc. when purchasing a modified or repackaged OS that has been based on the GPL pieces of Linspire.

Isn't that a blatant violation of the free software logic? They claim that they use the CNR as an easy to use, one stop access to all their code in an easily distributable package, and cannot license it under the GPL. Isnt that worse than Microsoft going the "Shared Source" way? Why this logic of "it ceases to be Linspire when you change the parts"? I mean, if I were to change a bit of FC3 according to my likes and dislikes, then its not FC3 anymore? According to these guys' stupid logic, then Linux has long stopped from being Linux, hasn't it, by extension of their asinine logic?

I really appreciate your clearing up these issues for me.