Linked by Eugenia Loli on Fri 4th Aug 2006 05:13 UTC, submitted by Carlos
Linux The Ark Linux team is pleased to announce the immediate availability of Ark Linux 2006.1 and Ark Linux Live 2006.1. This release adds KDE 3.5.4, X.Org 7.1.1, amaroK 1.4.1, and the new tool "rpmhandler", which makes installing third party packages easier.
Order by: Score:
wow
by deanlinkous on Fri 4th Aug 2006 05:21 UTC
deanlinkous
Member since:
2006-06-19

Man how did they do that. I thought 3.5.4 was just popped out like yesterday. AWESOME WORK!

Reply Score: 1

RE: wow
by echpiel on Fri 4th Aug 2006 06:40 UTC in reply to "wow"
echpiel Member since:
2006-08-04

He, I got it for Arch Linix the day before yesterday ;-). Sorry for the OT, but I could not resist :-)

Reply Score: 2

RE: wow
by lagitus on Fri 4th Aug 2006 14:56 UTC in reply to "wow"
lagitus Member since:
2005-07-18

Man how did they do that. I thought 3.5.4 was just popped out like yesterday. AWESOME WORK!

That simply means they neglected to properly test it. We already have gentoo and debian unstable for those who want the latest toys ASAP regardless of whether they work properly or not.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: wow
by Bonus on Fri 4th Aug 2006 15:00 UTC in reply to "RE: wow"
Bonus Member since:
2005-12-23

Your right, even though it might be a considered a great dev distro it's probably more for system admins who are willing to move allot of files around on a consistant basis. Plus their Kynaptic forces you to upgrade.

Reply Score: 1

Ark Linux
by Anonymous Penguin on Fri 4th Aug 2006 07:01 UTC
Anonymous Penguin
Member since:
2005-07-06

This distro was one of the greatest Linux hopes around 2003.

But then they began to lose momentum, mainly because of the (very) poor installer. Ark was meant for Linux newbies, but many lost all their data because of the installer. I, among others, was suggesting them to "borrow" an installer, like Anaconda, but they wouldn't listen.
The last time I tried Ark, they had slightly improved the installer, but it still felt very primitive when compared to many others.
I have downloaded this latest release, but I haven't tried it yet.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Ark Linux
by joelito_pr on Fri 4th Aug 2006 07:37 UTC in reply to "Ark Linux"
joelito_pr Member since:
2005-07-07

Not to mention that initial hardware support sucked.

And that the people in their IRC were at best... unpolite.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Ark Linux
by Anonymous Penguin on Fri 4th Aug 2006 07:47 UTC in reply to "RE: Ark Linux"
Anonymous Penguin Member since:
2005-07-06

"Not to mention that initial hardware support sucked."

Well, to be honest in 2003 my laptop was well supported.

"And that the people in their IRC were at best... unpolite."

That is definitely true, but they had received some very harsh criticism.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Ark Linux
by OSGuy on Fri 4th Aug 2006 13:25 UTC in reply to "Ark Linux"
OSGuy Member since:
2006-01-01

Oh come on please. How can you trust a distro if they can't even get the installer to work! I gave up on this distro. I am not a newbie but I could never get to install properly. The first time, like 2005 edition or 2004 RC, I am not sure, my NVIDIA GeForce2 graphics card was not detected properly. I had to use XOrgConfig from the shell prompt and even that didn't work quite as I expteced. I did all the correct entries and even the setting with "virtual screen size larger then the desktop" or whatever, it was off and my screen was still scrolling whenever I moved my mouse to the edges.

A year later I tried it again and everything seemed to work from the installer end but I restarted the PC, my old boot loader was not over written and of course there was no entry for Ark Linux and I waited like 40 minutes for the files to get copied while playing with their boring tetris. The resolution of the installer is extra extra high. I wonder if they can make it even higher, so high that the text becomes literally unreadable.

Now, before you flame me with comments as if I don't know what I am doing, STOP. I can ever pinpoint where the problem is. Their bootloader installer section was most likely buggy. I have installed hundreds of times other distros even FreeBSD. I have literally never failed. I know exactly what I am doing.

So, my opinion? Well, my impression is bad and personally I don't feel attracted to try it yet again especially when I have a prefectly working different distribution (no name sorry).

Edited 2006-08-04 13:27

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Ark Linux
by Bonus on Fri 4th Aug 2006 14:57 UTC in reply to "RE: Ark Linux"
Bonus Member since:
2005-12-23

There's no flaming. Your right. Until they come up with a more decent installer it really isn't that polished. Sometimes it seems Linux distros are more interested in updating other people work then just making their own easy to use. And I hate the thin Linux fonts too. I think they just want to squeeze as much text in as possible.

Reply Score: 1

Ark Linux
by negativity on Fri 4th Aug 2006 08:59 UTC
negativity
Member since:
2006-02-23

It has disappointed me whenever I tried to use it. :-)

Reply Score: 1

So many distros, so little diversity
by djst on Fri 4th Aug 2006 09:45 UTC
djst
Member since:
2005-08-07

So what's making Ark Linux unique and worthy of its existence? From their web page, I get the following info:

Ark Linux Home is a GNU/Linux distribution designed especially for desktop use, easy to use even for people without prior Linux (or computing) experience while still powerful enough for power users.

The main goals of Ark Linux Home are

* Being easy to learn and use
* Including all tools and applications the typical desktop user will need
* Including only tools and applications the typical desktop user will need - avoid becoming "bloated"
* Making installation of additional software as easy and fast as possible
* Being a technically sane development environment


Sounds familiar? Yeah, you've probably read it on every Linux distro web page.

In my humble opinion, all Linux distros should clearly and explicitly answer the following question:

"What makes [NameOfDistro] so special it has to exist in the first place, instead of joining forces with another popular distro?"

In the case of Ark Linux, I think the answer would be:

"Nothing, really. We had a great idea back in 2003 but didn't quite work fast enough to fix our quirks in time, and then other more popular distros emerged and our goal became fulfilled in those distros instead."

This is not a bash targetted at Ark Linux in particular, but to ~95% of all distros available out there.

Reply Score: 5

mkools Member since:
2005-10-11

Does it matter? I use my favorite distro anyway like anybody else.
Many distro's means choice and I like that, you say there's little diversity but how do you know that? Did you install and tested them all?

And why should people join forces with another distro? It's their choice, if they want to create a new distro let them do that, if I want to create my own distro I will even if the differences are very little compared to others, a slightly difference can be enough for me to use a particular distro.

Your comment is based on nothing and very overrated, it's a complete bash.

Edited 2006-08-04 10:49

Reply Score: 2

Celerate Member since:
2005-06-29

"In the case of Ark Linux, I think the answer would be:

"Nothing, really. We had a great idea back in 2003 but didn't quite work fast enough to fix our quirks in time, and then other more popular distros emerged and our goal became fulfilled in those distros instead." "


Shameless slander.

First off Ark Linux dates further back than 2003, if I remember it's history correctly it was called BeroLinux before becomming Ark Linux, and it predates several distributions including the Ubuntu family.

Secondly AL is to me one of the last few legitimate Linux distributions, it still puts together a decent KDE desktop and most importantly it doesn't strip features and tweak stuff on the assumption that users are all hopeless retards incapable of using them. AL still includes easy configuration tools and graphical front ends, but no features are stripped, and most importantly users can still do their configuration by hand if they so choose, no choice is taken away.

You've heard the quote, "make something idiot proof and someone will make a better idiot". Well imo it holds true for every OS: make things easier and people will only become more hopeless and illiterate. Linus Torvalds had a quote along those lines too:
"I personally just encourage people to switch to KDE.

This "users are idiots, and are confused by functionality" mentality of Gnome is a disease. If you think your users are idiots, only idiots will use it. I don't use Gnome, because in striving to be simple, it has long since reached the point where it simply doesn't do what I need it to do.

Please, just tell people to use KDE."

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Linus_Torvalds

My favourite thing though is that Ark hasn't alienated developers by adopting some unnatural tweaks to the desktop environments. The reason I won't touch Mandriva with a 10 ft pole now is partly because the menu system is non-standard and no one I talked to in their IRC channel, including contributors could tell me how to make an RPM that was capable of making a menu entry. I did try the kdedesktop2mdkmenu.pl scipt and I dug through documentation for hours to no avail. Ark doesn't try to replace standards, you create a desktop file as is normal for an unmodified KDE environment, and after the rpm is built that desktop file becomes the menu entry it's supposed to be for as long as the rpm is installed. I'm not picking on Mandriva here, several other distributions have parted with standards, the point is that sticking with standards reduces confusion and stress and is a feature of AL.

So there you go, Ark is usefull and unique, you just assumed it wasn't because that was easier.

Reply Score: 2

Anonymous Penguin Member since:
2005-07-06

>>You've heard the quote, "make something idiot proof and someone will make a better idiot".<<

OK, but if your aim is to create a distro for newbies, you don't put as *first* option in the installer to wipe your hard drive! That is a matter of plain common sense.

Similarly when I was beta testing the very first Mepis betas, I suggested Warren that an installer which chooses by default the first partition is begging for trouble. He agreed with me. Maybe if he had not, Mepis wouldn't be quite as popular today. Newbies trying Linux for the first time hate having their Windows partition deleted, you know...

Other than that Ark in 2003 was a stable, bleeding edge, good looking distro with plenty of developers. So it had a bright future. If only people listened...

Reply Score: 2

Celerate Member since:
2005-06-29

"OK, but if your aim is to create a distro for newbies, you don't put as *first* option in the installer to wipe your hard drive! That is a matter of plain common sense."

So is reading what your screen says before clicking the first button in front of you, especially when the choices are more than yes/no or ok/cancel. If you lost your files this way then I'm sorry for you, but if you had only read what the buttons said before clicking it wouldn't have happened. Anyone who clicks the first button they see without reading it has no one but themselves to blame.

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous Penguin Member since:
2005-07-06

"If you lost your files this way then I'm sorry for you, but if you had only read what the buttons said before clicking it wouldn't have happened."

It didn't happen to me, of course, but first the mailing list and then the forum were full with people saying: "I really hate you, I lost all my data"

I understand those people: most have never heard of partitions. Many, many years ago, when I saw a partitioned drive in Windows for the first time, I believed it had 2 physical drives.
What is worse, the installer didn't even have a warning, like: "are you sure? You are going to destroy all your data!"
Or do you believe that many people (newbies) would try Ark on a blank HD? That is normally done only by professional reviewers.
Another problem with the installer was that, with some hardware, it would mess the MBR and make every OS unbootable. Advanced users know how to fix that, but not the newbies Ark linux was meant for.

Reply Score: 2

djst Member since:
2005-08-07

Shameless slander.

First off Ark Linux dates further back than 2003, if I remember it's history correctly it was called BeroLinux before becomming Ark Linux, and it predates several distributions including the Ubuntu family.


Does that make any difference? Maybe I was wrong about the year, but that certainly doesn't turn my post into "shameless slander". Whether or not Ark predates other distros is also completely irrelevant and has nothing to do with my point. Ark wasn't "first" in any sense anyway.

Secondly AL is to me one of the last few legitimate Linux distributions, it still puts together a decent KDE desktop and most importantly it doesn't strip features and tweak stuff on the assumption that users are all hopeless retards incapable of using them.

[snip]Torvalds quote about KDE[/snip]


Whether you like KDE or not is completely irrelevant in the context of Ark Linux vs the rest of the distros out there. Gnome vs KDE wasn't exactly what I was talking about.

So there you go, Ark is usefull and unique, you just assumed it wasn't because that was easier.

I never assumed Ark wasn't useful. I am, however, questioning the split forces as a direct result of the endless number of distros available today. The fact that Ark sticks to some random desktop file standards doesn't exactly make it unique. It's similar to most other KDE-based distros. Their stated goals are similar to most other Linux-for-the-masses distros, so why not work together? Pick one of the most popular KDE-based distro and improve that one.

Similarly, if your random distro is Gnome-based, pick one of the most popular Gnome-based distros and improve it. Don't create the 1001th distro just because you want to. It's good to work together. And this is not aimed directly towards Ark.

Enough said.

Reply Score: 5

For devs
by Bonus on Fri 4th Aug 2006 11:01 UTC
Bonus
Member since:
2005-12-23

Ark is more of a distro that's easy to use for developers. their OS center and Kynaptic installers are easy to use and very simple. So it has allot of the main dev files you need. It's sort of like Slackware for RPM.

They are bringng the Installer up to date wih the next release.

Reply Score: 3

RE: For devs
by zsitvaij on Fri 4th Aug 2006 12:25 UTC in reply to "For devs"
zsitvaij Member since:
2006-06-14

So how is it actually better than Slackware for devs? Or Gentoo?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: For devs
by Bonus on Fri 4th Aug 2006 12:31 UTC in reply to "RE: For devs"
Bonus Member since:
2005-12-23

They used to have a dev version of the distribution but I think it's just one version now with a 'LIVE' version.

Basically they put in allot of dev libraires in the repo and include allot of IDEs. He has stuff in there like the D programming language, plus Bero the creator of it, is in irc all day, and answers all your qustions right away. So developing is really a breeze in it. Maybe Ark should promote that more instead.

I know Slackware is better for that but this is good for an RPM distro.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: For devs
by Celerate on Fri 4th Aug 2006 17:52 UTC in reply to "RE: For devs"
Celerate Member since:
2005-06-29

"So how is it actually better than Slackware for devs? Or Gentoo?"

For one thing it doesn't need to be compiled from source by the user, nor do the packages. Secondly it's still easy to use as long as users have supported hardware and aren't so lazy they wouldn't breathe if they had a choice. It even has graphical configuration tools that the user can choose to, or not to use without breaking one method in order for the other to work. But most importantly, it uses RPM, and adheres to standards to make developing the distribution, and distributing software to users easier.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: For devs
by zsitvaij on Fri 4th Aug 2006 19:33 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: For devs"
zsitvaij Member since:
2006-06-14

"For one thing it doesn't need to be compiled from source by the user, nor do the packages."

Slackware doesn't either, but you don't need to go hunting -dev packages there. And source based distributions by their very nature include everything needed as well. This avoids episodes like this: http://lists.ximian.com/pipermail/gtk-sharp-list/2006-August/007317...

While neither all of the 21 articles in the wiki, or the 12 topics on the forums have anything to say on the subject, judging by http://ftp.arklinux.org you don't have it any more convenient.

"Secondly it's still easy to use as long as users have supported hardware and aren't so lazy they wouldn't breathe if they had a choice. It even has graphical configuration tools that the user can choose to, or not to use without breaking one method in order for the other to work."

Which can be said of most distros out there, except maybe LFS. It IS 2006, you know.

"But most importantly, it uses RPM, and adheres to standards to make developing the distribution, and distributing software to users easier."

I assume you're referring to the LSB? The only other 'standards' are de facto at best. I'm unconvinced about the superiority of the RPM format.

Edited 2006-08-04 19:37

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: For devs
by Celerate on Fri 4th Aug 2006 22:56 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: For devs"
Celerate Member since:
2005-06-29

"Which can be said of most distros out there, except maybe LFS. It IS 2006, you know. "

Actually a lot of distributions have graphical configuration tools which break manual configuration, SUSE's yast for example. Even Lycoris would drop custom settings on me when the configuration tools were run. What I was pointing out about Ark Linux is that the graphical configuration tools won't exclude the possibility of also doing manual configuration, whereas in some distributions the two are often mutually exclusive.

"I assume you're referring to the LSB? The only other 'standards' are de facto at best. I'm unconvinced about the superiority of the RPM format. "

No, I'm referring to standards such as where devices are mounted. In the Ubuntu family as well as a handfull of other distributions the location is in /media, while the norm in Linux used to always be /mnt. Mandriva has it's own way of handling the KDE menu which is frustrating to people who can't find any working documentation on how to use it and can't get any help working with it. Those are the kinds of standards I'm talking about.

Adhering to standards on paper is usually not a problem, it's the unregulated subtleties that different distributions do that frustrate and annoy people.

Reply Score: 1

Soulbender
Member since:
2005-08-18

"What makes [NameOfDistro] so special it has to exist in the first place, instead of joining forces with another popular distro?"

And the answer to this is always "because we want it to".
It's like asking "Why learning to play guitar if you don't end up being a guitar hero and make loads of cash?"
It was all a waste right? Never mind that you actually enjoy it, that's for sissies, if it doesn't pay off and you aren't famous it's pointless.

"our goal became fulfilled in those distros instead."

Obviously not since Ark is still around making new releases.

Reply Score: 2

The main issue
by evilmegaman on Sat 5th Aug 2006 06:30 UTC
evilmegaman
Member since:
2005-09-20

Okay people, The main issue here is that Ark Linux has a VERY lousy description for itself. I would put its description on the goals page. Because it certainly does not describe it in its current form.

First off, I love the distro! I really want this to be my main distro. I just happen to have a broadcom wireless device which is a pain in the rear to set up.

Secondly I found the IRC channel to be full of very helpful people. Albeit busy.

I like that I have so far been able to do everything with common linux knowledge. for example, everything is standard where it all feels very familiar. This is great. It's also very fast and a perfect bundle of software for my needs.

The "other main problem" is the installer is not as functional as other installers, But if you're not braindead you should know to put it on a spare computer or hard drive you have. Don't just be an idiot and install it over your precious working distro! install it on that stupid computer that's still running windows ME.

That's my 2 cents

Reply Score: 4

RE: The main issue
by Bonus on Sat 5th Aug 2006 14:01 UTC in reply to "The main issue"
Bonus Member since:
2005-12-23

OK he has allot of new information on the new Installer. It will have a nice UI frontend and very specific help for each type of user.

http://forum.arklinux.org/viewtopic.php?t=57

Also I do hate hype too. He should make the website a little more formal. People just want stuff to work.

The OS is very fast though in IRC, browser, desktop and what he has there works very well if albeit there are some very strange oddities sometimes. The reason being is it's a pure disto with no links to prop software.

I use Mepis though becase it is more pollished at the moment.

Reply Score: 1

Updating to Betas
by Bonus on Sat 5th Aug 2006 14:04 UTC
Bonus
Member since:
2005-12-23

Basically what I didnt like before is Ark forces you to update to Betas in Kynaptic.

Reply Score: 1