Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 9th Jan 2012 13:30 UTC, submitted by davidiwharper
Mandriva, Mandrake, Lycoris Somewhere in 2001, I bought a computer magazine which came with a Linux CD. I had heard of Linux before, but while we did have broadband back then and was technically capable of downloading a Linux distribution, this method was far easier. This was my first foray into Linux - it was Mandrake. Now, though, it seems the curtain has really dropped for the French Linux company.
Thread beginning with comment 502605
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Sad.
by cmchittom on Mon 9th Jan 2012 14:36 UTC
cmchittom
Member since:
2011-03-18

A little sad, but only a little. I last used it over ten years ago (when it was still Mandrake), and then only briefly—it just didn't seem to add that much over other distributions (notably, Debian: at the time, apt-get was head and shoulders above any other package manager. But then, I was never really a KDE guy: even on Mandrake, I installed GNOME).

That's the problem with most Linux distributions, actually. If the only difference between ABC Linux and XYZ Linux is that one has KDE and the other, GNOME, but I can install either on either, why should I bother to switch? Ubuntu's differentiation is simple: marketing. Debian's is that it's Free Software (and runs on some architectures nobody else does). Slackware is BSD-like. Et cetera. What did Mandrake, and later, Mandriva, have that others didn't? I honestly don't know.

Mandrake does live on in a small way: when I worked at an ISP, my boss found out I used Linux and asked me to write up instructions on how to connect to their service using it, so I did; and it's still online, though long out of date, of course: http://support.netdoor.com/dialup/linux/linuxconf.php Despite the references to Red Hat, the screenshots were actually taken on Mandrake—the boss felt more people would know about Red Hat. (And X-ISP was used because the boss insisted on using a GUI tool.)

Reply Score: 2

RE: Sad.
by Bounty on Mon 9th Jan 2012 16:58 in reply to "Sad."
Bounty Member since:
2006-09-18

That's the problem with most Linux distributions, actually. If the only difference between ABC Linux and XYZ Linux is that one has KDE and the other, GNOME, but I can install either on either, why should I bother to switch? Ubuntu's differentiation is simple: marketing. Debian's is that it's Free Software (and runs on some architectures nobody else does). Slackware is BSD-like. Et cetera. What did Mandrake, and later, Mandriva, have that others didn't? I honestly don't know.


For a lot of people Mandrake/Mandriva just worked. You didn't have to do a lot of hacking to switch away from other OS's. The infighting of Mandriva happend while the other distros were getting easier to use, which made for a powerful one-two punch.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Sad.
by spiderman on Mon 9th Jan 2012 18:35 in reply to "Sad."
spiderman Member since:
2008-10-23

What did Mandrake, and later, Mandriva, have that others didn't? I honestly don't know.

Mandriva has a lot of stuff that other distros don't have. The control centers and the tools for one thing. It is one of the few GNU distros that is desktop oriented and works to improve the desktop experience. It is based on Red Hat but it is not just a mod. They have a real development team and it is engineered, solid and stable. They have a marketing problem but they are doing a good job with the resource they have. They have a good balance between quality and marketing.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Sad.
by Adurbe on Mon 9th Jan 2012 18:55 in reply to "RE: Sad."
Adurbe Member since:
2005-07-06

but few paying customers...

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Sad.
by cmchittom on Mon 9th Jan 2012 20:15 in reply to "RE: Sad."
cmchittom Member since:
2011-03-18

It is one of the few GNU distros that is desktop oriented


Uh, what? In the first place, DistroWatch lists no less that 181 distributions as "Desktop."[1] In the second place, what is a "GNU distro"? As far as I'm aware the only thing that fits that description is the Hurd. (Yes, Linux distributions contain lots of important GNU tools, and in a technical/legal sense I suppose that makes them GNU distributions as well. But that wasn't the question.)

and works to improve the desktop experience.


Which means what, exactly? (The answer to that might answer my original question.)

[1] http://distrowatch.com/search.php?ostype=All&category=Desktop&origi...

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: Sad.
by joekiser on Mon 9th Jan 2012 20:10 in reply to "Sad."
joekiser Member since:
2005-06-30

What did Mandrake, and later, Mandriva, have that others didn't? I honestly don't know.


Mandrake offered the K Desktop Environment on a RedHat base at a time where RedHat didn't want to distribute it because Qt was proprietary. This was a time before Gnome was usable, so the default RedHat desktop had a choice between fvwm95, afterstep, and something else.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Sad.
by cmchittom on Mon 9th Jan 2012 20:17 in reply to "RE: Sad."
cmchittom Member since:
2011-03-18

Depends on what you mean by "usable"; I was certainly using GNOME then.

Oh, and IIRC, the "something else" was actually WindowMaker. (Somebody liked NeXT, I guess.)

Edited 2012-01-09 20:24 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1