DistroWatch takes a look at Dreamlinux 3.0. “Dreamlinux is still beautiful and now that the look has been recreated for a GNOME version and in the implementation of CompizFusion, it should appeal to a larger audience. It very well could be a viable alternative to Ubuntu. Overall, Dreamlinux was a fairly solid release. I had issues with the installer, wireless and suspend support, and some applications were a bit crashy. But it looks good, comes with some good application choices (except Iceweasel that I find buggy), and the Dreamlinux tools were nice. So, I have mixed feelings. I don’t feel comfortable recommending it across the board. If you like the appearance, features, and software stack, then perhaps it’d best to try it on your hardware to see if it’s for you.”
Review: Dreamlinux 3.0
About The Author
Follow me on Twitter @thomholwerda
2008-04-08 1:52 ambyrd
You can’t blame a program crashing for losing 3 hours worth of work, you should be saving at least every 15 minutes.
Sorry for my bad English…
It’s a shame that DreamLinux 3 Final doesn’t come with Xorg 7.3 and Kernel 2.6.24… 2 reasons to not use it…
Waiting for Ubuntu 8.04 LTS!
The XFCE screenshot is beautiful, very OS X like, love the look.
Does anyone use dreamlinux? Does it use its own repositories, or just use Debian’s? If Debian’s, when installing normal applications from the Debian repositories, does it break dreamlinux?
I’m not too worried about the hardware side of things since I don’t have a laptop, and don’t use wireless. Even if I had a laptop, I wouldn’t use either to be honest. If basic hardware support is good, it’d probably suit me, and many others.
Not having the latest kernel or xorg isn’t a huge issue, I can’t believe people are being so pedantic about such small things. The latest is NOT always the greatest.
2008-04-08 3:52 amcerebelo
Maybe for you is not important, for me YES!
I need xorg 7.3 to get my video card and monitor working properly, and for multi monitor support..
and Kernel 2.6.24 for my specific hardware! and because kernel 2.6.24 has a lot of improves. That thinks are not small.
Is my opinion, you dont have to say I’m pedantic.
Edited 2008-04-08 03:53 UTC
2008-04-08 12:48 pmzombie process
So why not run Arch?
2008-04-08 1:36 pmmelkor
As I said earlier, if you need Xorg 7.3, you must be using a pretty much recently released card. If you buy cutting edge, then you might not always get support. PCs have been that way for a long time. As to multiple monitor support, for most people, they don’t need it (I’m not saying that it’s a bad thing, but just that most people don’t need that function). I couldn’t fit 2 of my monitors on my table anyways 😉
As to the kernel, you must have really recently released hardware in general, or just be unlucky. I think the vast majority of hardware will be supported by the stock kernel that comes with this distribution. Hell, Ubuntu uses the same kernel if memory serves me correct, and that’s good enough for a lot of Linux users.
You run cutting edge, then expect to live on the edge. Don’t blame the distro for it, blame the fact that you want to live on the hardware edge.
2008-04-08 10:23 pmcerebelo
Again, sorry for my bad English…
I think, in this days, if you are gone release a GNU/Linux distro to Desktop users, at least need to have the latest stable kernel and xorg.
In Linux new versions means a lot of hard work, improves, and bugs fixed…
Xorg 7.3 was released on 2007-09-06. We are in April 2008… Xorg 7.4 its gone be release in 1 month..
You get my point?
I’m not saying DL is bad, its a beautiful distro, but I can’t use it because the lack of “not so” new hardware support, especially ATI video cards, so I cant recommend it to anybody.
2008-04-09 2:44 ammelkor
Fair enough, I’ll probably have the same problems myself if I use it with my new rig (will be using a 8800 based card, wouldn’t touch ATI with a barge pole in all honesty). If they use the Debian reps, then we should be able to upgrade it without issue?
And you can always roll your own kernel from src, create a package etc using the current .config file for the current kernel I guess.
Edited 2008-04-09 02:45 UTC
I have yet to see what this has to offer over Ubuntu 8.04. Personally I run an Ubuntu derivative and even though its a young project it is still the better OS I have run in a long time.
Yet another useless Linux distribution.
“I had issues with the installer, wireless and suspend support, and some applications were a bit crashy.”, so why would someone need it again? I don’t give a rats crap about applications/… which doesn’t work. Who needs all these new flashy gui installers and crap which doesn’t work1!?!
I guess this is an area where Debian shines in the Linux world, thought personally I just skip Linux and Solaris distributions overall.
In the article the author writes that IceWeasel and GIMPshop both crashed quite a few times…That is not much of a good PR for any distro. Most users rather choose less features or even a little discomfortable GUI than accidentally losing work they have done for the last 3 hours :O I am just saying that perhaps including so unstable software as defaults is not that good of an idea…I too have tried GIMPshop and I never made it work but I think it’s just something I did wrong. GIMPshop does attract me more than regular GIMP though, but if I had to choose between random and unpredictable crashes and a not-that-familiar-GUI I would choose the latter.