[CLUE-Tech] Mandrake -- Hype or Cool?

[Chris K. Chew]

Mandrake seems to stray farther away from redhat with every release,
although the base system is still pretty much identical.  The main
difference as I see it is the installation.  Mandrake does a lot of
configuration and tweaks for you that redhat does not.  Examples include
setting up networking during install, setting up color syntax-highlighting
in vi, some nice bash aliases and configs, x windows with gnome, etc.  They
also have a pretty effective system updater (up2date doesn't quite cut it)
and some nice graphical configurations.

I don't run mandrake on any of my company's servers, but I am very close to
getting my mom to install it on her machine (one convert a year, that is my
goal -- double the linux population every year).  She needs a little more
courage.

I would day that mandrake 8 is the closest to a "windows killer" that linux
has seen so far, in that almost anybody could simply install it and have a
pretty effective desktop machine.  Naturally there is a debate as to whether
or not this is good for linux, but mandrake is definitely taking their
stance on the issue.

Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: clue-tech-admin at clue.denver.co.us
[mailto:clue-tech-admin at clue.denver.co.us]On Behalf Of Jeffery Cann
Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 7:21 AM
To: clue-tech at clue.denver.co.us
Subject: [CLUE-Tech] Mandrake -- Hype or Cool?


Mandrake users -

I have noticed a bit of hype surrounding this distribution, especially in
poll questions like ' what's your favorite linux distribution?' or 'which
distro is a windows killer'.

I know it was based on RHAT, when I last looked at it (1999?) and you could
not tell the difference.  As I do not care for RHAT, I am curious as to the
degree of divergence.

So, what's good / bad about Mandrake?

Thanks,
Jeff
_______________________________________________
CLUE-Tech mailing list
CLUE-Tech at clue.denver.co.us
http://clue.denver.co.us/mailman/listinfo/clue-tech