tux99

wobo, I don't understand why you create a non-existent division between the cooker community and the user community. The cooker community is simply a subset of the user community (+ Mandriva employees), not a separate community and that would still be the case after a fork. I can only see a fork work if it's lead by users who are currently active on cooker, rather than users that have had no active involvement with cooker up to now (of course the latter would have to be encouraged to join the new forked cooker to replace the voids left by leaving Mandriva employees). The main point is the infrastructure and the organizational structure. Also as said already, it would help a lot if as many former Mandriva employees would continue to work on a forked cooker as volunteers. I would actually consider this forum (mandrivausers.org) to be the best neutral place, to be used as a forum of the new forked Mandriva user community, since it's not specific to any local MUG. I guess Paul wouldn't mind.

use mkinitrd

I partially agree with you, that's why I said "almost spam", I didn't mean that it should be removed. There is a huge difference, this appears to be a 'hit and run', there is no dialogue, while when a regular of a forum (or even a newbie that wants to be a regular) post links to something Linux related on their personal web site they also do it to have a conversation about it, not purely to advertise their article. We definitely agree on this. :)

The quote is from here: http://github.com/behlendorf/zfs/wiki/FAQ Ok, but in that case it will never be part of the kernel, which means users would have to rely on KQinfotech (or others) to keep the zfs kernel module up-to-date and compatible with every new kernel. This has been considered already but AFAIK always dismissed as it's unpractical and can't be relied upon for any serious long-term use. I would only start using such a module if it has the endorsement and support of the core kernel developers (Torvalds, etc.). And as I said already, the fact that it's a closed beta puts it in an extremely bad light, FOSS and closed betas mix like oil and water. Oh and by the way, the post from darshin should be almost considered spam since he posted it on loads of Linux forums all over the net: https://encrypted.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=People+have+workarounds+and+solutions+which+are+kind+of+2nd+tone+replacements+to+work+on+Linux,+but+either+ways,+all+these+solutions+are+not+really+good+replacements+as+they+either+are+not+stable+enough+or+lack+some+of+the+salient+features+of+ZFS.&btnG=Google+Search --

So how did you solve the license issues between GPL2 and the license ZFS come with? As far as I knew, porting ZFS to Linux is not a technical issue but a license issue, therefore your port would likely not be legal to distribute and use. Apart from that I don't like the idea of closed beta software on FOSS, it's against the FOSS principles.

Just an update to this old thread, I tried installing Mandriva 2010.0 onto my VIA C3 "Samuel 2" (without the cmov instruction) mini-PC and while the "One" version failed to boot the live desktop, I'm happy to say that the "Powerpack" version installs and boots fine. So that means Mandriva 2010.0 is again VIA C3 compatible (I assume that the "Free DVD" version will install just like the "Powerpack" version, since they are the same, apart from the extra packages in the "Powerpack" version).

Anne from Mandriva has stated on Friday that 2010.1 will be out on or around the 5th of July.

The problems you are experiencing are certainly not normal expected behaviour. That said I have no idea what could be causing them, I have never seen anything like that or read about it before. All those services you mentioned (policykit, gconf, gvs-fuse, etc are unfortunately needed by KDE and/or gnome apps (firefox is a gtk/gnome app and uses gconf etc.) so I think it would be quite hard to get rid of them. Pulse can be disabled and mostly uninstalled but even after that some apps need manual reconfiguring their default audio driver settings. To disable/enable/list rc.d services there is the command chkconfig. To start/stop rc.d services there is the command service.

Given that the new owner of Mandriva appears to be Linagora, maybe Mandragora would be suitable? ;) Mandragora would close the circle started in 1998, since it's an alias for Mandrake... :D

'start' is initially grayed out until you have selected a source file. The window can't be resized, that's how the Handbrake developers made it (I can't change that, I only packaged it up for Mandriva as it is), you could point out that the window size is too big for a netbook on the Handbrake Linux forum, maybe they take that into consideration for the next release: http://forum.handbrake.fr/viewforum.php?f=13 You could also connect the netbook to an external monitor, there you should be able to see the full window. On the other hand an Atom cpu (like in your Acer) would be very slow at transcoding videos anyway.

So much gloomy random speculation, did anyone actually read the article? There are two interested buyers, both of them are open source related companies and both don't have their own distro. Linspire had nowhere near the customer/user base that Mandriva has so the Xandros<>Linspire deal is not comparable at all. While I agree that the free consumer Mandriva distro is not a viable business in itself, the Mandriva enterprise distro and the related products (Pulse2) and the existing enterprise customers could be an ideal complement, especially for Linagora. Here is a better article that clarifies the situation more: http://www.itworld.com/open-source/107324/confirmed-mandriva-acquisition-talks

Why so negative? A new ownership means new breath of live, new opportunities, maybe finally better marketing, so it can only be positive!

Mandriva is up for sale, according to French Mandriva web site www.mandrivalinux-online.org. There appear to be two interested buyers: LightApp and Linagora. I wish HP or IBM would buy Mandriva and make it their in-house Linux distro.

I'm not sure what's wrong there, and at the moment dont have time to investigate, but try installing my package with the following command: rpm -Uvh --nodeps xbmc-9.11-2.0plf2010.0.i586.rpm The mesa dependency is not essential anyway, so it should work fine. Let me know how it goes.

There is no need to manually remove grub entries. When you uninstall the old kernel packages, the package manager will remove the related grub entries automatically.

I had never heard of Songbird before so personally I'll hardly miss it, but according to Wikipedia it's GPL2 software, so if there is any interest someone will fork it and continue Linux developement. With GPL'd software this could actually mean that the forked versions gets better than the original and the original fades into insignificance.

Not at all, as I say in the end of the guide you could place the new binary in /usr/local/bin and then either run it with /usr/local/bin/mplayer explicitly, or make sure /usr/local/bin is before /usr/bin in your PATH environment variable so that Linux will use the new binary automatically instead of the old one.

I have written a step by step guide on how to build Uoti's git MPlayer branch on Mandriva and Ubuntu from source. This fork of mplayer by one of the main developers is the preferred version to use, since it contains many enhanchements that are missing from the official branch. The guide is here: http://www.linuxtech.net/tips+tricks/How_To_Build_Uotis_git_MPlayer_Branch.html It should be easy enough to follow even if you have never built anything from source before. Let me know if anything is unclear.

Ok, didn't know that thanks for correcting me. I still wouldn't choose Ubuntu as a server (and not for a desktop either since on the desktop Mandriva is better), Redhat is the industry standard for Linux servers in a business environment and deservedly so, therefore CentOS (which is a free Redhat clone) is the best choice IMHO. If it has to be a debian style distro then I would choose the original, i.e. Debian, rather than Ubuntu server.

I always use CentOS (i.e. Redhat Enterprise Linux in all but the name) for servers, it's supported for a much longer time than the 2 years Ubuntu LTS releases are (unless you want to guarantee yourself an upgrade fee every two years ;) , but that wouldn't be my style).

If it's for a business and especially if the web site uses any of the popular CMS systems like Drupal, Yoomla, etc. then I would definitely use virtual machines or separate physical servers, since the risk that someone who hacks the web site also gains access to confidential business email is too high.

Separate virtual machines is a lot more admin overhead, but increases security (if done right). Postfix is quite secure by itself and can even be run chrooted so isn't really a security concern. Apache itself is quite secure too, but can be rendered insecure by flawed php scripts, so it depends how you use it. Ultimately it comes down to security versus less admin overhead, only you can decide if your specific intended use needs the extra security or not.

Linux Journal is doing a poll for an upcoming article. Make your choice count: http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/which-linux-distribution-do-you-use-most-frequently-0

For me Suse died when Novell bought them, I never liked Novell and their pact with Microsoft only confirmed my impression I had of them before that already. I'm surprised that IBM hasn't bought themselves a distro yet...

Seems like that hedge fund is a front for Microsoft's interests: http://boycottnovell.com/2010/03/04/analysis-of-elliott-singer-and-sco/