aRTee

From googles cache: http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:MovN0...&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 Against agreement, MandrakeSoft have changed the address mandrakeuser.org to point to the mandrakeclub, hence the cache use....

K3B does dvd burning just fine, including dvd+rw rewriting. Note that in fact, one could put an arbitrary filesystem (incl ext3 or reiser4) on dvd+rw. The only reason why this isn't very practical is that the media can only be rewritten 1000 times (approximately). Find more info here: http://fy.chalmers.se/~appro/linux/DVD+RW/ (includes info on dvd+mrw, why + is better than - at least from a technical standpoint, and more)

iph, maybe you download isos with p2p like bittorrent or edonkey - in which case, the file integrity is already checked. Try downloading a large file from ftp, resuming with a not so kosher ftp client, and all that under win98. Wanna bet your md5sum isn't ok? Aside that, I haven't had an incorrect md5sum on Linux AFAIR, downloading from ftp mirrors or whereever (or with bittorrent).

I keep hearing this about the shere number of packages, but what numbers are we talking exactly? I mean, with urpmi I can install more than is useful to me, I seldomly cant find something that I read about on the web or elsewhere, and in those cases it's usually something that just became usable and just hasn't been packaged yet.... I made a comparison between SUSE and Mdk once, to find no big differences. So how many packages are there for Debian? How many GB of software?

I don't know what you mean by suggested dependencies, but if you mean that urpmi may indicate that to solve a dependency there are two (or more) possibitlities, and one has/gets to choose, urpmi does that.

I'd be interested in more info on how NeroLinux compares to K3B. What features does it have extra, what does it lack? From the screenshots and info on the website, it looks very similar in functionality. I wonder if it can actually do anything interesting that K3B cannot. It's nice to see Nero taking Linux more seriously, but frankly, I think it's a bit late...

? What's the question? If one can install lots of packages in one command? (answer: yes, sure)

I think that YAST should be working fine as long as the packages are made in the right way. I know that with SUSE many are using apt4rpm, since that's how many repositories are set up, so it may be that this repo is just not done properly for YAST...? I would look for the issues here with the packages, not the tools (YAST in this case). In any case, PLF is also third party to Mdk/urpmi, and that still works fine.

pm = packman? I remember I installed the packman packages fine with SUSE / YAST, and everything worked ok after that.

Ok, I take that back - didn't use SUSE all that long: But with proper use of urpmi, you would never have ended up with the problems in the first place. Oh, and you do file bugreports with SUSE about his I hope? I mean, the errors clearly indicate that YAST is not working properly.

Hey, is this still mandrakeusers.org?? :D Whatabout Mdk - it's there, beta for 10.2 right now, there will be a final too. They even mentioned it runs fine on minimac...

About the computer not being yours: it's not about the OEM license or EULA, it's about you not being in control of what code the system executes. You're not in control, since you have no way what runs. Example: what exactly was listening at the ports that the recent worms were getting in through? (Slammer, MSBlaster, etc) Why was there a service listening and acting there? I'm not implying that MS was actually doing bad things (though for all I know, they may be), just that a MSWin machine does a lot of things the 'owner' doesn't approve of or desire. Put in another way: who owns a computer? The one in control of what software gets executed. On an MSWin machine, that's the user as long as MSWin doesn't get in the way, and MSWin itself. On a side note, don't use words like 'enslave' and such - you claim you don't want to convert anyone, but it sure doesn't sound like it... People don't feel like they are getting 'enslaved' so that doesn't work well.

It should be perfectly possible to use apt4rpm on Mandrakelinux, heck, it's in contrib - the irony: you can urpmi it! :P In the same vein, since urpmi and related tools are just a bunch of perl scripts, I don't think it's really hard to port to SUSE - you just need the directory structure. As for repositories, the urpmi tools can create the (synthesis) hdlists - see the manpages. On a side note, urpmi has been ported to RH/FC. For linux_learner, the apt -f option is essential, since he installed with rpm -U, instead of using urpmi, and only apt -f can fix that in one single command. Note that I agree that in that case it's powerful. It's just a case that should not occur with proper and consistent use. Which is my point: it is not in any way essential or important to urpmi users - they will never have a need for it. So for most people, apt is not more powerful than urpmi and has no features they need that urpmi doesn't provide. For people who mess up their system, apt -f can be the easiest way to fix the system they broke. Note that it's very well possible to install a whole load of rpms with rpm -U and have lots of things not working, whilst not knowing what package(s) are at the root of the problem. If apt -f does what I now think it does (as per all info that I've seen/read and that's been mentioned about it), this indeed is much better than urpme followed by urpmi - because in the latter case, you have to know what exact package(s) is/are the problem. So for people who mess up their system and break it, apt with the infamous -f option is the way to go. It's a bit like taking a snorkel when you're going swimming up shit creek, really good to have if you're the type to get yourself into that type of trouble (the really immersed into sh!t-type). Others just don't go swimming there so they eye the snorkel weirdly: "hey, why the snorkel?" Naturally, the snorkeler will say it's really powerful and will come in damn handy! And from where he's standing, he's perfectly right. :D Well, you're the one mixing urpmi with rpm commands. Lesson to learn: never install with rpm if you're on a urpmi system. Lastly: I have seen issues when installing and then running apps - in those cases it always turned out to be a package with incorrect dependency info - for instance, on Mdk10.1OE, pathological doesn't (didn't) have py_game as a dependency listed, so it didn't work. I sent an email to the packager, I hope this will be solved in newer versions.

So you mess up your system by using rpm -Uvh which cannot do dependency resolution (you messed up, not the system), and apt helped clean up the mess. Very good. But with proper use (urpmi, yast, etc) you would never have ended up with the problem in the first place. I understand - you're saying that apt can fix a system that has been maltreated - I guess that with urpmi one would have to deinstall that package, then urpmi it to get all dependencies installed/upgraded, and all would be fine too. Advantage to apt for those who mistreat their system. Though, this does contrast strongly with what you said before about there having been no issues with the package, mirror, developer, etc and not knowing where the problem was....

a fair question. simple. after the install with yast, urpmi, what not, apt detected it as broken, i then had apt fix it. Wow, you actually ported urpmi to SUSE, or yast to Mandrakelinux? Great work! :D Sorry for bringing this up, but consistency is killing me. Or rather, the lack thereof. Anyway, you did the install with urpmi (yast, whatnot) and then apt detected it as broken and you used the now nigh infamous -f option to fix things? I think urpmi is buggy, it shouldn't have installed. You filed the bugreport? Or the package was buggy, but then, how could apt have fixed it? It wouldn't possibly get more info from the rpm? Well, since it happened to you, and not to Gowator and me, we are the exception? And if you read up on the forum here, you don't see all that many people with those urpmi issues, so I don't think there's a solid ground for the claim that Gowator and me are the exception here either. Note that I'm not saying there are no such issues, just that they are not the rule. You know what, from this I gather that you didn't use it. All those other 'more powerful making options' that mdk with urpmi lacks, you also didn't use, except the -f option. So they are not in any way essential, or you would have had to use them. Nor are they, by the same logic, important. After getting urpmi there, emerge shouldn't be that hard, should it? :D Ah, it's getting light in here. You know, you could have gotten that from the very quote you yourself posted... I apologise for my sarcasm - think of it as therapy... :P Anyway: It does i believe, <snip> Well, I'd say that cooker is unstable, (10.1) Official Edition is between testing and unstable, Community as well, but closer to testing, and Corporate Desktop is more like stable...

Hey, good that you emailed them! More Linux users should do that. Whichever drive you buy, it may help if you also let the other brands know that you didn't choose their drive for reasons of Linux unfriendlyness. I mean, it's one thing to not support Linux, but it's another to have firmware updates that can only be used under windows - instead of using the tried and true method of DOS bootfloppy updating. Actually, I have done just that when I bought my Epson scanner, I emailed them to thank them for making drivers possible (they don't mention Linux on the box, but at least their hardware works great with Linux), and I got a nice response. And I emailed the competitor Canon, to tell them they lost a sale. Well, no response on that one,.... :D On the 'one standard' point of the companies: sure, they want one standard only: theirs. Don't forget, those who's standard gets 'chosen' (in whatever way, by the market, by the producers, whatever) are the ones who will be collecting royalties. For video-dvd players, it's 5 dollars or 5% of the end price (whichever is more) that they have to pay to the dvd-forum; then each disc brings in money. Same for dvd-, dvd+, etc.. Luckily there were 2 camps with dvd (re)writable technology (well 3 really, but I'm just not counting dvd-ram), and luckily there are 2 camps for the next generation of optical disc technology: bluray and hd-dvd. I say: "Game on!" Whichever you buy, enjoy your burner!

Ok, more seriously. Yeah, that's aimed at the reader too, please read carefully! Or you might miss the point. So, linux_learner has written the following (not in chronological order), about apt vs urpmi: ok. thats my point, and by that consession, i win. that was my point. the rest has been a misunderstanding. ... i have even told you that i have used the -f feature and that it works. you still dont get it. ... on the contrary, you refuted the claim, which is to discredit. ... i do use the -f feature. saved me a lot of grief many times. maybe i explain it poorly, but i do use it. for example, i had installed limewire on my own (in rpm form). apt said it was broken. is limewire a dep? then i rest my case on that. by the way, i did already have j2re installed. so see, it wasnt a dep, it was a package. limewire is now fixed. again. last time. all i was ever saying, more features equals more powerfull. i do realize your point iphitus. that more features isnt always better, but then that isnt the case with apt. ... i wont disagree my experience is out of date with urpmi. ... i never said urpmi wasnt an equivalent. i just said i think apt is better because it has more features, so its more powerfull. ... i'm not evangelizing apt. i'm not trying to sell it. ... aRTee, i would recomend trying out apt yourself. read the howtos, the man pages, the info pages, the faq's and play with it. try it out and see what you think. ... you havent paid attention. how many times have i said i dont run mdk anymore? (Well, up to that specific post, I don't think even once... you just mentioned you use SUSE, which doesn't exclude also using mdk; I know I have run both at the same time (time sharing), see for instance my suse review...) about knowledge of and experience with urpmi and apt: more about more options being more powerful: .... whereas my position is, as I have mentioned, that 'powerful' implies: having more essential and important features, and I think others agree with me on this... shout out if you don't! ... and about the one option that has been identified as an option that urpmi probably/possibly doesn't have, the -f option. No, "we all know" is at most all except me. This has never happened to me with consistent use of urpmi. I take it comments from Gowator imply that he too disagrees with the 'we all know' statement. Don't put words in my mouth. Note also that the other option that apt has and urpmi lacks is not accepted by linux_learner as an argument in support of the superiority claim of apt, since he has no experience with it, and so it's not what he hinted at with his superiority claim: Naturally, on mdk you can install srpm's by using rpm --rebuild, so that wouldn't necessarily make a urpmi based system (mdk and derivatives) lacking in features, just different. So that really leaves the -f option as the only one supporting the claim that apt is more powerful. And we should now, based on these comments, all be convinced that apt / apt4rpm is more powerful than urpmi. Right. Not. Well, I have some comments on the -f option. Let's look at what it does according to what we (think we) know, and why urpmi's lack of it makes urpmi the inferior tool (or apt the superior, but one implies the other by definition). First, we have the quote from the apt manpage, which tells us the -f option may be necessary the first time apt is used. Ok, no such need on urpmi. Furthermore: Ok, so you don't know what made the package not install properly with urpmi / yast, but you do know that it wasn't the mirror, not the developer, as as far as I can guess, you thereby imply it's not the package.... Well, I hope you filed a bugreport, because with all those things being ok, urpmi should have had no issue to install the requested rpm. Next, how can you know that the cases where urpmi / yast couldn't manage to install a package are equal to the cases where apt first couldn't, but with the -f switch suddenly could? There is no basis for that assumption. My guess about urpmi failing: if it wasn't the mirror or the developer or the package, and it wasn't a bug in urpmi, it was the user. Note: I actually haven't seen a case where urpmi was used properly and consistently and still a package couldn't be installed. Could be me though, I only have and administrate 5 machines with mdk, 1 server, 1 laptop and the rest desktops. So what do I know. No, I said that apt may have some options that urpmi may not have, and that urpmi likely has options that apt doesn't have. Not that in either case it would be so important as to proclaim one more powerful or superior than the other. Which is my whole point... they differ, but none is really better than the other. I don't care for counting options, I just wanted to hear what functionality one has that the other doesn't. You're the one with the fixation on different options impying more powerful, not anyone else, not even apt4rpm people. And actually, the faq of apt4rpm states as much, as already quoted by linux_learner: This states clearly that the people behind apt4rpm consider it comparable. Not superior, not more powerful. Please, either substanciate the claims of powerful features, or accept the statement that "apt / apt4rpm and urpmi are equivalent." Rats, now adamw has come up with a feature that urpmi has and apt lacks. Should I now rewrite the above statement that urpmi is more powerful? Well, no. Since to most users, this will hardly be an essential or important feature (remember, my criteria for labeling something 'more powerful'), I won't. Instead I'll rephrase it: "apt / apt4rpm and urpmi are equivalent, unless one is in a situation where --parallel is a useful option."

[comic relief mode on once more] For those who just tuned in, I'd like to summarise how the apt vs urpmi debate got fired up and is getting toned down - but not quite over yet... 1. statement about apt being more powerful and having more options; basically, the reader is confronted with the idea that it's actually silly to argue against this, urpmi should reasonably make way for apt. Grounds: some quotes related to apt vs rpm. 2. request for clarification, apt should be compared to urpmi, no? 3. hint to download teh intarweb and read it. Whole. Well, just some apt pages, faq's and such, but until one finds proof of statement 1 - if one hasn't found proof, one simply hasn't read enough 4. upon pressing for more exact clarification and proof about statement 1, since reading teh intarweb wholly didn't lead to clear proof or even clues, statement 1 gets repeated. 5. finally, some exact functions / options of apt get mentioned that urpmi supposedly lacks 6. simple demonstration that a urpmi / apt-less system does not lack the functionality of point 5 7. well, one option, -f to be exact, seems unclear in functionality, maybe something there, but it doesn't seem an important functionality 8. rebuttal with old urpmi manpage - no go, there's really not a big difference 9. statement that still apt has more options, and therefore we must agree it is more powerful than urpmi 10. rebuttal that more options doesn't equal more powerful 11. agreement on 10, but with remark that for apt, there's an exception - there it is valid that more options imply more powerfulness. These points are exaggerated, but only slightly. The reader is invited to start at the beginning and read the whole thread through. :P [comic relief mode off] Maybe I will be more seriously later, if time permits..

Put less quotes in your post, they will render - I can put my 7:51 post content here and you can spread your content over your 7.42 and 7:52 posts - that should do it.

[comic relief mode on] linux_learner, are you in any way affiliated with or related to Daryl McBride or SCO? I find similarities in your way of claiming things and how you then back those claims. And I'm think I know how the IBM lawyers must be feeling.... I'm happy iph and others are filling in for me. If ever it is shown beyond reasonable doubt that apt is the more powerful tool, I'll read about it in the paper. Potentially next to the headline "SCO won, IBM to pay billions in damages".... [comic relief mode off - sorry, couldn't resist] Edit: iph, there's a limited number of quote tags allowed, which is why it doesn't work in your post..

Well, I'm getting a bit tired of this walk around the bushes and trees. Check the recent urpmi manpage - the one you point to is dated 2002, the recent one I have on my 10.1 OE has many more contributors at the end: Just put #urpmi in your konqueror location field and you'll see. So, please read the manpage, you'll find the --clean option, that is normally not necessary because by default urpmi cleans up. We can surely blame Mandrakesoft for having an old manpage on the web, but knowing Mandrakesoft this should hardly surprise us, should it? I mean, the supported hardware database isn't all that up to date either. Well you have me there. I wouldn't know in what cases apt can recover, and why other tools can't just do their job. Bit unknown, and frankly, not a very strong argument, as it is stated in the apt manpage: I doubt seriously that in the cases where urpmi could not manage, apt can manage. If you read this info on the -f switch, it hardly seems to be that way. I think you're comparing situations of yum, yast and urpmi that were due to too broken systems/packages to situations that were not too broken for apt. In any case, it seems clear to me that this feature/option should normally never be necessary, if the repository files/packages are set up properly. In that sense, the fact as stated in the quoted part of the manpage that sometimes this is necessary for apt when running it for the first time is hardly a positive point. So in my book, not necessarily a plus for apt. With a good repository, it should not be necessary, and as stated in the quote, one may have to resort to other commands like dselect and dpkg. With urpmi, there's also --allow-nodeps, --allow-force and such. No, you stated as a matter of fact that apt is more powerful and has more options, in a way that implied that you knew exactly what those more powerful features are, and as if that will make a whole big difference. I agree that there may be some things that apt can do that urpmi can't, but this is also true vice versa (you have not yet commented on that - but in a like vein I could say that the point of Buchan Milne, which I conveniently can't find on slashdot, makes urpmi 'more powerful'). So there I don't see why apt should be considered more powerful. Can you tell me why I should do that? I believe it's the equivalent of urpmi. Which works fine for me, so I see no point in finding out for myself. I can tell from what I've seen on friends' machines and from the manpage that it's a great tool. No, you need to back up your statement about apt being more powerful with some good evidence. I never made any statement that I haven't backed up. You did. Sorry, this is not the right form of debate. I don't have to jump from a plane without a parachute to realise that would not be a healty idea. I do think I have been very true to proper debate form, and I feel you haven't. You have started out by making a claim about which you later stated you don't know all that much, then still insist it is correct, without having anything serious to back it up. It's taken you lots of replies to finally figure out some minor point, which actually should never happen, and I have never seen it happen on urpmi. Not very strong. Well, maybe I'm too thick, all I ask is that you put some beef to your remark, and I have rebutted practically all of your points, some of which weren't so strong to begin with, and in doing so I have shown that you don't know urpmi all that well. Then you quote a 2002 urpmi page, sorry, it's 2005 and the thing was potentially not even up to date at that time - documentation gets written after the code. So again, there's nothing essential or important that apt does that urpmi can't do, and there are some differences between the two, none that make one tool more powerful than the other. I didn't make that up, and I don't have to read any manpages, you're the one who claimed that apt is more powerful, I'm just saying (as are some others) that it isn't. It's up to you to substanciate your claims, not up to me to find out if they are true or not - I never claimed anything about apt. It just annoys me to see that statement get repeated over and over again, without any practical proof. It's belittling to the Mandrake urpmi developers. Honor where honor is due. Note: I have not ever seen any claim to fame from apt proponents against urpmi held up after more close inspection. This discussion included.

Motherboard not supporting Linux, from Compaq?? Darn, that's bad, if true... Could you try with a live cd?

Happy for you! Enjoy Linux!

I had a look and must admit: I have the options greyed out too. So if anyone knows, please tell. Same goes for the ebook reader question!

Hey, a new member who solves his own problems! A double welcome to Adrian!! Enjoy Linux, and don't hesitate to ask! Oh, don't hesitate to solve things yourself either. And help others with their issues! :D