Which XFree86 to use

[raysr]

I had some problems with MDK 9.2 and after I got it going again things don't seem the same. Which XFree86 is normally in MDK? I have XFree86-xfs-43-23. I see there are several versions. Also which version of KDE is common in MDK 9.2? Mine is 3.1.2. I'm trying to sort all this out as I run across it. Thanks in advance.

[SoulSe]

Regardless of the version of Mandrake you run, you should be moving over to Xorg now.

[raysr]

Regardless of the version of Mandrake you run, you should be moving over to Xorg now.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What's "Xorg"?

[SoulSe]

Regardless of the version of Mandrake you run, you should be moving over to Xorg now.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What's "Xorg"?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

http://x.org/

 

In a nutshell: XFree as a project 's development stopped and Xorg continues from where XFree stopped. So, Xorg started out as being identical to XFree and has since continued development. Does that make sense... sorry, not a great explanation. :P

 

You should be able to uninstall XFree and just use urpmi to get Xorg.

[adamw]

Rubbish. You should use the latest official updated package for the distribution version you are using. Ripping something as integral as XFree86 out of 9.2 and replacing it with x.org because x.org is New and Shiny is frankly reckless and irresponsible. The correct X package to be using on 9.2 would be XFree86-4.3-24.6.92mdk , the current X version in the offical 9.2 updates tree. You would not be able to install X.org via urpmi unless you defined a source from a later release of Mandrake or from Cooker. Neither path is recommended, supported or likely to work without causing major system problems.

[SoulSe]

Rubbish. You should use the latest official updated package for the distribution version you are using. Ripping something as integral as XFree86 out of 9.2 and replacing it with x.org because x.org is New and Shiny is frankly reckless and irresponsible. The correct X package to be using on 9.2 would be XFree86-4.3-24.6.92mdk , the current X version in the offical 9.2 updates tree. You would not be able to install X.org via urpmi unless you defined a source from a later release of Mandrake or from Cooker. Neither path is recommended, supported or likely to work without causing major system problems.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

lol

 

I suppose it's 'irresponsible and stupid' to use a vanilla kernel as well? Your attitude resembles that of a Windows user: "Hey guys, don't do anything _they_ say we shouldn't.'

 

For me, Linux is about experimentation and staying ahead of the rest of the computing world, and that means NOT using out-dated packages. XFree is not integral to Mandrake, it is just another package. AND, what you're forgetting is that Xorg IS XFree, the initial code was identical, and it has been developed from there.

 

Whether you use Mandrake 8.2 or 10.1 is irrelvent, you can still use the latest kernel and more recent packages. A guy I used to work with had a box running Red Hat 7 until a few months ago - he used Xorg and kernel 2.6.7 - I guess that was pretty dumb, huh?

[adamw]

X is very integral to a Mandrake system. Sure from *one* perspective it's 'just another package', but everything GUI in a Linux system relies on X in some way, so switching it out for an unsupported version is rather different from switching out gaim, or something.

 

Sure, you CAN use new kernels and x.org and KDE and GNOME and whatever else you like on old versions of Mandrake. If you want to experiment and use up-to-date packages, why don't you just use a newer version of Mandrake? That way you get x.org and kernel 2.6.8 packages *built with* and *tested to work with* the rest of the system, and supported by Mandrake. Isn't that just a heck of a lot more sensible?

 

"A guy I used to work with had a box running Red Hat 7 until a few months ago - he used Xorg and kernel 2.6.7 - I guess that was pretty dumb, huh?"

 

Frankly, yes. Don't tell me he didn't have problems with that setup, because I won't believe you. And what in the heck did he gain over just running Fedora Core?

 

If you use urpmi to get x.org you will obviously need to use a source with x.org in it. This means a 10.1 or Cooker source. Using a 10.1 or Cooker source on a 9.2 system WILL BREAK IT. This is because Mandrakesoft do not enforce or pretend to enforce full version-based dependencies in Mandrake - i.e., the dependencies are checked to be valid only *within* the version that you are using. Mandrake state and endeavour to ensure that any package in a Mandrake version X repository will have absolutely correct provides and requires with regards to *Mandrake version X* - i.e., if you use urpmi to do anything with the packages in Mandrake version X, they will all play nicely and work with each other.

 

However, the dependencies are *not* guaranteed to be correct for Mandrake versions W, Y or Z. For instance, blah may just depend on libfoo, when it fact what it really needs is libfooX.Y. Within one version of Mandrake this is fine, because you *know* what version of libfoo that version of Mandrake contains, and you *know* that blah has been compiled against it. However, say you're using Mandrake 9.2, and you try to install blah from Mandrake 10.1. It will see that libfoo is present and install happily. However, the version of libfoo you have in Mnadrake 9.2 is NOT libfooX.Y. blah will therefore not work or not work properly.

 

This is fact and is frequently acknowledged by Mandrake developers. This is why, if you are using a mix of packages from different versions and you attempt to report a bug on Bugzilla or get support from Mandrake, it will not be accepted and you will be advised to use one single version of Mandrake.

 

THIS is why I said it was reckless to advise some to 'just use urpmi to get x.org'. The unavoidable inference from that advice is that the user should start mixing Mandrake versions, and the unavoidable consequence of that is *trouble*. Yes, you can work around this trouble yourself, if you're handy at reverting package installs, building stuff from source and hacking config files. No, it is *not* a good idea to suggest this as the 'best' way to proceed to someone asking the question that was asked at the start of this thread. Unless you know better you should assume that someone wants a tested, reliable, working and supported system, and in THAT case the best advice is to USE THE MANDRAKE 9.2 PACKAGES. End of story.

[SoulSe]

X is very integral to a Mandrake system. Sure from *one* perspective it's 'just another package', but everything GUI in a Linux system relies on X in some way, so switching it out for an unsupported version is rather different from switching out gaim, or something.

True, but it's not integral. Your system is not compromised if X is not running and it can not, therefore, be integral.

 

Sure, you CAN use new kernels and x.org and KDE and GNOME and whatever else you like on old versions of Mandrake. If you want to experiment and use up-to-date packages, why don't you just use a newer version of Mandrake? That way you get x.org and kernel 2.6.8 packages *built with* and *tested to work with* the rest of the system, and supported by Mandrake. Isn't that just a heck of a lot more sensible?

 

"A guy I used to work with had a box running Red Hat 7 until a few months ago - he used Xorg and kernel 2.6.7 - I guess that was pretty dumb, huh?"

 

Frankly, yes. Don't tell me he didn't have problems with that setup, because I won't believe you. And what in the heck did he gain over just running Fedora Core?

He retains stability and does not have to reinstall an OS. You're overlooking the obvious: it's easier to upgrade packages then it is to completely install a new OS (or version thereof). So NO, he is NOT stupid, he just sticks with what he likes, and keeps it up to date. And no, he doesn't have any problems. Linux is mission-critical to his business, so he'd rather keep the box working and up to date then completely reinstall everything (NOT the Linux way).

 

Newer distributions like Gentoo and Ubuntu have package managers that keep up with this - install once and then just upgrade. Neat, but you can do that with older distros to, if you know what you're doing.

 

There is a rift forming in the Linux community - those who are using it as a Windows substitute and nothing more and those who see it's true beauty and embrace it. There is nothing wrong with using Linux merely as a Windows substitute - but then don't expect it to act like Windows and treat it like it does. Mandrake are moving away from what Linux is all about and, IMHO, are losing the edge in doing so.

[adamw]

Actually, you can maintain a perfectly working Mandrake box for a long time without reinstalling and have it completely up to date. I run Cooker on both my machines, I use Cooker RPM sources exclusively, I update them daily and they work fine. My laptop has not had a reinstall since 9.0. You can upgrade between Mandrake versions with urpmi, as well; I've done it from 9.0 to 9.1, 9.1 to 9.2, and 10.0 to 10.1. Ubuntu is hardly new so far as package management goes; it's based on debian, which has had an 'install once, upgrade forever' system for years. With Debian you can usually mix packages from the various repositories (stable, testing, unstable) without *too* many problems; this is because Debian DOES enforce dependencies that are tested to work between repositories. Even so, you can still have trouble, and if you start using *non*-official repositories, you will still break your system.

 

As I explained, you can't rely on this with Mandrake. As I explained, Mandrake development is entirely based around the stable release every six months. Don't like this? Fine, that's your point of view, and maybe you'd be better off running Debian. However, pretending it's not true is only going to cause you trouble. I wasn't suggesting the way Mandrake is is perfect; I was simply explaining that it *is* the way Mandrake is, and that not treating it this way will cause bad consequences.

 

"He retains stability and does not have to reinstall an OS."

 

Frankly, if you update the kernel and X (and I guess he updated his DE as well, as nothing from Red Hat 7 is likely to cut the mustard today), you're already messing with everything that's going to cause your system to be unstable. And you're doing it on your own. Have fun!

 

I never suggested you should reinstall every six months. How you update between versions of Mandrake is entirely up to you, and it certainly doesn't need to involve reinstalling. Indeed, contrary to your assertion, Mandrake is getting *better* in this regard - since 10.0, much more attention has been paid to testing the DrakX 'update' option and the functionality of updating between versions using urpmi (prior to 10.0, it was a bit of a nightmare, albeit possible). I simply suggested that, for very good and incontrovertible reasons, mixing packages from different releases of Mandrake is a very good way to cause massive system problems.

Edited December 6, 2004 by adamw