MAR
20
2005

Ark Linux 2005.1 Released with KDE 3.4

Following the trend of distributions scheduling themselves around KDE releases, Ark Linux has released their first stable version, Ark Linux 2005.1. The goal of Ark Linux is to build the easiest to use GNU/Linux distribution while keeping it technically sane.

Ark Linux 2005.1 is built around the latest desktop technologies, including KDE 3.4, OpenOffice.org 1.1.4 (a preview of 2.0 is also available on the Ark Extra Software CD), glibc 2.3.4, X.Org 6.8.2 and Linux 2.6.11.

The base install CD of Ark Linux contains everything the average desktop user will need - other tools such as compilers and development programmes,
additional games and support for additional languages are available on the
extra CD images "Ark Development Suite", "Ark Extra Software", "Ark Server
Software" and "Ark Extra Languages", and of course in our large online
package repository, easily accessed through the Kynaptic GUI. Experienced
users can use the "apt-get" tool to install software from the repository on
the command line.

Ark Linux 2005.1 can be downloaded from arklinux.org using ftp,
http, BitTorrent or EDonkey.

Comments

Looks really, really good. Any problems with SUSE (probably arising from former ximian camp), and i'm going for ark instantly.

KDE is probably the only truly free OSS desktop environment at the moment. It's relatively trivial to set it up with any Linux/BSD system, and you get a decent desktop experience with it out of the box. GNOME, as it is today, requires tons of experienced developer time to polish it up to be good enough for daily use. Shame, really.


By Anonymous Coward at Sun, 2005/03/20 - 6:00am

"KDE is probably the only truly free OSS desktop environment at the moment."

Eh? Are you living in a cave somewhere? What about GNOME?


By Mike at Sun, 2005/03/20 - 6:00am

You have to sacrifice usability and compatibility in order to use GNOME. :-p


By Aaron Krill at Sun, 2005/03/20 - 6:00am

> Eh? Are you living in a cave somewhere? What about GNOME?

Finish reading the last sentence, thank you.


By Anonymous Coward at Mon, 2005/03/21 - 6:00am

Gnome is of course "truly open source". But I would agree that KDE is the only choice :-) It just has all the productivity tools that a professional web developer needs - and in my profession, no other DE offers the same level of network integration from the get go.


By m0ns00n at Mon, 2005/03/21 - 6:00am

KDE is free Open Source Software, whereas GNOME is only Free Software according to RMS of GNU fame (the G in GNOME). Please note the subtle distinction.


By ac at Mon, 2005/03/21 - 6:00am

Or is using KDE 3.4 a bad idea at this point. I'm running it now, and it seems to me that 3.4 Beta 2 was MUCH more stable than this...

Kopete keeps freezing. Konqueror keeps freezing. Memory leaks are everywhere. its a massacre!


By Aaron Krill at Sun, 2005/03/20 - 6:00am

100% you have some buggy install or underlying problem.


By Davide Ferrari at Sun, 2005/03/20 - 6:00am

Must just be your installation, but it seems rock solid here.


By Gary Greene at Sun, 2005/03/20 - 6:00am

Strange. But these kind of comments seem to appear for every release of KDE. And every time they were wrong, at least on my PC.

I thought all PC:s were fairly compatible. What equipment do these guys use?


By KDE User at Tue, 2005/03/22 - 6:00am

I'm a developer and I'm currently using Mandrake. I would like to consider Ark Linux for my future distro. Is it suitable, or only recommended for newbies looking for ease of use?

I currently use LVM and ReiserFS and have certain requirements for what my partitions look like, etc, etc.

All in all Ark Linux looks stunning from the screenshots, I just want to figure out if a non-neophyte will be able to tolerate it. Thanks and good work!


By ac at Sun, 2005/03/20 - 6:00am

At present the installer doesn't allow for that level of partitioning. I've been designing a rethought out installer, however I can't take care of this until this summer when College lets out. We love to see more developers help us on this distro though.


By Gary Greene at Sun, 2005/03/20 - 6:00am

Reminds me of the old phrase:
"Make a product that even an idiot can use, and only an idiot will want to."
Without an advanced option to install I can not use ARK, even though it looks the best of any distro for my needs.


By jimwelch at Mon, 2005/03/21 - 6:00am

I'm working on a new installer, sinc that seems to be the one complaint that I hear over and over. However, I would request that other developers help with this as well, since I'm a college undergrad and cannot devote all my time to working on it. If you're insterested in helping with the installer, email me.


By Gary Greene at Mon, 2005/03/21 - 6:00am

I'd go for Kubuntu. debian is perfect for developers. need an obscure library? almost sure apt-get has it.


By superstoned at Mon, 2005/03/21 - 6:00am

Yeah but Debian hasn't had a stable release in years and requires too much fiddling. A developer does not necessarily want to be a systems administrator in his spare time. This is why the Ark Linux claim of being easy to use while being technically sane is interesting.

I don't know about Kubuntu.


By ac at Mon, 2005/03/21 - 6:00am

well, Kubuntu won't be much harder (if at all) to use as ark linux, has a very stable core (debian) but is very up-to-date, and offers all benefits debian has to offer.


By superstoned at Mon, 2005/03/21 - 6:00am

How can it offer a stable but up-to-date core of Debian when that doesn't even exist?


By ac at Mon, 2005/03/21 - 6:00am

Please learn what 'stable', 'testing', and 'unstable' mean within the Debian jargon set before you start to make claims about not having a stable release. I have been running Debian 'testing' for some time now and it is VERY stable and is only a LITTLE laggy when it comes to getting new or upgraded software. The only time I have had any problems with it, is when I got greedy and decided to install a package from 'unstable' and it happened to cause a problem. Now, I use 'stable' for my server box, because I don't care when a new version of KDE comes out for it. It just needs to run mysql, apache and php. It gets the security patches and it keeps running strong. No worries, because I am not running anything new or not tried and tested. It is STABLE as in UNCHANGING. That is the idea of Debian 'stable', an unchanging platform on which you can rely. 'Unstable' is the first major distribution where things go. Then after meeting some criteria it graduates to 'testing'. Then when a new 'stable' is getting near, the doors to 'testing' are shut and things are nailed down. Then the new 'stable' becomes the solid 'testing' then 'testing' opens up for changes again and the process begins again.

Debian rules!
Apt RULES!


By Jonathan Dietrich at Mon, 2005/03/21 - 6:00am

So, after all your pointless ranting, what's the summary?

Debian hasn't had a up-to-date 'stable' release in many years, which is my point.

'Unstable' is unstable and can break things (see http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/reference/ch-system.en.html#s-unstable). People think it's fun to apt things every day and end up with a broken system. That's fine but it's not for me anymore.

All I want is stable and up-to-date which Ark Linux gives me.


By ac at Mon, 2005/03/21 - 6:00am

use 'testing', not 'unstable', not 'stable'


By Jonathan Dietrich at Mon, 2005/03/21 - 6:00am

I see. So it seems 'testing' vs 'stable' in Debian is comparable to Fedora vs RedHat. Thanks for clearing that up. When was the latest release of 'testing'?


By ac at Mon, 2005/03/21 - 6:00am

'testing' is a rolling distribution that is not released in a traditional fashion. As individual pieces are found to work correctly in the 'unstable' distribution, and after they have met the required criteria, then these individual packages are released into 'testing'. So every weekend when I do my apt-get update, apt-get upgrade, I get the newest available packages from 'testing'

The only Debian distribution that has real releases is 'stable'.


By Jonathan Dietrich at Mon, 2005/03/21 - 6:00am

My head hurts. :D


By ac at Tue, 2005/03/22 - 6:00am

It seem that you know even less about RedHat than you do about debian.


By Kane at Thu, 2005/03/24 - 6:00am

What the heck makes you think that something produced by one undergrad is going to be "stable and up-to-date"? Sheesh.


By Kane at Thu, 2005/03/24 - 6:00am

And also, I think Ark Linux has APT anyway.


By ac at Mon, 2005/03/21 - 6:00am

the so-called 'unstable' version of debian is more stable than ark-linux's stable release can hope to be. No linux system can even dream of being half as stable as debian-stable is.

if you're used to suse, mandrake and the other major distributions, debian-unstable or debian-testing will be at least as stable as the official versions these distributions have to offer.

That's why Kubuntu is much better for a developer.


By superstoned at Mon, 2005/03/21 - 6:00am

"debian-unstable or debian-testing will be at least as stable as the official versions these distributions have to offer."

I would agree for the most part, but it is unfortunately comments like these that can lead to problems.

'testing' is the way to go, unless you must always have the bleeding edge and are willing to deal with the bleeding that comes when 'unstable' actually is UNSTABLE with broken packages and the like, (though it doesn't tend to stay that way for long).

'testing' is often not far behind 'unstable' and is MUCH more friendly. I have had NO issues since I have stuck with 'testing'.


By Jonathan Dietrich at Mon, 2005/03/21 - 6:00am

An important thing to note is that security updates for testing are NOT managed by the security team. testing may also have release critical bugs present.


By Anonymous at Mon, 2005/03/21 - 6:00am

When it comes to using Debian for a desktop that is connected to the Internet, only 'unstable' will do.

If you were to use 'stable', the backports that you would be tempted to use would render your system less stable than 'unstable'.

If you were to use 'testing', you would really have to monitor the security web site / mailing list and be prepared to take your system off line when something serious comes along.

You will also find that in addition to the large official repository, 'unstable' has the largest number of third-party packages available (if you use those, you will probably have some trouble eventually though).

And it is not in any way unstable, at least by desktop standards. Just use it. Yes, it will take a little bit of knowledge.


By Martin at Thu, 2005/03/24 - 6:00am

What kind of developer judges a distro by screenshots? And if you do go by screenshots, the one that says "Multiple logical devices can be assoziated with a single piece of hardware" doesn't offer much confidence in quality control.


By Kane at Thu, 2005/03/24 - 6:00am

"The goal of Ark Linux is to build the easiest to use GNU/Linux distribution while keeping it technically sane"

I don't want to flame a new discussion here but if you look for free, KDE based and easiest to use GNU/Linux distribution, you should also consider Turkix . But as for the "technically sane" argument, I have nothing to say.. Just look at these screenshots;

http://www.turkix.org/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=15&page=2
http://www.turkix.org/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=36


By piano at Sun, 2005/03/20 - 6:00am

Seems to be all in Turkish. That's probably no option for most people. Turkix is probably a localized Turkish Linux distro that also happens to have nice looking screenshots.


By chakie at Tue, 2005/03/22 - 6:00am

< probably a localized ... Linux distro

Isn't Linux wonderful? No more monopolies.


By KDE User at Tue, 2005/03/22 - 6:00am

I'm fascinated by how someone can look at a collection of screenshots, some in English and some in Turkish, and write "Seems to all be in Turkish." Take a look again at
http://www.turkix.org/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=36

and then consider getting your glasses (or your brain) replaced.


By Kane at Thu, 2005/03/24 - 6:00am

I strongly believe in supoprting small businesses and giving startups a chance in this world of total corparatization and globalization. When using Linux I use Suse (now Novell, hence corparatized), and I would like to know what advantages there are to using a startup like ArkLinux instead.

Specifically, what kind of program packages can be used with Ark (debian or RedHat I presume?)? If, for example, Ark is redhat-based, then does it keep in sync with them for program installation purposes? Does Ark make system maintainace as easy as YAST?

What scares me about diving into a new distribution is worries about package installation. I do not use Linux extensively these days:-( but really want to; installing/removing programs remains a big issue for me. I want to jut be able to download e.g., Xine and have it work without fighting dependencies etc. Suse will probably be easier to deal with in this regard, but I want to remain open to other possibilities. I just don't have the time to spend weeks fighting to configure my distribution.

The Ark Website does not seem to answer these questions. Can someone in the know provide some information to these and related questions?

Idris


By Idris Samawi Hamid at Mon, 2005/03/21 - 6:00am


By matt at Tue, 2005/03/22 - 6:00am

apt-get / synaptic works with Ark and AFAIK is installed by default.


By Kanwar at Tue, 2005/03/22 - 6:00am

Ark comes only with Kynaptic by default, and you better "apt-get install synaptic" immediately.


By Anonymous at Tue, 2005/03/22 - 6:00am

*sigh* yet another pointless K naming scheme


By Ricky at Tue, 2005/03/22 - 6:00am

What is your KDE app called then?


By ac at Tue, 2005/03/22 - 6:00am

how about synaptic-kde?


By Ricky at Wed, 2005/03/23 - 6:00am

Too long and pointlessly verbose, IMHO. How about synaptiK or even Kynaptic? Both of these make the intention obvious and are kuite kute.


By ac at Wed, 2005/03/23 - 6:00am

I know Gnome does the 'G' naming scheme to a lesser extent, why does nearly every program need the 'K' somewhere inserted. can't you be orginal with orginal names without having a similar ktitle?


By Ricky at Wed, 2005/03/23 - 6:00am

Who the frack cares. Grow up...


By ac at Wed, 2005/03/23 - 6:00am

don't do it if you don't want to see yourself compiling alot of the packages you want. ark doesn't have such a huge repository of software debian or fedora have. and its rpm based, so you'll run into dependencie troubles for sure, if you install non-offical packages (eg segfaults and the like).

if you want a huge database of easy-to-install software, go for (K)ubuntu or debian itself.

ark is nice, but I rather see people working on an ubuntu-like project (keep in touch with your roots, contribute back to mommy) instead of reall forks or fully do-it-yourself distro's. thats quite an duplication of efforts. Ark has some cool things, but if they would implement these on top of debian, they'll have a lot less work just keeping their software up-to-date and testing it, so they can work on their installer and configuration software.

the first gentoo'ers should have done the same, imho. extend apt with the features they wanted, instead of doing all this work, while only a fraction of it is original and good (emerge and some tools surrounding it). THEY should have created apt-source...


By superstoned at Wed, 2005/03/23 - 6:00am

FUD and lies. I'm a developer using Mandrake which is RPM based with rpmfind.net and I have no such troubles you are talking about. Debian on the other hand has much larger troubles:
http://lists.userlinux.com/pipermail/discuss/2005-February/007223.html

With Debian you'll likely find yourself in a never-ending cycle of updates, no security and constant breakages. Forget trying to develop on this mess and deploying it to other distributions that are actually USED by people.


By ac at Wed, 2005/03/23 - 6:00am

> With Debian you'll likely find yourself in a never-ending cycle of updates, no security and constant breakages.

That's completely untrue as far as Debian stable is concerned. The exact opposite is true. The link you posted talks about the development version. But I guess you knew that.


By cm at Wed, 2005/03/23 - 6:00am

Yes, stable is so out of date for development it's not even worth talking about here. Sorry. You Just Can't Have It Both Ways! Why don't Debian folks understand this?


By ac at Wed, 2005/03/23 - 6:00am

Pages