Linux.com

At smtp properties:

* Gerenal TAB
-> smtp.gmail.com
-> port: 465
-> login w/ gmail.com

* Security TAB
-> SSL
-> Plain

----

The wizard is not able to configure it, so I actually had to try out many combinations - thanks to my luck it didn't take much time =]

jid - errado at jabber dot org

#

I also used Mepis for a few months but like the author I had issues with applications crashing. I switched to Kanotix (<a href="http://www.kanotix.com/" title="kanotix.com">http://www.kanotix.com/</a kanotix.com> and found it a lot more stable. It may not be for an absolute newbie, but if you've had a few weeks experience with Linux and understand a little bit about how to use apt-get and a terminal window you will have zero problems with this a rock-solid distribution that I've found unbreakable. And the new Kanotix installer is graphical and a piece of cake. Like Mepis, it is a live-CD so you can 'kick it around' and see what it is all about. I found it faster on the CD than Mepis was on the HD!!! YMMV.

Al C.
Jaya123: Your office on the web
<a href="http://www.jaya123.com/" title="jaya123.com">http://www.jaya123.com/</a jaya123.com>

#

Mepis packs a good basic suite of apps, but my experience is that Knoppix is vastly superior in terms of stability, choice of apps and, most importantly, amount and quality of derivatives. In fact, did Mepis inspire *anyone* to use it as a basis for a derivative distro (although potential developers might be turned off by the non-free nature of Mepis). It also looks like Knoppix is suported by a much larger groups of maintainers. Last, but not least, Knoppix is much betted documented, in particular with top notch books. YMMV indeed...

#

As was discussed recently here <a href="http://business.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=05/11/09/2044220&tid=35&tid=136&tid=130" title="newsforge.com">http://business.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=05/1<nobr>1<wbr></nobr> /09/2044220&tid=35&tid=136&tid=130</a newsforge.com>
Mepis is not free software at all. For more info, read this:

<a href="http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/showthread.php?s=&threadid=325554" title="linuxquestions.org">http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/showthrea<nobr>d<wbr></nobr> .php?s=&threadid=325554</a linuxquestions.org>
<a href="http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/showthread.php?postid=1645673#post1645673" title="linuxquestions.org">http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/showthrea<nobr>d<wbr></nobr> .php?postid=1645673#post1645673</a linuxquestions.org>

(in the second URL, read posts 10 and after)

Hopefully one day Warren, the Mepis creator and maintainer, will come clean and fully release his distro under free licenses, and we should encourage him to do so, but for the time being: STAY AWAY!

#

Debian itself isn't free, because it has trademarked logos in the distro - that you cannot use for any/all purposes you may like. The author of those posts (you?) seems to be miffed that they aren't allowed to sell items with trademarks and logos that they they don't own.

#

On the Mepis website it says:

1. Can I legally copy MEPIS Linux CDs and give them to my friends, etc?

You can make copies of the SimplyMEPIS bootable CD and give them away for non-commercial purposes only.

This limitation to non-commercial purposes is fundamentally incompatible with the definition of free software's freedom number 2:

The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor. (...) A program is free software if users have all of these freedoms. Thus, you should be free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone anywhere. Being free to do these things means (among other things) that you do not have to ask or pay for permission.

Ergo. Mepis is not free software. QED.

#

You are correct that the inclusion of trademarked logos with restricted use does not mean the software is not Free. However, in the case of Mepis, there is closed source, unknown license software on the CD. Last time it came up, I researched it and came away confused by the abiguity. If you care to read my conclusions: <a href="http://business.newsforge.com/comments.pl?sid=51508&op=&threshold=0&commentsort=0&mode=thread&tid=35&cid=119883" title="newsforge.com">http://business.newsforge.com/comments.pl?sid=515<nobr>0<wbr></nobr> 8&op=&threshold=0&commentsort=0&mode=thread&tid=3<nobr>5<wbr></nobr> &cid=119883</a newsforge.com>

I know many that swear-by and use Mepis. However, I don't currently believe that it is a completely Free Software distribution for the reasons I state in the linked thread.

#

Hi alandd,

Thanks for your post. It is great to see you posting about this (I am the dude with whom you discussed this issue on NF before). I do not post my warnings about Mepis out of some malignant intention towards Mepis or Warren, but because I believe that this issue needs to be raised in our community and with Warren himself. I got involved in all this after getting an official Mepis CD - I was comparing live-CDs at the time - only to find out much later that the product I had purchased was not free. I sent Warren a little email to which I got a long and angry anti-GPL rant and a categorical refusal to clearly state what license Mepis was released under. I had managed to anger the man just by asking for specifics! So I looked into this deeper and, sure enough, found out that Mepis is maintaining a deliberate ambiguity about its release scheme.

I do not think that this is acceptable. They should either make up their own, non-ambiguous, EULA, or clearly release their disto under a free license.

You can bet that Warren reads NF discussions about his distro - but he NEVER bothered to come here and dispel any confusion or clarify his position. As far as I can recall, ALL other developers or maintainers come here to clarify their position when some issue comes up. But not Warren.

So in the absence of any clear statement by Warren, or Roblimo for that matter who used Mepis for his books, we - simply community members - need to raise the issue and warn everybody about this problem. If we continue doing this, sooner or later, Mepis and Warren will come clean and this will be for everybody's benefit, and for Mepis' benefit in the first place.

#

But even if Warren released his HW detection, OS center, etc. to the community (Debian proper would benefit), reselling the disks would not be legal and that seemed to be the issue I was responding to. As a matter of fact, the ability to do that as a definition of 'free software' is reiterated in 'easy proof of facts' above.

#

1) What exactly in your opinion *prevents* Warren from doing exactly what Debian is doing? Is it not his own *choice* not to fuly release Mepis as free software?

2) Why does he maintain a deliberate ambiguity by, on one hand referring to the GPL on his website only to, on the other hand, immediately contradict the letter and spirit of the GPL?

#

Though I cannot, of course speak for him in any way...

1. Aside from the inclusion of things like win4lin in the TAFusion version, he is of course free to license his stuff with the GPL. Infortunately, IMO, his HW detection, installation 'wizard' and the OS Center are not only what distinguishes it from other installable LiveCD distros, they are also good enought that they would also be incorporated into other projects immediately - thus cancelling out the business advantage he has. I'd like to see him release these things as GPL on his free (as in beer) versions at least. Heck, since he charges for access to the ftp site where the newest versions can be downloaded, he could do that pretty easily; maintaining two versions and releasing the older stuff to GPL for every new iteration of the distro
   


2. He is NOT contradicting the letter or the spirit (whatever that may be - are you trying to be 'deliberately ambiguous'?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-) ) simply by publishing software that is NOT GPLed along with software that is. Show me where he has violated the GPL. Show me binaries without available source that are GPLed in his distro. Perhaps using the Debian repositories are what violate the GPL? You'd better be talking about Kanotix, Knoppix, etc. then as well.

#

My wild guess is that 90% of those complaining about non-free software do use stuff like libdvdcss2, w32codecs or mp3, all non free.... So what's the point... Mepis offers some very useful tools that make Debian accessible to many that wouldn't be able to do so otherwise. That means a gigantic boost for the whole Debian movement. The fact that it does not comply with some people's own standards is a case of sour grapes. If you don't wanna use it, fine, but don't shout on the rooftops people shouldn't use it. It is plain silly and childish.

#

The point is not non-free apps, but the non-free nature of Mepis-specific scripts. Debian, BTW, has non-free repositories. It also offers 15'000 applications, far more than Mepis can ever dream of offering. As for the (in-)famous Debian install issue, Sarge is much easier, you can use Knoppix, or even the ultra-small but powerful 50MB Damn Small Linux who can allow you to install the full Debian. Without any non-free scripts.

You talk about sour grapes. But this implies something which one cannot get and therefore denigrates. Are you seriously suggesting that Debian users are missing something present on Mepis. LOL!!

Saying that Mepis boosts Debian is akin to suggest that a microbe can provide a gigantic boost to a main battle tank: utter and complete nonsense.

#

the sheer nature of your reply already indicates this is not just a matter of principles. The Mepis installer is of course much simpler than Sarge. So is its out of the box hardware recognition and configuring. Your perception of 'the community' seems to be different than mine. For me, it is a living organism that benefits from as many new users as possible, not a monolithic old boys'club of computer savvy geeks. Mepis definitely draws many new users to debian, and forms part of the DCC (which could not carry Debian's name for petty reasons), so don't tell me mepis is not important for debian or Linux. Maybe more important and in-line with the debian philosophy from certain viewpoints than Ubuntu which is free and open by your definitions. Again, if you're not happy with their philosophy, fine, just don't rise to the occasion when someone writes a glowing review to spit your bile. Now THAT harms the community spirit more than some guy who decides to single handedly build a very good debian based distro and wants to make some profit from it.

#

...it's truth in licensing.

1. The only "license" for distributing the Mepis binary only tools is a brief statement in 2003 of "implicit permission" (whatever that means) on a support forum. And that statement was appearently only made because someone asked a pointed question. (See: <a href="http://www.mepis.org/node/137" title="mepis.org">http://www.mepis.org/node/137</a mepis.org>)

2. The Mepis User Guide, Appendix E. Legal provides no statement what-so-ever on the license of the closed source, Mepis written tools. (See: <a href="http://www.mepis.org/files/MEPIS%20User%20Guide.pdf" title="mepis.org">http://www.mepis.org/files/MEPIS%20User%20Guide.p<nobr>d<wbr></nobr> f</a mepis.org>)

3. The same appendix of the User Guide lumps the GPL in as an EULA which is incorrect.

4. The Mepis website in a FAQ type page states "The SimplyMEPIS CD is released under a GPL collective work license which theoretically allows you to make and sell copies." There is specific mention of trademark protections but none about the non-free software. Does that imply that the non-free software is under the "GPL collective work license"? That would contradict the forum posting previously cited. (See: <a href="http://www.mepis.org/node/1360" title="mepis.org">http://www.mepis.org/node/1360</a mepis.org>)

I do use non-free technologies every day. But, I attempt to be aware of what they are and I educate myself on what licenses and restrictions are placed on their use.

If the forum posting from 2003 was not pointed out to me, how do I know what the license is for the closed source, Mepis written tools? I can't. Would I have known they were closed source without a license? No, because there is no other statement that points them out, that I can find. Can I depend on the forum posting as a real license to those programs? IANAL therefore I won't.

Will Mepis actually establish a clear license for those programs? Maybe. Will I like what that license says or will I have to change distros and processes because I don't want to accept that license? Why should I take that risk with so many other options that clearly define their licenses, whether free or non-free?

The closed source tools do make Mepis stand out but I will not use them since I have no clear definition of how they are licensed. Knoppix is based on Debian, has excellent hardware detection and is very clear on how all it's included code is licensed so I have no need to even try Mepis.

A question to you: What would the Debian project leaders and developers say about any project that does not have a clearly defined license for it's code and/or programs?

(I can't believe I am slurrped into this discussion again. I hope you see that for me, it is not just about free vs. non-free but also about knowing the true relationship between me as user and Mepis as the copyright holder of their code.)

#

Since there's no need whatsoever to dig up an issue that is not interesting to 99.9% of the users as an item when someone writes a good review. That smells like actually wanting to harm Mepis. I am perfectly aware of the fact that Mepis comes with some vague licensing issues, but so do other non-free apps. If you feel uncomfortable with it, so be it, and so don't use it. But do NOT discourage other people from using it if they feel OK with it. I say again: that does more harm to Linux and its community than the fact that you might not be allowed to put up a sign over your door that says "Mepis support and service center" or tweak its scripts for whatever reason you deem necessary. And don't use any KDE based distro by the way, since the Qt license is not completely GPL either in some fuzzy way.

#

This all seems to revolve around someone selling Mepis and making a profit from it. I think that someone making a profit from someone elses software creation with his sweat and labor with no contribution to it is probably illegal and definitely ethically wrong. So waht is you beef. Mapis is an excellent distribution. DO NOT saty away from it because of this specious argument.

#

Actually, the issue is neither money nor sweat. The issue is clarity. To be called free software the following 4 criteria need to be met:

• The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).

• The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

• The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).

• The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

(<a href="http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/free-sw.html" title="fsf.org">http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/free-sw.html</a fsf.org><nobr>)<wbr></nobr>

Mepis does not qualify. So it is not free software.

By speaking about profits, sweat, labor, etc. You just showed that you do not understand the raised issue. You are unlikely to impress - or convince - anyone in this way.

#

Whether I understand free software or not. Or whether Mepis is free, my position remains the same. Gaining profit from someone elses work is unethical. I am sorry you are not impressed, but neither do you impress me.

#

Gaining profit from someone elses work is unethical

Since Warren is making a profit selling CDs with software which was developed by other people (the free, non Mepis-specific, software on the CDs) Warren is, by your own logic, unethical. Right?

See - unless you *understand* the issue you are talking about you always end up looking like an idiot...

#

Intersting how people are so willing to attack and not discuss an issue. The answer to your attack is no he is not because he has added value to it. I will refrain from returning your complement.

#

Pray tell, is there any reason I should care if I don't think proprietary software is unethical?

#

Think "labels". You buy a bottle of wine, and it turns out to be root beer. You order soy milk, and it's cream.

I like wine, I like root beer, I like soy milk and I like cream. The issue is not an issue of taste, which is individual, but an issue of *correct representation* which, I would hope,is highly relevant to all, you included. If not - then you might want to skip on that conversation and turn to whatever you find important.

#

Freakin' zealots everywhere you look....

If it works, you don't have to pay for it, and you like it, great! So what if it's not free (as in free software)? I could care less...

If you want free so you can feel good about yourself, go suck on an Ubuntu lollypop.

#

... and comes with with truly brilliant arguments! Bravo! Spoken like a true Me-pisser. ROFLOL!

Seriously: please do not assume that any issue you do not happen to care about is irrelevant to the rest of universe (-: which, as it happens, does not revolve around your navel<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-). Also, please do not assume that those who care about free software and, even more importantly, about CLEAR LICENSES must suck on any "Ubuntu lollypops" (in my case, I am a happy Debian user. I have yet to find a better distro). Lastly, please realize that having somebody like you calling us "freakin' zealots" does not really elicit anything more than mild amusement from us.

Have a good one!

#

WTF? Go screw yourself, I use BSD... and I don't give a shit what you think.

#

Does BSD support journalling now?

#

Not yet but it's being worked on:

<a href="http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=10951&page=3" title="osnews.com">http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=10951&pag<nobr>e<wbr></nobr> =3</a osnews.com>

"Scott Long: The UFS Journalling project was listed as a candidate project for the Google Summer of Code. The response from applicants has been overwhelming, and I'm looking forward to working with some very good people on it. While it might take more time than the Summer of Code timeframe to complete, I expect it to be working and stable in time for FreeBSD 7.0, and possible available for later 6.x releases via patches."

#

The link to the newsforge article of course has NOTHING TO DO WITH MEPIS. This is a strategy of the poster to try and give an air of 'authoritiveness' to his FUD spreading. TIf you look at the posts on Linuxquestions, you'll see that more and more 'newbie' posters jump on the bandwagon just to make their contribution in bashing Mepis.

WARNING TO ALL USERS:
People like the ones that started this thread do NOT REPRESENT the Mepis or Linux community. Heeding their advice may seriously damage your insight and might destroy all fun you get from using Open Source.

#

oh yeah?!?!?! how about the link to the *MEPIS* forum? It has nothing to do with Mepis either?

All those who cannot get a clear answer about the Mepis script licenses are newbies, right?

Well, Mr. Expert, you tell us: WHAT LICENSE ARE MEPIS SCRIPTS UNDER?!?!

We shall see if you can come up with an answer. LOL.

#

I was referring to the ARTICLE. The fact that you guys post your childish objections to Mepis' licensing on every possible occasion and later refer to those very same posts in order to give some more weight to the continuous FUD spreading that you are so good at, does only prove that there is nobody who is really aroused by 'THE ISSUE' but your own pathetic crowd.

#

well, maybe we are a small (and pathetic) crowd, but you are clearly a lone hero, since the post of your "supporters" are one minute apart or so. LOL

[not that this proves anything beyond a bizzare feature of your personality]

#

My personality has nothing to do with my convictions. I am just cleaning out all your arguments one by one, and trying to show the readers of this thread the insincerity of your Mepis bashing. With your help I am doing quite fine, thank you very much......

#

Regardless of what a few users with agendas may post in an attempt to confuse you or deter you from trying Mepis, read the review, visit the Mepis community forums, learn more about Mepis on the site, download it and try it for FREE!

No harm done there, and if you give it an honest shake, and don't like it, you can move on. If you are stuck at any point along your trial with Mepis, you can find many helpful, not bitter, users in the forums that will gladly and quickly help you solve your problems.

I think you will find that out of the many distrobutions that you try, just as I have, that Mepis is great, it's very easy to use with little or no previous experience with linux, and it is a very complete distro, that is used by newbies and old-timers alike.

Warren is a good man, he works hard to bring the best software to our community, and continues to develop useful things, while others continue to sit around and point fingers and grumble.

It's free, don't take some grumpy guy's opinion on it, try it for yourself, you'll be glad you did.

#

if you consider that you are downloading a not necessarily 'up to date' iso then sure mepis is free, but I find that disturbing to sAy the least. Xandros might keep you burning slightly slower than normal but its completely free and all around better for linux advocacy.

#

if you consider that you are downloading a not necessarily 'up to date' iso then sure mepis is free

Mepis is free as in beer, as in gratis, as in "no cost", no money. but it it NOT free as in speech, as in freedom, as is liberty.

Mepissers do not care but our community does.

It was "Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite", not "Gratuite, Publicite, Vas te faire niquer"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)

#

I also used Mepis for a few months but like the author I had issues with applications crashing. I switched to Kanotix (<a href="http://www.kanotix.com/" title="kanotix.com">http://www.kanotix.com/</a kanotix.com> [kanotix.com] and found it a lot more stable. It may not be for an absolute newbie, but if you've had a few weeks experience with Linux and understand a little bit about how to use apt-get and a terminal window you will have zero problems with this a rock-solid distribution that I've found unbreakable. And the new Kanotix installer is graphical and a piece of cake. Like Mepis, it is a live-CD so you can 'kick it around' and see what it is all about. I found it faster on the CD than Mepis was on the HD!!! YMMV.

Al C.
Jaya123: Your office on the web
<a href="http://www.jaya123.com/" title="jaya123.com">http://www.jaya123.com/</a jaya123.com> [jaya123.com]

#

i havent tried mepis in a while but when i did, i had less problems then the article (already knew about apt). it comes with all the "evil" codecs etc so its good for end users, except for one thing.

it makes your computer run at half speed...

on any machine i tried, even in qemu (where it was painfully slow when the host is a dual opteron. knoppix runs just fine in this) i never did figure out that half speed thing... (selinux? fedora doesnt seem so slow)

other than that mepis has always impressed me. its one of those things that are just like how it should be.

#

I have not experienced the half speed thing, in fact I find Mepis reasonably snappy on older equipment, although it flat out sucks off of the CD.

All linux is slower than it needs to be because most linux packagers think it should be optimized to be a work station not a desktop, that preloading, caching and prelinking (for example) are evil. They don't want some desktop application taking up clock cycles and memory when they kick off a compile. Well I don't compile programs and I don't want clock cycles or memory sitting around idle when it could be waiting eagerly to draw a window or open a spreadsheet.

That's changing and I would expect in the next year or so to see an explosion of faster booting linux distros with faster desktop responsiveness (SUPER SuSE is one such project).

I agree that its a good thing to have the evil non-free software pre-installed. I use mp3, windows media files, flash media, java etc every day. Kudos to Warren.

The free software Puritans are certainly entitled to their view, but those of us who prefer that stuff are entitled to ours as well.

#

I agree that its a good thing to have the evil non-free software pre-installed. I use mp3, windows media files, flash media, java etc every day. Kudos to Warren. The free software Puritans are certainly entitled to their view, but those of us who prefer that stuff are entitled to ours as well.

The issue is not the inclusion of non-free apps on Mepis, but the release of Mepis-specific scripts under non-free conditions. Before thinking of anyone as "Puritans" you should consider nature and scope the issues raised.

#

What is the nature and scope of the issues raised? The Puritans don't like the license he uses. They are free to use the software or not. That's what it means to be free, sometimes we'll disagree.

#

What the nature and scope is *not*: the use of non-free software on a live-CD.

What the nature and scope is: the release of Mepis under foggy, deliberately ambiguous, terms.

Puritanism, or taste in licensing issues, as nothing to do with the point of this issue. Warren is more than welcome to release Mepis under a MS EULA if he wants, all we ask is that he be CLEAR and STRAIGHTFORWARD about it.

#

Who do you imagine you are speaking for?

Licensing is as clear as any other distro that includes non-free software.... Those applications that Warren wrote are proprietary, and NOT GPLed. Every other included (third party) package is licensed as they are licensed. Most are from Debian, most are GPLed.

It shouldn't matter re: , even if all the software was GPLed, you STILL wouldn't be able to sell the Mepis iso images without going in and removing/replacing all the trademarked material - you wouldn't be able to make money from the Mepis name and reputation.

You're insistance that there is some 'deliberate' obfuscation is ludicrous; especially after reading the threads you linked. Imagine that, Warren ignoring demands from people that want to use his name and business' reputation to make money - without him ever seeing a dime. What a shock.

It is clear from posts you have made that try to paint Warren as being sneaky, trying to paint Mepis as violating the spirit and letter of the GPL, that you DO want to harm Mepis, and it DOES smell of sour grapes.

#

Mepis packs a good basic suite of apps, but my experience is that Knoppix is vastly superior in terms of stability, choice of apps and, most importantly, amount and quality of derivatives. In fact, did Mepis inspire *anyone* to use it as a basis for a derivative distro (although potential developers might be turned off by the non-free nature of Mepis). It also looks like Knoppix is suported by a much larger groups of maintainers. Last, but not least, Knoppix is much betted documented, in particular with top notch books. YMMV indeed...

#

Mepis is a fine operating system. I've been using it all year with no ill effects. I didn't think "my distro is better than yours" comments were warranted.
I do not blame any developer for packaging a distro to sell it. This is a common practise. Look at; Mandriva, Suse, and Redhat - to name the big three.
The ugly truth of the matter is this; people need to make money. Do we work at our jobs for nothing? It is sad people do not donate more to these fine linux developers. They just complain about something costing money.
Keep up the good work Mepis! And try to make a buck so we will still see you around in ten years and more.

#

when I installed it to HD and then tried to use apt to keep it up to date. What a nightmare! If the HW detection has improved to Mepis' level, and installation to HD is easy (and pretty) enough for me to hand off copies to non-IT, Windows-only people, and it can be updated easily via apt (even if it has to use it's own repositories) I'd take a look at it as a distro again. I've downloaded it and used it as a LiveCD/utility disk since then...

#

..is best<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)

But seriously Mepis is a very good Debian-based, KDE distro. It's espessially good for the not so computer savvy users. But if you like computing and are serious with with free software, Mepis is not the way to go. I don't think Mepis has contributed to the community in any way (save for some propritary packages of Acrobat Reader). As a LiveCD Mepis isn't very good at all (except for showing of the power of Linux at your friends).

Kanotix on the other hand is a TRUE open source OS*. Kano (lead developer) took the already great OS Knoppix and said, "Okey how can I make this distro even better?". The result is a distro with more cutting edge packages from Debian/Sid, better hardware recognition and more optimization.

* <a href="http://www.kanotix.com/" title="kanotix.com">http://www.kanotix.com/</a kanotix.com>

A very good feature is one that let's you save settings on a USB memory or floppy thus the LiveCD feature more useful. So useful that Knoppix has taken up the feature.

Kanotix laso uses Klik which let's you download and use programs with one click*. And you don't even have to install them! Just too cool IMHO. Kanotix is one of 3 distros that comes with this functionallity installed.

* <a href="http://klik.atekon.de/" title="atekon.de">http://klik.atekon.de/</a atekon.de>

Kanotix is also easy to install on the HDD with it's grafical installer. It's really a "by the community, for the community sort of distro". Last month it won a donation and great recognition by Distrowatch*. It's used as base for several other distros. And just some days ago it was released in a new version. Everyone that likes Debian and KDE really should take a closer look on this one.

* <a href="http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20051205#kanotix" title="distrowatch.com">http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20051205#<nobr>k<wbr></nobr> anotix</a distrowatch.com>

#

While I find that Mepis totally sucks - it has no interesting features at all - Knoppix is really excellent. I know very little about Kanotix though. For one thing, could you please tell me if it can serve as a installer for the real *ORIGINAL* Debian-Sarge? By *original* I mean, can it:

1) offer you a choice of packages you can install instead of forcing you to install the full live-CD on your hd?

2) can I then use the full Debian repositories (15000+ applications) to get more apps or must I got through a Kanotix-specific repository

3) will it install the full dpackage/apt/aptitude/synaptic package management suite?

4) what is Kanotix' orientation: rescue, desktop, administration, security, foresenics, etc?

5) are there Kanotix-derivatives?

6) is there a Kanotix DVD

last,

Where did you get the impression that Kanotix' hardware recognition is better than Knoppix'?

Thanks & Happy 2006!

#

With Kanotix you get a very *real* Debian/Sid installation. Thus maybe it's not the best distro for servers but better as desktop and rescue.

From my experience Kanotix has excellent recognition. I don't know how it compares to Knoppix. The general view on diffrent forums seems to be that both has the best right now.

"1) offer you a choice of packages you can install instead of forcing you to install the full live-CD on your hd?"

It pretty much "forces" you. Doesn't Knoppix do that?

"2) can I then use the full Debian repositories (15000+ applications) to get more apps or must I got through a Kanotix-specific repository"

You can use the full Debian repositories (can't you with all Debian-based distos?). I don't think there are any Kanotix exlusive packages, like Ubuntu/Kubuntu have (those bastards!); only exlusive scripts.

"3) will it install the full dpackage/apt/aptitude/synaptic package management suite?"

I don't know<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)

"4) what is Kanotix' orientation: rescue, desktop, administration, security, foresenics, etc?"

I'm not so sure. Check the homepage or enter #kanotix on IRC and ask Kano himself<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)

"5) are there Kanotix-derivatives?"

Yes. One is Kurumin Linux, <a href="http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=kurumin" title="distrowatch.com">http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=kur<nobr>u<wbr></nobr> min</a distrowatch.com>

6) is there a Kanotix DVD

I think it's in the works. Not sure though. There is a Kanotix mini which can be installed on a USB memory<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)

#

Actually I was not very impressed with Kanotix LiveCd. It did not recognize my sound card and I could not configure my wireless card correctly.Mepis on the other hand was flawless. So, all the extra features built into kanotix are moot to me if the basic functions do not work.

#

Kanotix - bad. Mepis - good. Knoppix - bad. Mepis good. Extra features - bad. Less features - good. Facts - bad. Mepis - good.

To recap: Mepis - good! Mepis - good! Mepis - good! Mepis - good! Mepis - good! Mepis - good! Mepis - good! Mepis - good! Mepis - good! Mepis - good! Mepis - good!

Fantastic! Bravo! Now we are all convinced and we shall rush to get Mepis.

[sigh...]

#

Well done, now that you've proved your case, we can all go our separate ways and let it rest!

[sigh 2]

#

The thread is here to stay. It will be easy to link to and can be used as THE reference for those willing to understand what is really going on behind the Mepis charade. We shall also see if Mepis.org/Mepis.com will post a link to this review, LOL. Either way - the truth is out, Mepissers have failed to derail the discussion and everybody can make up his/her opinion on this.

I would say we did a good job and the Mepissers helped immensly. Thanks guys - nobody could have done it better!

[we will keep an eye open for attempts at a meaningful rebuttal, but we will ingnore any future "petty yappings" with claim which have already been disproved or ad-hominems]

#

Mepis, Ubuntu, Suse, Debian, Xandros, Mandriva--Look I would either use FreeBsd or Apple. End of story. Linux is not a great OS for desktop either in terms of stability, security or ease of use.

#

FreeBSD and Apple?! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

You might wanna switch to Mepis after all - in *your* case it would be a definite improvement!

#

Have you heard of Cygwin, by the RedHat folks, for running open source software on Windows platforms? Everything from X servers and Latex to gcc and ssh.

#

Dear Mepissers,

You have soundly been defeated in this thread. Not by the brilliance of your opponents arguments, but by your own lack of foresight. You turned what was initially one lone post into a flamewar resulting over 100 more posts thereby making the entire thread hugely visible.

You should do like Warren does. He knows that Mepis' best chance lies in the naive ignorance of its users. He therefore simply does not address the issue of his deliberate ambiguity at all. Nowhere. Ever. Even if asked directly on his own forum.

Thereby only a minimum of people become aware of his tactics. Thanks to you guys, pretty much ever single NF visitor now know about it. I can't think of a worse disservice to Wareen and his business.

And for this we all sincerely thank you!

#

To all Mepis users:

As the previous poster stated, you will see that the Mepis opponents have brought forward some weak and far-fetched points.

For those who actually will read the thread, you will also see that those points have been countered with serious arguments and questions, that have not met any intellectual challenge.

Let the poor sap who have deemed it necessary to unjustly attack a fine distro stew in their own juice. We can be proud that posters that defend Mepis do so in a well-behaved, argumentative manner. And let the length of this thread be proof of the fact that ridiculous claims do not go unnoticed and will go without response.

#

And let the length of this thread be proof of the fact that ridiculous claims do not go unnoticed and will go without response.

Bwahahahahahahaha!!!

If that is so - then why does Warren hide in the bushes and never, *EVER*, explain his (deliberately) ambiguous script licensing? Why does he not even show the basic courtesy to answer ON HIS OWN FORUM? If only ONCE he would have answered you could of simply given the link. If somebody claims that Richard Stallman considers the MS EULA as compatible with free software all it takes to answer is posting a link to FSF's website and their list of free licenses. Same thing for the Debian free software guidelines.

But in Warrens Mepis case, you guys need an tsunami of proud declarations and empty denials where all others need just one link.

Your latest cheerleading baloney only helps to mask your pathetic failure (you truly deserve the title of Mepisser even more than Warren) to come up with a meaningful, clear and unambiguous answer.

What I fail to understand is how you can feel any pride at all for being the pathetic little teeny boppers for Warren.

Unless, of course, Warren is the one posting anonymously here. (That would truly be his style)

So guys - let us settle this one once and for all. Here is my challenge to you, proud Mepissers: got the mepis.org/com and post a direct question to Warren about his licensing scheme. Ask him what his impicit permission really means, ask him why he does not have a "Mepis license" for his scripts of any kind and we shall see who is wrong.

The ball is in your court! Let everybody see if your postings here are just a smokescreen or if you are defending a misunderstood, misrepresented, distribution.

We shall be waiting with great interest.

#

What about commercial distros like Xandros, Linspire, Red Hat and (commercial versions of) Suse, Mandriva e.t.c. ?

They have their "free" or "open" versions as a reward to the open source community (who collectively built the distro).

I believe I can not freely copy and then sell the commercial version f Xandros, because of the included proprietary applications (StarOffice, Crossover, modem drivers, e.t.c.).

So what's the different with Mepis ?

#

Well, I gave Mepis a shot, but quickly dumped it. It could not even correctly recognize a Logitech usb mouse, and uses XFree86 instead of Xorg. Also, KDE 3.3x instead of KDE 3.4x. No biggy, but not for me. I do like the install though - very easy and fairly quick, once you wait the 17 years for it to boot...

#