I installed Yoper, and :
1) openOffice openes faster on arch
2) Apt-get, synaptic did not work with a proxy no matter what I did
3) The option NvAGP 1 in the XF86config was not present so my X crashed.
4) It is pretty fast, but compared to arch is not that fast.
5) Very user friendly kde, and a pretty cool yoper control center
6) The hardware probe works fine
I still like ARCH better !!!
Forever newbie !!!
I have it on my second drive (you may recall my thread on dual booting :-))
I got network set up ok. I had to do ifconfig eth0 up.... in a term..
As for its speed ... cannot see what the hype is about.. :?
as for apt-get no big deal (very poor package db)
where the format button
The one thing that impressed me was that it installed everything X,kde,nvidia drivers without touching a console or term (if you like that sort of thing) ....
for me I'm happy with Arch...
It is not too bad. AFAIK it is only 1 person doing most of the work. The stability it has for the # of developers is pretty good.
I was impressed with install but nothing else...
I don't know what hardware it detects, I understand they use the knoppix hw probe.
I liked the fact that it installed every thing on my computer without my asistance !!!
Forever newbie !!!
I installed yoper as well. My experience seems to be a little different than others. Fist off, it is FAST, with the exception of booting the kernel wich takes a great deal longer than booting my al kernels. KDE opens and responds with great speed. My biggest complain about it is its stability. I ran yoper for a couple hours after i first installed it and had at least 4 random crashes with different programs and even x once. My next biggest complaint is the repos. There isnt a lot availabe without digging around for some different servers. Then to top it all off everything was out of date. If i remember correctly i ended up installing xchat 1.9 or somthing of the sort. Other than thouse two issues i really think yoper is a super fast distro, but that is about all i can say for it. I havnt booted into it since the last time i used it (the two hours or so after the install).
The boot time might be the knoppix style detect that onami mentioned. There is also a bug in the latest release where the boot splash fails and it puts out an error message about it almost every second line.
A big improvement since the last release is that they are now spending time updating the repos. Last time it was like you said (I think they had firefox 0.8 still) but now they are on top of that.
I was wrong about the single developer, but that was the case in the past. He has a signature now that is asking for help. I think they have a good attitude in general.
They are quite agressive advertisers I think.
not interested thats all i have to say about yoper.
I am not your friend
i switched over from yoper i like arch , yoper is too unstable many packages do not work and comflict with eachother - the acroread package conflicts XFREE86 and xsane will refuse to install that i had to alien it from debian and so my scanner will not work! i can keep going with the troubles.......
Arch is nice and simple and i know where each configuration goes like rc.conf etc and my scanner is working fine just had to pacman -S xsane and copy the firmware in the right place. Arch also has much larger package selection and larger community and not a single person packaging everything like yoper.
Their trying !!!!
It is hard to do something very good alone.
Yoper is user friendly (I think..... aviplay is compiled without sdl support so no image from it ), but easy to configure by newbies, they have gui for every thing(except fstab which you open it with vi ? sucks). The printer is easy to configure, samba the same and so on.
It is already tweaked, but it just not runs the way you want it to. It is for beginners (except the bugs), and it's hard for an archer to adopt it as his baby OS.
Forever newbie !!!
I tried it out very briefly on my second hard drive. It's an old Deskstar 8, so maybe the difference is minimized (I'd expect it the other way around), but it didn't seem very fast to me. Maybe it was the fact that it took a good two minutes to boot for me, while Arch takes about 17 seconds from grub, and Libranet about 45 seconds. After that, a split second off load times doesn't mean much.
Overall, it just didn't feel very refined. The desktop was cluttered off the CD, and when X crashed for the second time in 10 minutes I removed it to try Conectiva, so I guess I didn't give it much of a chance. Conectiva boots slowly too (not AS slowly), but you get excellent stability and an extremely attractive and consistent GUI which is very Windows user friendly. This is what's important in user friendly market, after all, and the Yoper developers don't seem to understand the benefits of patience.
I had high expectations for Yoper, just because of the claims they make about their OS. There's nothing wrong with where they are in development, but I think they need to shut up a bit until they get things a bit farther along. I think the OS had great potential, but I suspect it won't go anywhere because they attracted attention far too soon.
I think there is some performance problem with reiser4 FS and the yoper customisations. The is a thread or 2 about this on the yoper site. This is supposed to be the problem with the long boots too.
I looked around a bit and I still think they have a good attitude and a nice distro.
I have always wondered why conectiva is such a rarity. I tried it when their 10(?) beta was one of the first distros to have a 2.6 kernel. Even that beta was quite stable and refined. I have not looked in a while, maybe I will try their new live cd.
I tried Reiser4 at first, but I think the kernel panicked, or something. I don't remember exactly. I didn't try very hard, to be honest, and just chose standard reiserfs the next time. So unless they have a fix in place which is slowing boot, no matter which filesystem you use, that wasn't the issue for me. That may be the case, for all I know, since I don't have an actual clue about what I'm doing
It's good to know that they have a healthy attitude, I don't think you can have a generally good distribution without that. From my limited time with Yoper, though, I still maintain that they should have stayed in stealth mode a bit longer. Maybe I'll try it out a bit more once I finish playing with Libranet, which has me thoroughly frustrated by being so nice, yet by completely screwing up APT (beyond what Debian has done on their own, even).
Conectiva is quite a distribution, the only problem I've had was having to add a package source I found at linuxquestions.org, since the stock sources are painfully slow. From the distributions I've tried, I think it's a strong front runner in the user friendly space, with Suse coming in second in my opinion. Unfortunately, when everything works it doesn't leave me much to play with, which is all I'm looking for with Arch as my primary distro.
I also try Yoper 2.1 and found these:
1. Quicktime trailers display with incorrect aspect ratio, movies cut by half to be exact.
2. Quicktime trailers display missing dll (probably from plugin).
3. Mozilla do not include any video plugin at all, only flash. (SUCKS)
4. No MozillaFirefox on default installation.
5. Synaptic crash during system update. Oh boy!
6. MacOS X style control panel = alternate kcontrol face. Nothing extraordinary.
7. Speed, what speed? Feel the same to me
That was a 10 minutes review. Imagine a full week review! :shock:
not interested thats all i have to say about yoper.
second that. it looked very buggy and unfinished. arch is the best binary distro. i've never had so much stuff just work.
otoh, what about lunar?
About Lunar, I tried it once.
I starting installing it, which was fine up to the point where one of the source tarballs wasn't available, and it bailed leaving me with a Linux that boots up to bash and that's it.
From the site
Lunar package manager what tools you want, and it builds the entire system by downloading current source code and locally compiling an optimized system tailored toward your specific needs.
Sounds something like Gentoo to me, and I'm taking a break from any source distro right now (after a year using Gentoo).
The only distro / OS I'm interested in besides Arch is FreeBSD.
Read it. Love it. Live it. Or die.
I also used yoper for a while, but the yoper servers were very slow and the forum was even worse... almost 4 days offline.
When i decided to switch to an other distro i looked at distrowatch for the most up to date distro with a good package manager... and now im using arch for 6 months
And the Yoper speed..... it's fast but not that fast as everybody says.... arch with xfce is much faster
yoper is great as advertised : "out of the box". prelink, kudzu, and other stuff are put in to make it roust.
just try "emerge world" (yes, the yoper guy decided adding emerge into his half-debian/half-redhat distro) and u get yourself with a a complete UNUSABLE gentoo installation...
also, trying to tweak anything in the system outside the "automatic" scope, results in a lagging station or simply unbootable...
i do believe the yoper developer is doing incredible things to his distro, specially for the fact he never coded a single line of code (he admits so himself) and only knows how to use the best of all world in his distro and integrate them together. but as far as stability goes, and system configuration and tweaking, i dont think it is even comparable to Arch...