Knoppix 7.0 Same procedure as every year!

[electroken]

I understand what Jacksonon is saying. I bought the magazine and right from the start had a bad copy. I tried to file copy it to see if I could make another disk using the files I retrieved from the disk, but the fact was that the main file I needed to run the kernel was defective in some way. I am being patient too and simply waiting to see when the new version of Knoppix will be available to download. I read some posts which suggested that there was no point in having the magazine send me another copy of the same disk with the defect still in it. I agreed and made no attempt to do that.
It would be nice to know how big a problem they have with the new version. I sympathise with the makers of the disk and it must be frustrating for them and the producers of the magazine too, but most of us waiting patiently for the release (especially those of us willing to buy the magazine to get the disk direct) should be told what kind of flaw they are trying to fix. Maybe it would only involve leaving out one of the applications to fix it and perhaps that will not be so bad that we cant wait for months to see it back in the distro again. But we are not told anything and I see his point. It is like waiting in line to purchase something and there is a long delay with no explanation; most of us only want to know why it is taking so long. If I were told, my reply would probably go along the lines of, "oh ok, I can see that could be a major problem". "Thanks for doing all you can to fix it".

[jacksonon]

I think there is some confusion....when I wrote that I know that this is a contributor website, I meant to say that the website HOSTING this forum is listed as a contributor website on http://www.knopper.net/knoppix-links/ .I am well aware that neither Knoppix.net(as a website) nor this forum(as a community) is managed by the Knoppix developers on their own.

Thanks electroken. You understood me right...........I believe sharing details of progress made (or the lack of it) while performing voluntary,unpaid work (such as producing free software) helps restore confidence in the product and gain better acceptance among users.

[Capricorny]

Myself, I'm using Knoppix as my main Linux version, and there are of course quite a few drawbacks to the "development model". They are not new but rather well known, and I don't think anyone following this forum should be disappointed when things don't turn out as they want and expect. And I think it is a misconception to view Knoppix 6+ as an entirely separate distro - it is rather a Debian derivative staying quite close to standard Debian in many important ways, but also with quite a few diverging choices. Most of which I have found to be well thought out, so I tend to think of Knoppix as the "right" (i.e. acceptably good) way to build a shrink-wrapped version of Debian.

Whatever reasons Klaus K has for not notifying users about upcoming versions/road maps, I just have to accept his decision. In the open source world, things may happen in a much less predictable way than elsewhere, and I think it is way too easy to suggest that sharing details of progress/problems is uniformly better than the way Klaus K does it now. It is quite likely that Klaus K had himself expected to release the next version 1-2 months after the magazine version, and if he had announced this, people could really get upset and have their plans overturned when it didn't materialize. It is way better that people turn to other Linux alternatives if they can't live with the situation, than criticizing Klaus.

Another alternative might be to create kind of "shadow version" of Knoppix: Many of us are doing extensive modifications of Knoppix, and there is nothing to stop us from carrying out this to produce an updated version, kind of "next Knoppix without Klaus' novelties". This could be done in a much more predictable way than "the real deal", and right now, 7.0 could be the starting point for such a version. I guess one main obstacle is the differences in ways of working. Kind of bimonthly or quaterly update with latest good kernel, updated packages, updated drivers etc could be quite useful. With each release firmly based on the latest official Knoppix version, we could also avoid any unneccessary kind of forking.