The announcement for mageia 6 was made at around the time that openSUSE 42.3 was finalizing. So I downloaded the iso, but I delayed any testing until after the final release of 42.3.
The announcement mentioned both live media and a classical install DVD. I download the install DVD, which came in at just under 4G is size. I also downloaded the sha512 checksum file, and its gpg signature. I validated the signature, and then made sure that my downloaded iso file matched the checksum.
By the time that I was ready to start testing, I had already setup KVM. So I first did a virtual install with KVM. I later did a bare metal install (i.e. an install to a physical computer).
For the virtual install, I allocated a 20G virtual disk. I used “virt-install” so that I could virtualize with UEFI without secure-boot (mageia does not support secure-boot). I took the installer recommended defaults. It set aside 300M for an EFI partition, 3G for a swap partition, and the remainder of the virtual disk for the root partition. The installation went smoothly, with no surprises. I chose the Plasma 5 desktop. There were other desktops (such as Gnome) also available on that install iso.
Fedora 26 was released in July, so I’m a tad slow getting to review it.
I actually download the live KDE installer on the day of the release. I wrote that iso to a USB flash drive, and booted into it on two different computers. But I did not spend enough time with it to warrant a review back then.
More recently, I have been using Fedora as a practice system, as I try out using KVM. So I have done several virtual installs (and deleted all but one). So it is now time for a review.
My first install was on a virtual machine with MBR booting. I gave it only a 10G virtual disk, which was probably too small. I have used 20G for later installs. I then installed using UEFI booting with secure-boot. Later, I tried without secure-boot, mainly as a test of a KVM install that used UEFI without secure-boot.
I’m a bit slow in reporting this. I saw the announcement on May 5th, and I downloaded and installed on that same date. This was for build 0184 of 42.3. This was followed a few days later by build 0229. And yesterday we saw build 0243.
I downloaded the install DVD for build 0184 from the download site. That site should have the current build during the testing phase. As of the time of this posting, you can find build 0243 there.
As usual, I downloaded with “aria2c”. I also downloaded the sha256 checksum file (I used “wget” for that download). I verified the gpg signature on the checksum file. And then I made sure that the downloaded iso matched the checksum.
I have already reviewed Ubuntu-17.04. However, the Ubuntu folk (i.e. Canonical) had already announced that, starting with 18.04, they would switch their mainline version from the Unity desktop to the Gnome desktop. So I decided to also test out the 17.04 version of Ubuntu with Gnome desktop.
I installed Ubuntu-gnome in an already existing encrypted LVM. The machine that I used actually has two hard drives, with an encrypted LVM on each drive. So this was a different LVM from the one that I used for the mainline Ubuntu (with unity). Currently, both versions of Ubuntu are installed on that machine.
Ubuntu 17.04 was announced a few days ago. I had already decided that I would install it, and do a little testing. So, once I saw the announcement, I started a download.
To download, I followed the links from the announcement to the download page. From there, I selected the torrent download. I was using the “vivaldi” browser, and it gave me several options with the torrent link. I chose the option to open the file. And that started the download with “ktorrent”.
I also downloaded “SHA256SUMS.desktop” and “SHA256SUMS.desktop.gpg”. Next, I checked the gpg signature with
gpg --verify SHA256SUMS.desktop.gpg SHA256SUMS.desktop
which showed that I had a good download of the checksum file. After the torrent download had completed, I checked its validity with
sha256sum -c SHA256SUMS.desktop
That reported that the downloaded iso file was ok. It also reported that some files did not exist. I ignored that. It was just that the checksum file had checksums for other isos that I had not downloaded.
I have previously reported on KaOS, in 2015. I have actually kept it installed since August 2015. When I saw the announcement for 2017.01, I decided that it was time for a re-install. I’ll note that I could have just updated the already installed version, but it seemed like time for a fresh start.
What is KaOS?
KaOS is a rolling distribution, based on KDE.
I am a KDE user, with openSUSE Leap (currently at 42.2). But I also keep openSUSE Tumbleweed installed for looking at what will be coming up. And I’m using KaOS as an alternative view of what is going to be showing up in the future.
I have not used KaOS extensively, except for occasion testing and occasional updating. I’m expecting to continue that practice with the new install.
I downloaded from the download site listed on the announcement. I then checked the md5sum for the download. There did not appear to be a gpg signature that I could check.
I saw the announcement of the new Solus release on Distrowatch. So I decided that it was time to take another look at Solus.
I used the available torrent to download “Solus-2017.01.01.0-Budgie.iso”. I then separately downloaded the sha256 checksum file, because that was not part of the torrent download. And I noticed a file “Solus-2017.01.01.0-Budgie.sha256sum.sign” which looked as if it might be a gpg signature for the checksum. So I downloaded that, too.
Unfortunately, I could not find the gpg key that I would need to check the signature. So I had to just trust the checksum. Just before composing this post, I did another search for the gpg key, and finally came up with a link. So I added that to my keyring, and was finally able to verify the checksum file. The needed key still does not appear to be on the public keyservers. But at least I could find it with a google search.
To install, I wrote the iso file to a USB flash drive, with
# dd_rescue Solus-2017.01.01.0-Budgie.iso /dev/sdd
(note that “/dev/sdd” is the device usually used by a USB flash drive on my main desktop).
Geckolinux is a distro that is based on opensuse. The maintainer uses the handle sb56637 (at least at sourceforge). He use the suse studio site to build his releases. His releases version amount to opensuse that is configured to his liking. The releases are iso files for a live session, and can be installed.
In the move to the Leap series, opensuse no longer provides live versions (except for Tumbleweed). So I have occasionally recommended geckolinux to people looking for a live version that they can test.
I saw the announcement of the 422.161213 release, via a link at Distrowatch. I proceeded to download the bare bones version. I was not fully satisfied with the result, so I tried the XFCE version. I wasn’t happy with that either. Yesterday, I rechecked the site, and I see that there is now a more recent 422.161228 release.
Hmm, I have been neglecting this blog. It’s time to catch up. I’ve still been doing stuff, but have not recently blogged about it.
There’s not much to report here, so this will be a short post.
I saw the recent announcement from the OpenMandriva folk, and thought that I would give it a try. According to the announcement, this release comes with Plasma 5 with Wayland support.
I downloaded the iso and the checksums. I then used the checksums to verify the download. This is not completely satisfactory — a gpg signature would be better — but at least it is a download check. And that all worked out.
Release candidate 2 (or RC2) is now out. It was announced earlier today:
As you might expect, I downloaded the iso for the DVD installer, and “burned” that to a USB flash drive. I then did an install using it.
The install went quite well. I followed the same general method as in my install for RC1.
I noticed one change. Early in the install, I was told about “Mesa-dri-nouveau”. This is a new package, broken out from mesa. The notification asked me whether I wanted to accept this package. If I did not accept, then 3D would be emulated in software.
I accepted the package. I cannot test it otherwise.
Unfortunately, it does not work well enough with my nvidia card.