[username]

iron-linux is a build of chromium without the security risks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SRWare_Iron
I'd like to try this out but would rather install through synaptic.

[lightning slinger]

See this thread on PCLOS Forum http://www.pclinuxos.com/forum/index.ph ... 373.0.html for the latest position on this!
The last version available from the repos via synaptic is 4.0.275

[Dragynn]

Yep, been waiting for this too, I saw on another thread where Tex is going to be updating glibc this year, so looks like he's going to add the newer Iron version for the new releases in 2011, great news!

[username]

I wonder when this will happen and will it be part of a a rolling release rather than another .iso install.

[sarcastic_bastard]

Everything is a rolling release, it should be added to the repos like everything else. New iso's are just to save installing then updating everything again.

[username]

New iso's are just to save installing then updating everything again.

Not to be objectionable, but I don't really understand that sentence. A rolling release continuously upgrading software with a package manager like synaptic is different than reinstalling over a previous version, so an .iso doesn't "save" installing as I see it. For example, I have LMDE (Linux Mint Debian Edition) installed on another internal drive which is a true rolling release, in that you install one time and and upgrade, as opposed to applying additional .iso's. As such, PCLinuxOS could be considered a partial rolling release. I'm assuming that Gnome3 will be an .iso install whereby I'll have to back up tons of stuff to add to it later. Not a project I enjoy very much.

[lightning slinger]

PCLOS is a rolling release and meant to be kept up to date via synaptic!

The idea is not to install the latest iso over the top of your existing installation. The new iso's are just to save a new user from say installing something like 2010.07 and then been faced with the massive and somewhat problematic task of downloading and installing five or six months of updates!
The iso contains the system already updated as far as is possible to the release date of the new iso.

Gnome 3 may well be a fresh install but no doubt we will hear about that in good time!

[sarcastic_bastard]

I was going to explain, but lightning slinger already did that. It's been explained often enough, I made the mistake of assuming most already understood the situation. Nothing was confusing about what was said, just in the understanding of what was thought it meant, as opposed to what it did.

[username]

PCLOS is a rolling release and meant to be kept up to date via synaptic!

The change from 3.5 to 4X KDE wasn't a synaptic upgrade. That's why I referred to it as a partial rolling release. I'm not out to offend any fan of pclos, because I've been one for several years. I personally update once a week or so to keep up to date.

Nothing was confusing about what was said, just in the understanding of what was thought it meant, as opposed to what it did.

That's a matter of opinion.
I received an email from a friend that has been using iron-linux, and he seems to be pretty happy with it. No major complaints, anyway.
Cheers

[ClareOldie]

PCLOS is a rolling release.
Decisions have been taken at intervals - about every 3 years - to require a reinstall.
Those decisions were taken to eliminate the likelyhood of users breaking their system if something went amiss with some very basic underlying stuff being updated.
As I understand it, the devs would have updated on a rolling release, estimated the possibilities of such updates causing hassle, and taken the decision that the course of least upset for the majority of users was a reinstall. I guess we cannot all be devs, and it seems PCLOS does not expect us to be.
Some indication of the problems became visible during an update from 2007 to 2009 (I think) where a lot of users had problems they were unable to sort out, and just reinstalled anyway. Others had no problems and some more had problems which were sorted.
All of that took up way to much time and effort in support on the forum, for the benefits gained.
I believe the decision for staged reinstalls was influenced by that experience.

I first installed PCLOS as my main OS in 2005, having played with it and other distros for some time.
In 2007 a reinstall was deemed necessary, and again in 2010.
In between the updates were on a rolling basis.

So I guess in one way PCLOS is not a "true" rolling release, in that it has required a reinstall twice.
On the other hand it seems to have come to a very pragmatic and workable means of having a rolling release in between major reinstalls, which have happened only twice to date. This appears to be for the benefit of users.

Heck there were distros that did not last as long as a PCLOS install and rolling update

To me it is a rolling release. Others can call it whatever they wish ... it hardly matters.

The scheme works, and works well for users, which is the main thing IMO.

regards.

[username]

To me it is a rolling release. Others can call it whatever they wish ... it hardly matters.

Thank you & I agree. I can see that this is maybe a touchy subject for some, so I will drop it & just say that I've been a pclos user since Big Daddy (I think) and have been very happy with it. It's off topic anyway. More to the point is that I don't particularly care for the idea that browsers lack privacy, hence my interest in iron-linux. I think one might have to create a symlink for flash to work if installed via tar -zxvf iron-linux.tar.gz & running the binary,, but I think I'll wait for a synaptic install just to be safe. Later...

[Dragynn]

I think one might have to create a symlink for flash to work if installed via tar -zxvf iron-linux.tar.gz & running the binary,, but I think I'll wait for a synaptic install just to be safe. Later...

It won't work period, symlink or no, until glibc is upgraded, PCLOS is using 2.10, the new versions of Iron are built to use 2.11. At least that's my understanding. But I did try anyway at one point , didn't work

[username]

Thanks for that info, Dragynn, and thanks for trying. My friend that has been using iron-linux has Fedora as his distro. That may be the difference.

[Dragynn]

Thanks for that info, Dragynn, and thanks for trying. My friend that has been using iron-linux has Fedora as his distro. That may be the difference.

No problem, I really like Iron too, all the speed of Chromium/Chrome, and no phoning-home to google. I did some Peacekeeper tests running Iron 5 on another distro, it scored almost 3 times higher than Firefox, and was giving me close to 4-core cpu speeds from a 5 year old dual core chip. I guess the stuff they strip out must help it by lowering the amount of extra data processing/sending etc. because it was a little quicker across the board than Chrome/Chromium too.

I look forward to trying the newest version this year hopefully

[username]

Wow that's pretty impressive. Looking forward to it myself.