Corel Linux Second Edition Review
I recently downloaded and installed Corel Linux Second Edition.
This is based on the Debian distribution. The 2.2.16 kernel was
made on July 18, 2000, almost a year ago. Given the age of the
kernel, Corel may be getting close to an upgrade but unless they
make fundamental changes in the install options and the
philosophy behind them, a new kernel and a few more features are
unlikely to change the conclusions reached below.
I've been curious about Corel Linux for some time because of its
relationship to my preferred word processor, WordPerfect. After
experiencing some problems that could be compatibility issues
with Red Hat Linux 7.1 or possibly hardware problems on a
particular machine, I thought installing some other OS's would
help isolate the nature of the problem. I suspected an issue
between the Linux X Window system and the BIOS or the keyboard,
mouse, video (KVM) sharing box. Trying another Linux made sense
and since I'm looking at business desktop systems and not secure
servers, Corel seemed an obvious choice. Also, Corel uses the
KDE GUI which I've been using with Red Hat.
The 450MB download was time consuming but uneventful. Corel's
directions for making the install CD were simple and accurate. I
made the CD and boot floppy. The specific PC that I was
installing to will boot from a Windows 98 install CD but so far
not from any BSD or Linux boot CD. Though the Corel Linux
install CD is bootable in other systems, I needed the boot floppy for
the machine on which I installed Corel Linux.
The first install prompt was surprisingly for a username. The
example was myname1. There was no prompt for this user's
The next prompt was for "Install Standard Desktop" or "Show
Advanced Install Options". I chose the latter to see what
choices were available. Four options were listed as follows: 1)
Desktop (minimum installation); 2) Desktop Plus (development
tools, editors); 3) Server (Web, file, print, FTP); and 4) Custom
(chose one or more applications).
I chose Custom to review what was available. An expandable tree
with some top level choices like Application, Development and
Linux system was available. Nothing was prechecked. Options
like httpd and ftpd were not to be found in the selections. I
subsequently backed up two install steps chose a standard desktop
install, not server, and these two servers were installed anyway
but not activated. It appears that Corel has defined a base or
minimum install and the Custom install lists other packages that
may be added to the base install. It does not give the user an
option to remove components they will not be using that are part
of the base install. In the development languages, Bison and C
were listed; Perl was not. Following the standard install, I did
not think to check to see if Perl was installed.
Contrast this to the Red Hat install where you may chose a
"Workstation" install but still specify package selection. Then
you see all the available packages. Those that are part of the
workstation install are prechecked and others are not. You may
delete "standard" components, add optional components or both.
Afterwards, Red Hat performs a consistency check and besides
allowing you to go back and reselecting, provides three useful
choices on automatically dealing with any install inconsistencies you
may have created by your selections.
After seeing the available Corel options, I backed up two steps
and selected "Install Standard Desktop." The next prompt included
2 available disk related options: "Take over disk (erases all
existing information)" and "Edit partition table (for advanced
Linux users)". Two unavailable (grayed) options showed as "Use
free disk space (keeps existing information)" and "Install in
DOS/Windows partition". The disk was fully partitioned into
Linux partitions with no unused space or DOS/Windows partitions
so the install presented only the appropriate options.
I chose "Edit Partition Table". Previous Linux partitions (from
a Red Hat 7.1 install) showed without mount points. I assigned
mount points as I would for Red Hat. The install displayed a
dropdown with /, /usr, /usr/local and /home. It did not show
/boot as an option. I did not use /usr/local but did add /tmp
and /var as separate mount points for different partitions. When
I clicked continue, there was an error message which said "There
is not enough free space in partition to install packages you
selected. Please chose another package configuration." I was
puzzled because there was no way that I could see space
requirements overfilling any filesystems I'd defined.
I backed up and chose "Take over disk" to see how Corel
partitioned the disk. The next prompt was for "Install" with a
check box to "Scan for bad blocks while formatting" which I did
not check. When I clicked continue, the formatting and install
ran. The install was somewhat time consuming for installing only
416,768 KB. There was a tiny (20MB) /dev/hda1 with a /boot mount
point. Everything else was under / on one large partition (I
believe /dev/hda2). About 400MB were under /usr which was a
fraction of the 3096MB I'd given it. There was less than 50MB on
the rest of the system which would easily have fitted into the
256MB / I'd tried to create.
If the issue was a need for a separate /boot partition, this
should have been listed in the default mount points and the error
message should have said something about that. Instead it
described a problem that did not really exist and gave no clue
how to solve the problem. I couldn't follow the advice ("choose
another package configuration") because I'd already selected a
standard desktop or minimum install. I'd set up what I
considered intelligent partitions with more than ample room for
the install. Corel gave not a hint as to what partition was too
small or what components there was not room for. Any further
attempts at manually partitioning, would simply have been a
guessing game with no assurance I'd ever find a satisfactory (to
Corel) mixture of sizes.
A message indicated the install had completed. When the system
rebooted there was a graphical LILO like prompt. The default
choice was "Corel Linux OS". There were also VGA, no network,
text and single user modes. Twice I chose the default. Each time
the system instantly froze when I moved the mouse. During the
install, I'd also notice spurious backticks ("`") appearing where
they should not, in text entry fields. This was consistent with
video? related problems I'd already seen with Red Hat Linux on
this same machine. I concluded that there was either a hardware
problem or something generic between the Linux X Window system
and this PC and not specific to Red Hat or Corel. I'd also had
unexplained lockups with Red Hat Linux on this machine.
Subsequently I booted to text mode and learned some more about
Corel Linux OS before erasing it. First there were two users,
root and the name I'd provided, both with blank passwords. The
default user in the GUI login is root, thus encouraging root
logins with a blank password. There was never a prompt or
suggestion that a password should be assigned for root or any
other user. Further there was no shadow password file; the
password field was blank for root and the new user and asterisks
for the many other (approximately 30) predefined users.
Though Linux can be made quite secure, security is not by default
one of its strengths. For a vendor to fail to provide even a minimal
security setup for product released in 2000 just is not acceptable.
Correctly setting up a shadow password file will not make the system
more difficult for users but may make it more difficult for intruders.
Early 2000 had many widely publicized security incidents. Vendors
have to do better with security in the Internet age, even with systems
intended for non technical users. Perhaps Corel felt security was
not necessary because their Linux distribution appears to lack any
usable network support.
There were no network setup prompts at any time during the
install. I checked dmesg output; there was no information about
any network cards and no error messages. I'm speculating here
regarding the implications of this. This suggests to me that
kernel does not contain any network drivers. If these are to be
used, the appropriate kernel module would need to be loaded
dynamically. On other Linux and UNIX systems, I've assigned and
changed IP addresses and network masks and added and removed
routes on already defined network interfaces but never manually
created a new network interface. Corel's Linux OS install does
not provide any assistance in setting up even the first essential
component of networking which is traditionally one of UNIX
It also does nothing to assist a user to add any additional
software that may be needed but was not included during the
install. Three programs to manage Debian binary packages are
installed as part of the base package. These are dpkg-deb, dpkg
and dselect. Dselect is a "user friendly" text shell to simplify
the install, removal, updating and general management of Debian
binary format install packages. When you run it, you can see
what Corel has installed but when you get down to the "Available
But Not Installed" headings, there is no information present, just
empty headings. Corel has not created the database the Debian
install programs use to find install packages that haven't been
installed. There are many such programs on the install CD
but unless the Custom install is selected, Corel provides no
assistance installing these.
If you want something from the install CD that was not included
during the initial install, you have manually find it on the CD,
then use dpkg-deb or dpkg to install it. This means working
through a fairly deep directory tree and using man to figure out
dpkg and dpkg-deb.
When I was looking at the files available under the Custom
install I noticed cdrecord, mkisofs and xcdroast. The first two
are essential and the last is a GUI wrapper for writing CD-Rs. I
regarded the Plextor CD-R drive that was installed on this
computer as a key hardware component that was purchased because
it was compatible with Linux and OpenBSD. After finding these
programs and installing them manually with dpkg, "cdrecord -
scanbus" showed no devices. I added the necessary command to
enable SCSI emulation for IDE ATAPI devices into /etc/lilo.conf
and rebooted. After rebooting, cdrecord still could not find the
Apparently Corel has not included the SCSI emulation and other
kernel modules necessary to use a CD-R. Once more Corel has not
provided a trace of assistance in using a device that is becoming
quite common place. By contrast, when the drive was already
physically installed in the PC, before Red Hat was installed, the
drive was fully configured and ready for use as both a normal
CD-ROM and as a CD-R at the completion of the Red Hat install. On
another machine, when the drive was added after the Red Hat
install, it only took one configuration line change to enable it.
One has to ask who does Corel expect to use their Linux OS
product. No business user in their right mind would start with a
Linux distribution that provided no security, no networking and
pathetic hardware support. Linux has traditionally had the most
appeal to advanced home users, often computer professionals or
hobbyists. Until recently, security was not typically a major
concern to such users but networking has generally been regarded as
essential and these are the kinds of users most likely to have
add-on hardware not available on the most basic PCs. These users
would have no use for a Corel style install.
The simplicity of the install suggests it's intended for a novice
user who wants a free or very low cost word processor. Such
users are not going to turn to Linux which still has a reputation
as a techie toy. They are going to use the latest Windows or if
they have Mac user friends a Mac. They'll use Write or whatever
"lite" word processor comes bundled with the computer.
It's true, that if Linux is to become a mass market success, its
installs will need to get simpler but this cannot be at the
expense of necessary functionality. Users expect the hardware
included in their computer to work at the end of system setup
(operating system install). The less sophisticated the user, the
higher the expectations. It means that installs have to get
better at recognizing the installed hardware and the environment
they are being installed in and be able to automate just about
everything necessary to give a novice user a fully functional
computer at the end of the install. Advanced install paths for
the experienced user must still be included. Red Hat is much
further along this path that Corel appears to not even see.
In my opinion, Corel Linux OS is not a useful Linux distribution.
If you've had significantly different experiences with a Corel
Linux OS install, I'd be interested in hearing about it and will
mention different user experiences.
Marc Grondin sent me the following in an email dated 4/22/03.
(Used with permission.)
Although I realize this is an older review, I read it
with interest - as I have been (and am still using)
Corel Linux 1.2, and had quite a bit of trouble trying
to equate this to my personal experience : 1) I am by
trade a Sys Admin. 2) Have been involved with Linux
since late 1999. 3) Have experimented with both
debian/redhat based distros : storm, mandrake,
caldera, suse, slackware, corel, xandros- to name a
I have done more installs that I care to count, but
most of my "clients, friends, family, ..." when given
live demos almost always went with Corel. They just
couldn't be bothered with things like : right-click
unmount for most distros of that era, and mandrake's
"super-mount" was/is mostly for the birds for power-
users who want real desktop functionality. Corel was
by far a) the quickest, simplest to install. b) small
footprint, and not hdw demanding - installed it on
p75 to P800+, mostly lower-level units had 24/32 mb
ram. c) I usually completed the software landscape
with Mozilla, OpenOffice, K_aim, Realplayer, ...etc.
For most users they were as happy as can be imagined:
no more viruses, crashes, and hardening it security-
wise was peanuts (for me), as was basic system
optimization, to eke out better performance: boot/halt
times and app launch.
Many are still using it, although admittedly the
ones with more powerful iron have gone to Xandros.
All in all - it was/is an excellant entry-level Linux,
and I don't regret 1 minute spent on it.
i) I would've liked to have them auto-detect/configure
ii) I don't think it would've killed them to include
some *.deb friendly basic firewall utility.
iii) There are some things I was never able to resolve
- like installing DivX / Xine, until I found
crossXOver-plugin, and then went to wmp or qt.
But all in all / with price considerations - I bought
my copy for $30 cdn - It rates a solid 8.5/10.
Top of Page -
Copyright © 2000 - 2014 by George Shaffer. This material may be
distributed only subject to the terms and conditions set forth in
These terms are subject to change. Distribution is subject to
the current terms, or at the choice of the distributor, those
in an earlier, digitally signed electronic copy of
http://GeodSoft.com/terms.htm (or cgi-bin/terms.pl) from the
time of the distribution. Distribution of substantively modified
versions of GeodSoft content is prohibited without the explicit written
permission of George Shaffer. Distribution of the work or derivatives
of the work, in whole or in part, for commercial purposes is prohibited
unless prior written permission is obtained from George Shaffer.
Distribution in accordance with these terms, for unrestricted and
uncompensated public access, non profit, or internal company use is