Related Articles


  1. Pingback: Links 13/11/2011: Linux Mint 12 “Lisa” RC, Sugar on a Stick 6 | Techrights

  2. 1


    Thank you so much for doing this review, this kind of feedback is appreciated.
    You are correct about the security issues, it has not had the attention it deserves in developing this Distro, and needs to be addressed in the next team meeting.
    As you mention, a Chakra ISO is GTK2 free, that ofc means, shipping flashplugin by default is not an option, it requires GTK2. The java-runtime shipped in the ISO for libre-office is openjdk, Chakra chooses foss options as much as possible, and let’s the user decide, if they prefer proprietary instead.
    Which brings us to the focus of Chakra. There are plenty of Distro’s, that require no user intervention, all is setup by default, but gives the user less power over the final installed system. That was never the goal of Chakra. The goal is an easy to setup basic system, were the user has all the power to make the KDE install their own, user intervention and Wiki reading is required. This part of the goal clearly needs to be better explained, and will be one of the goals for the next release.

    1. 1.1


      Thanks to all the chakra team and everyone in kde Gnu and upstream for making this distro a reality, Im looking up for the security enhacements and the next dev meeting to see where is going to go chakra in the future!!!

      Nice review… Hail Chakra!!!! XD

      1. 1.1.1

        wolverine tech

        1. Semi-rolling releases. 2. Polished KDE implementation 3. Very fast package manager* 4. Relatively easy installation.

        If the security issues are taken care of (especially having the option to start/configure the firewall during installation), I will probably use this as my primary OS.

        It is great to see the developers responding (positively) to honest reviews like this. Looking forwards to the next release (beta?).

        *Package management: I still need to wrap my head around the package management in Chakra. Seems like if all the dependencies are self-contained in an application, it should work well without breaking during upgrades. But having the dependencies ‘bundled’ into the applications – does that not duplicate the libraries and consume memory (albeit very little)?


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *