From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Linux (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linux, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Linux on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

"under the bonnet"[edit]

Please replace the expression "under the bonnet", it sounds too poetic or humoristic, and is not widely used and understood. "under the hood" is better (6,450,000 uses by google, vs. 374,000 with "bonnet"). Doesn't that all just mean "internally"?

Thank you.

Ahem. "Under the bonnet" and "under the hood" mean the same thing, except that the latter is specifically North American. I'm not sure that it's necessary to change all Commonwealth English to American English just because the North American expression has more hits on google. Troyac 12:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Although I am a yank, I understand utb, and don't see why wiki should not accept a variety to international English. 02:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Marketing Drivel?[edit]

This whole thing sounds like something written up by a marketting department.

- jpdrake

  • True. Whether PCLinuxOS is a good distro or not is not Wikipedia's concern. We're here only to inform people about whatever, not promote things. Who's going to remove all the POV? 05:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I cut most of the POV, and also trimmed some fluffy verbiage. I'd say it's more encylcopedic, but kinda stubby now: nothing in the article really distinguishes it from any of dozens of liveCD distros. If anyone's a fan of this distro, feel free to flesh it out a bit, but provide some references. Some of the cut POV material may be true, but it was tossed in without justification. A brisson 07:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I marked the article with "Advertisement" tag because parts of it sound like an ad. Specifically in introduction and in features sections. -- AdrianTM 02:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


Much as jpdrake said, this sounds like PR speak. For example, "PCLinuxOS has a greater sense of focus than Mandriva Linux." It's a pretty subjective statement, and for a distro I've never heard of I don't think it's reputation counts as common knowledge. Does anyone have any experience with this distro that could rewrite? A brisson 19:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Easy Printing[edit]

I tested a number of LiveCDs, trying to find one that could print. Printing under Linux seems quite hard for non-techies to set up. PCLinuxOS 0.92 was the first I found that I could figure out how to actually get a Lexmark 3200 injet working on a USB adapter.[1] 02:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Old news[edit]

There is no mention is this article as far as I can see of the upcoming 2007 release, or the success of the two testing phases. Surely these should be added to keep the article up to date. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 13:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

recent success[edit]

I think that this article should also mention the massive surge in popularity pclos has recently experienced, currently residing at number three on distrowatch top 10 distributions! Also there are several remasters of pclos, sam linux for one, but there are many others (super gamer dvd, digital photography remaster etc. etc.) that should be mentioned.

This is no longer a small project, and this article need to reflect that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 13:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

Did they change the logo?[edit]

I'm not too sure if they completely rebranded it, or if it's just a new look for the betas.

I noticed it at DistroWatch.

If so, and if there's a PCLinuxOS developper out there, it's nice, but I miss the older logo, even though it looked alot like MS's. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jorophose (talkcontribs) 20:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

About Downtime[edit]

I edited the section under Downtime, just the first paragraph, it would be wrong to imply that the site that originally hosted PCLinuxOS failed altogether, the traffic and MySQL connections for PCLinuxOS were affecting other customers, and this company were unable to provide a better package to suit our needs, so the had to close us down. Readers may be aware that The Inquirer had published an article a short time before the site went down. As we had already been warned (5th April) that our site was at breaking point, traffic resulting from this article may well have been the final straw. The Inquirer may have inadvertently created their own story!!

By the way, I am "davecs" at the PCLinuxOS site. Added 2nd May 2007.

Intro & Article fail to give ANY feel for the product![edit]

Isn't PCLinuxOS supposed to offer significant similarity to OSs that the wider public is already using? [No, it isn't]

This article needs to actually state some FEATURES that set this OS apart from any other (or that make it more similar to, say Windows, if that is the goal [that's not the goal]). It needs a description of the look & feel of this OS -- or some examples -- plus information as to whether this may excessively dumb-down Linux for some users (by hiding functionality & command line access).

I don't care about the History of something that is not otherwise described! The Features section should be moved up and should actually SAY something.

(Apologies to prior authors ... but this article left me as completely clueless about PCLinuxOS as I was before reading it.) 20:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Well I absolutely agree, but what can we do about it? There's absolutely loads of stuff I'd like to add, but finding references is a difficult proposition. I mean, what really defines pclos? why is it the no.1 Linux distro according to distrowatch? I've got a pretty good idea - its very new user friendly, has a very active and supportive forum, is stable, has no need for use of the command line, provides easy transition from windows in comparison to other distributions, has a sleek and simple look feel and configuration interface, is easy to install via the simple GUI install from its Live CD, it has all sorts of support for learners including several sister sites specifically for learning to use linux at various skill levels, its in constant enthusiastic development; all these reasons help make is so popular and define its character, but there is no absolute tablet with these facts engraved. I mean I and many others would say that PCLOS has the best hardware support and recognition of any current distro, hence the saying 'it just works!' regarding pclos, but I cant prove it, and I cant even necessarily find a hundred quotations from like minded people to quote. Comments from textar are few and far between, you can't exactly quote random users or newbie can we give this article meaning and stay within encyclopedic limits when the nature of this FOSS project is defined in such relative and unquotable terms? Surely a distro more popular than ubuntu (According to distrowatch) should have a decent, definitive entry here - ! Something we could add perhaps is the fact that, right now, the forums state: Forum Stats 148929 Posts in 19225 Topics by 14866 Members ( By John Rawls, PCLOS user.

Very few distributions are considered free by the FSF[edit]

Is it worth to mention that a distro is considered non-free when only a few meets the criteria of being free by the FSF? (talk) 10:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


Does the screenshot on the page have to be such a "vista-fied" one? It doesn't really capture the uniqueness of the distribution (or even Linux in general) and comes across as a poor man's Windows. I'm sure there are far better PCLinuxOS desktop screenshots. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It used to be Image:Pclos0731.png which is a better representation of the distro, except I don't think that screenshot is from PCLinuxOS 2007. It should really be one of the default theme I think. (Which that might be -- I've never used MiniMe.) DarkJedi613 (talk) 16:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Merger?[edit] —Preceding unsigned comment added by CyclePat (talkcontribs) 22:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Not unless you're claiming PCLinuxOS is run by a ghost. :0

Minor Edits[edit]

I have changed the link to BEL Project (formerly listed as ' and added this minor edits section in the discussion page. as such a small edit like this does not warrant a section all it's own.

Bigbearomaha (talk) 12:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

A User Comments[edit]

I have been using this distro for three years now, having previously used Suse and Kubuntu, and experimented with others. It's very easy to use, very easy to upgrade (I do so every week), and very easy to customise. Some distros constrain you to do things "their way", but the many options available via Synaptic allow you to do it "your way". I'm a retired teacher, and I look after computers for a few friends as a hobby. I've installed it on their computers too. yes - "it just works". It certainly IS free too, although I choose to make a regular donation. Sasha (talk) 10:55, 26 November 2011 (UTC)