Corel Linux 1999 oddity

Discussion on Linux distributions

Moderator: crosscourt

Post Reply
wove
Posts: 267
Joined: Mon May 04, 2020 4:47 pm

Corel Linux 1999 oddity

Post by wove »

In my on going cleanout of old stuff, I found a boxed set of Corel Linux 2nd edition. It requires a Pentium processor 32MB of RAM and 800MB of hard drive space, a CD ROM and a PCI vga capable video card with 2MB of video RAM. Features the KDE desktop. It includes the full Corel graphics suite (version9) and WordPerfect 8 and Adobe Acrobat. Fully y2k compliant, and included a 12" inflatable Linux penguin (which is missing). I actually remember nothing about this, and have no idea what I might have installed it on.

Probably all that is note worthy is it has Linux versions of very traditional Windows propritiary software. It says it is built on Debian with 2.2.16 Linux kernel, and also says you can install RedHat rpms directly. I think this whole endeavor marked the beginning of Corel's big downfall. It has me curious enough to wonder if I could get this up and running is VirtualBox or something similar.

What version of KDE was out in 1999?

bill
User avatar
tlmiller
Posts: 3812
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2018 12:29 pm
Location: AZ, USA

Re: Corel Linux 1999 oddity

Post by tlmiller »

That would be around the time of KDE 1.1!!
User avatar
crosscourt
Posts: 8023
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2018 5:38 pm
Location: Wash DC
Contact:

Re: Corel Linux 1999 oddity

Post by crosscourt »

Inflatable Penguin, thats pretty cool. Its funny that in those days which you also saw with pc games, they included a lot of promo merchandise.
Site Moderator
User avatar
bin
Posts: 88
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2020 11:08 am

Re: Corel Linux 1999 oddity

Post by bin »

YUP that was my second ever linux. I actually paid for it. Learned a lot - KDE 1 - oh yes!!!

I guess it would install with virt manager as I that goes back to Debian Slink with the End of Life templates.
User avatar
tlmiller
Posts: 3812
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2018 12:29 pm
Location: AZ, USA

Re: Corel Linux 1999 oddity

Post by tlmiller »

If you do it, let us know how it is. Maybe some screenshots too for nostalgia's sake, I have fond memories (although at this point that's all it is, I can't actually remember what it looked like) of KDE 1.
User avatar
crosscourt
Posts: 8023
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2018 5:38 pm
Location: Wash DC
Contact:

Re: Corel Linux 1999 oddity

Post by crosscourt »

Ive honestly never seen KDE 1. I began with Linux when KDE 3 was being used.
Site Moderator
wove
Posts: 267
Joined: Mon May 04, 2020 4:47 pm

Re: Corel Linux 1999 oddity

Post by wove »

Here a a few pictures of Corel Linux running on Mac OS X 10.5 on a PowerMac G5.

bill
Attachments
Task manager running Main Menu Open
Task manager running Main Menu Open
TaskManageMainMenu.jpg (186.63 KiB) Viewed 224 times
A few applications open
A few applications open
SomeAppsOpen.jpg (122.41 KiB) Viewed 224 times
Installer screen.
Installer screen.
Installing.jpg (87.12 KiB) Viewed 224 times
User avatar
tlmiller
Posts: 3812
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2018 12:29 pm
Location: AZ, USA

Re: Corel Linux 1999 oddity

Post by tlmiller »

Maybe that's why I don't remember KDE 1 very well, it looks nearly identical to KDE 2...
wove
Posts: 267
Joined: Mon May 04, 2020 4:47 pm

Re: Corel Linux 1999 oddity

Post by wove »

KDE has had a lot that has stayed very similar. The Task Manager does not look a whole lot different from the current one. The main menu is almost identical to the default TDE menu. Kwrite is there v 0.98. The console is called Console rather than Konsole. Unfortunately most of the applications I was interested in seeing start as links and clicking them directs you to the site to download them, which of course no longer exists. Corel Linux comes on one CD installer and that is only using 450MB of the CD.

bill
User avatar
tlmiller
Posts: 3812
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2018 12:29 pm
Location: AZ, USA

Re: Corel Linux 1999 oddity

Post by tlmiller »

Oh yes, there's definitely a familiarity in all the KDE releases, and 1/2/3 are definitely more than JUST familiarity, they're EXTREMELY similar. But 1 & 2, they're REALLY (visually) similar!! I'm sure 2 was much better than 1 functionally, but just going by visuals, they look nearly identical. While 3 was definitely still VERY similar, it is (for the most part) almost immediately distinguishable from 1 or 2.
Post Reply