Slashdot Mirror

What are they doing on these general purpose machines? Are they essentially a kiosk to get online with? If so, maybe you should consider OEOne. This was previously mentioned on Slashdot a few days ago. It sits on top of Red Hat and looks like it gives the users the basic internet capabilities they need. I'm not sure how well it will lock down, however. I just thought I'd mention it since I'm thinking about setting up a box running this for my parents.

They really pay attention to details, I'll give them that. Before I even install the software I have already encountered several examples of Good Thinking.

#1: This is their installer: $ lynx -source http://install.oeone.com/ |sh

This trick has been around for a while (I use it myself) but it's good to see a commercial developer paying attention to tricks of the trade. No need to explain to people how to use the command line to run an installer, just paste, please.

#2: CVS pserver. Once again, commercial developer paying attention.

Now, I give them a strike for providing a RedHat-only installation. A binary tarball would have been fine. But...

#3: The source code hasn't just been dumped on the net with a little "here ya go, knock yerselves out" message. They've taken the time to explain how things work and even provided hints for Going Debian.

#4: Their mascot doesn't suck. :-) Even though I personally would have named it "Tuxilla."

They really pay attention to details, I'll give them that. Before I even install the software I have already encountered several examples of Good Thinking.

#1: This is their installer: $ lynx -source http://install.oeone.com/ |sh

This trick has been around for a while (I use it myself) but it's good to see a commercial developer paying attention to tricks of the trade. No need to explain to people how to use the command line to run an installer, just paste, please.

#2: CVS pserver. Once again, commercial developer paying attention.

Now, I give them a strike for providing a RedHat-only installation. A binary tarball would have been fine. But...

#3: The source code hasn't just been dumped on the net with a little "here ya go, knock yerselves out" message. They've taken the time to explain how things work and even provided hints for Going Debian.

#4: Their mascot doesn't suck. :-) Even though I personally would have named it "Tuxilla."

You seem to have misread or overlooked the following: " Fully-featured word processor: ... Using an RTF format, HomeBase DESKTOP's word processor lets you send documents to others who use a variety of formats, and import and work with their docs (including Microsoft Word) as well. "

How long will it take developers to realize that .doc *is* the standard, regardless of whether we like it or not.

Actually, RTF has always been the standard. The fact that noone takes advantage of that built in cross platform compatibility in almost every word pro on the planet, is just a matter of common ignorance. Consider this an M$ user's education: File -> Save As... -> Save as type: RTF. Voila! Instant cross platform 'standardisation'. :)

-Guanno

PS. To my understanding, M$ .doc's are actually Active-X applications. Therefore, they're a security risk. I don't touch them with a 50' barge pole. If it's not ascii .. I don't need to read it that badly.

http://oeone.com/products/screenshots.html

My personal favorites are the Calendar & "my page" shots.

How is the parent offtopic? Go read the links before moderating!

Open-Source components are available via CVS. Directions for anonymous CVS are here:
http://www.oeone.com/developers/

Cheers,
Vic

There are screenshots available

http://www.oeone.com/products/screenshots.html

OEone

If you want to see it done right, talk with these people.

Lycoris had some HP desktops and have apparently sold out of the things.

A company called OEone makes a distro based on Red Hat but using Mozilla for the desktop. They are selling "internet computer" boxes with their product installed. Here is Robin Miller's review of the appliance/OS. I saw a more negative review of the OEone Homebase distro all by itself, but I can't cite it.

There is definitely some demand for preinstalled machines, but perhaps the distros reckon they are better off just supplying OEM versions to small vendors.

From my bookmarks for preinstalled desktops:

http://www.linux-works.com/html/desktops.html
h ttp://www.indybox.com/products/
http://www.hardda ta.com/x86.html
http://www.dsgzone.com/linux_lab/
http://www.swt.com/
http://www.buypogo.com/
ht tp://www.gtweb.net/custom.html
http://www.linuxco mputersystems.com/
http://www.micronux.com/cgi-bi n/system.cgi?pid=9
http://www.atipa.com/
http:// www.sunsetsystems.com/

Take a look at OEone. They have Linux with a Mozilla desktop on cheap hardware. It looks like they are going to sell it without the hardware soon. There is a review on newsforge.

Take a look at OEone. They have Linux with a Mozilla desktop on cheap hardware. It looks like they are going to sell it without the hardware soon. There is a review on newsforge.

Will Linux take over the desktop? No. Not until my grandma can use it.

I'm getting really sick of that argument...the hurdle that stands in the way of Linux gaining ground on the desktop is not a question of usability: it is a matter of a)the installed user base's inertia, b)Microsoft near-monopoly on the Office Suite and c)the lack of mass-media marketing from Linux "Desktop" distributions (which they obviously can't afford). As it stands today, in 2002, Linux is very usable, as much if not more than Windows from grandma's point of view. Even the new versions of the "classic" distros (like Mandrake and RedHat) are a breeze to setup and use.

Face it: grandma won't be able to use Windows out of the box any more than Linux - stop repeating this inane argument, it is based on a false assumption.

Actually...this has nothing to do with the fact that people don't use Linux. I personally haven't had to recompile my kernel yet, and don't plan to in the near future. I don't consider myself stupid. If I ever need to do it, I'll be able to easily find the instructions online.

The reason why 95% of the world uses MS Windows is a) the fact that people have a great inertia in changing their habits, b) the fact that Microsoft has a quasi-monopoly on Office software (and they won't publish it for Linux) and c) their awesome marketing machine.

The truth is that, once properly setup (which nowadays is as simple as booting with the install disk and sitting back), a Linux computer is as easy to use as a Windows box. In some cases, easier. Don't overestimate's Windows simplicity: as a resident "computer specialist" for my friends and family, I have to say that Windows can be quite obfuscating to the average user sometimes. And let's not talk about the dreaded Registry - how user friendly is that?!

Linux is making inroads in business and high-end computing (read about the recent HP/Dreamworks announcement), it's only a matter of time before it begins to infiltrate the home desktop as well.

An iMac has four wires to plug in. The Internet Computer has five, but the additional one is for something the iMac doesn't have: A connection to your TV antenna or cable TV line.

And did I mention it runs Linux? That means one could technically do lots more with it.

OK, there's a $799 imac alternative and it ships with linux. Why is there no mention of linux in the little /. blurb? It seems to me that the "linux factor" is the most interesting part of the story, especially to the slashdot audience!

Anyway, the thing sure is priced right, and it runs linux, but I'm still weary of a company who so blatantly rips off other people's hardware designs. Can anyone here look at their picture of the thing and tell me it doesn't look a whole lot like an imac? And didn't apple already sue these people for making a windows-based imac knockoff?

I'm pleased there's a sub $1k consumer pc shipping with linux; I just wish it was coming from a more reputable company.

I'm surprised that the review does not mention this device's key problem: it is too expensive to be an Internet appliance, and too limited to be a personal computer. Home Internet appliances have largely been a failure to date. Recent history is littered with devices like the Audrey and the Compaq iPaq home appliance that have failed to catch on; even WebTV has been a disappointment. Worse, these devices generally cost far less than OEOne's, as little as US$100.

Of course, this is designed to be far more than an Internet appliance: it uses Linux and can run thousands of applications. The problem is that this is focused on the consumer market, where there are hardly any good Linux applications widely available (check the amount of software available at a consumer electronics chain like Circuit City or Best Buy for Linux compared to Windows or MacOS if you don't believe this.) Remember that you can get a new low-end iMac for the same price as this device, and PCs for less. Unless OEOne can overcome this issue, the device will also fail.

PS: When I first viewed the review, I saw a banner ad for the device at the top of the page. Given the laudatory, uncritical tone of the review, I couldn't help but wonder if there was any firewall between the editorial and business sides of Newsforge. I reloaded the page a number of times and only saw the banner ad reappear once, so my concerns are somewhat assuaged. However, Newsforge should at least be concerned about the appearances of conflict of interest.

• Even though the documentation said it could record TV shows, there is no obvious way to do this yet. One OEone employee told me the documentation writers had been a bit "enthusiastic" about some of what they included in the first version of the user guide. Look for video recording capability in the next software version.
• No chat software, even though chat capability is mentioned in the docs. The story here is that they were planning to include a combination ICQ/IRC client in 1.0, but it wasn't quite ready by the scheduled release date, and was held back for the moment.
• No NTSC or S-video output on the video card. Sad. I am disappointed that it isn't there. Add this capability, and the Internet Computer could amost replace a TiVo or other time-shifting TV-watching aid, and serve as the heart of a simple home entertainment center, over and above its computer functions.
• An optional superdrive (combo DVD/CD reader/writer) and drivers for it would make the Internet Computer a perfect "video archiving" device. This would allow users to save an endless number of favorite TV programs, either for their own future pleasure or to share with friends.
• If you're browsing local files while not connected to the Internet, you get constant "cannot connect to server" error messages. This will never be noticed by users with full-time cable or DSL connections, but is going to annoy people who use dialup and can't tie up a phone line every second they're using their computer.

The Oeone PC looks like it would fit the bill; it's dead simple to use, and it runs Linux. The only problem I can foresee is cost, at $800 per unit.

I've been thinking about this for a while, nothing frustrates me more than having windows obscured behind something else, and having to either drag the front window out of the way, or else alt-tab through everything. In a lot of ways this is what first got me hooked on linux as a desktop replacement for windows, the well developed multiple desktops system. So I can hit a key combination and cycle from one desktop to another. One has my mail and IM open on it, the other one browsers, the next nothing but terminals, and then filemanagers/xmms.

A lot of application shave taken a better look at how they're actually used. Sometimes the UI is bad bad bad (StarOffice 5.2). Other times it's really appropriate, like the tabs in galeon which are great for organizing all the browsing into different windows based on subject (for those of us that like to have 20 pages open at once. Right clicking to open in a new tab is great for s site like slashdot, K5 or Adequacy, where there might be 7 or 8 links on the main page that i want to get to, but not forget if I get sidetracked.

When I first grasped mozilla's power as a platform I had the epiphany that since 90% of the apps I ran were network based and mozilla provided an API for creating spiffy looking network applications, it wouldn't be a stretch to do everything in tabs within one maximized window, and that it could eventually function as an OS for lightwieght computers. If you type chrome://messenger/content/messenger.xul in mozilla you can get the entire mail application dropped into your browser window. Press ctrl-T on a recent build and you have a new tab to browse in, but you can switch back to your mail real fast. Add Jabberzilla to your sidebar. Throw in a few more apps from MozDev.org and you can do most of what you'd want within a single window. It's in no way complete or stable, but it's enough to shed some light on a usable way to avoid the worst of window overlap. Apparantly there is a company that's working on using mozilla as an operating environment for appliances called OEone. You can check out the screenshots of their calender application here.

We already have a modern successful non overlapping interface, and it's called PalmOS. Just as it took a limited use platform to accept "modeing", probably not a lot of desktop users will be willing to give up the poer that free windowing gives them, but for appliances, or special uses, such as subject-centered web browsing. Things like tabbing and fullscreen interfaces are a good idea, and have already been implemented.

I've been thinking about this for a while, nothing frustrates me more than having windows obscured behind something else, and having to either drag the front window out of the way, or else alt-tab through everything. In a lot of ways this is what first got me hooked on linux as a desktop replacement for windows, the well developed multiple desktops system. So I can hit a key combination and cycle from one desktop to another. One has my mail and IM open on it, the other one browsers, the next nothing but terminals, and then filemanagers/xmms.

A lot of application shave taken a better look at how they're actually used. Sometimes the UI is bad bad bad (StarOffice 5.2). Other times it's really appropriate, like the tabs in galeon which are great for organizing all the browsing into different windows based on subject (for those of us that like to have 20 pages open at once. Right clicking to open in a new tab is great for s site like slashdot, K5 or Adequacy, where there might be 7 or 8 links on the main page that i want to get to, but not forget if I get sidetracked.

When I first grasped mozilla's power as a platform I had the epiphany that since 90% of the apps I ran were network based and mozilla provided an API for creating spiffy looking network applications, it wouldn't be a stretch to do everything in tabs within one maximized window, and that it could eventually function as an OS for lightwieght computers. If you type chrome://messenger/content/messenger.xul in mozilla you can get the entire mail application dropped into your browser window. Press ctrl-T on a recent build and you have a new tab to browse in, but you can switch back to your mail real fast. Add Jabberzilla to your sidebar. Throw in a few more apps from MozDev.org and you can do most of what you'd want within a single window. It's in no way complete or stable, but it's enough to shed some light on a usable way to avoid the worst of window overlap. Apparantly there is a company that's working on using mozilla as an operating environment for appliances called OEone. You can check out the screenshots of their calender application here.

We already have a modern successful non overlapping interface, and it's called PalmOS. Just as it took a limited use platform to accept "modeing", probably not a lot of desktop users will be willing to give up the poer that free windowing gives them, but for appliances, or special uses, such as subject-centered web browsing. Things like tabbing and fullscreen interfaces are a good idea, and have already been implemented.

Well if you went to the Oeone website, you would see that the whole ui has been built in XUL. It makes more sense therefore to give it to Mozilla than to KDE/GNOME who already are working on calendaring programs, and wouldn't appreciate porting XUL code to QT/GTK.