Slashdot Mirror
Lindows Reviewed
Well, the wait is finally over. Lindows, the system that promises to
bring Windows software to Linux, has finally been released in
sneak-preview form. You can catch a
first
hand review of the system on
NewsForge.
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Here's a neat point from the article .exe or .pif screensavers attached -- or even with infected .rpms."
"There's something scary about an imaginary LindowsOS-from-Windows convert, happily running as root, downloading emails with infected
I thought, now people will be complaining about stupid lindows users. But think about it, if everyone was as as smart as most linux users, their windows boxes wouldn't be as fucked up w/virii or whatever from outlook.
Here's my point. It's not the OS it's the user that sucks. If it's user friendly, you get stupider people.
Let's see -- you cannot really be anything other than root, it can be hit by a Window's virus, lots of apps just *poof*,... How will this give Lindows credibility with the Linux crowd?
It looks like KDE. The article also says that 99% of the programs he tried didn't work. I'm probably going to get bitched out, but I'm still a skeptic.
The other thing, that has already been pointed out, is about the email worms... if you have to run outlook as root, and you get one of those babies... well... *poof*
That said, it looks nice... I'll be impressed when they can demonstrate more stability running windows applications.
But then again, M$ has been trying that for about 2 decades.
Humorless sig goes here.
The single biggest issue I see here *is* that Lindows has you do everything while running as root.
:-/
That is the *stupidest* thing I have ever heard of. Aren't something like *half* of the script kiddie root hacks out there depending on someone being dumb enough to go onto the net while logged in as root?
Also, there was no mention of any kind of firewalling on this setup. I have a linux server running in my home office. I can say from experience that if there is no firewalling (ipchains/iptables) installed, configured and running, that you are *asking* for trouble.
I understand that this is a Linux distro for the Win98 crowd, and that Win98 isn't secure in the least, but I really hope that the Lindows people give the Win98'ers a fighting chance. Otherwise the k33bler pr0n elves are going to be visiting some new Lindows boxes *real* soon....
Polymorphism -- It's what you make of it.
"Windows users who are trying out Lindows won't be concerned about this, though, so if they are the target market for LindowsOS, the "running as root" thing shouldn't be a problem."
Okay, just because Windows 98 doesn't have security, that means Lindows shouldn't either...? All of the NT-based Windows OSes do have the ability to not run users/programs as root. This is a ridiculous step backward for security, and the "just because Windows 9x does it" excuse is poor at best.
If Lindows becomes popular, viruses will abound for that platform. Is this really any better than Windows? Now Linux has lost the main advantages it has over Windows, namely:
-- It's "free" (interpret that as you will)
-- It's more secure.
This is Microsoft's dream come true -- a chance to point out that not only is "Linux" less secure than Windows, but "Linux" is also not free (never mind that Lindows != Linux; Microsoft also has trouble remembering the difference between GPL and open-source.)
The bottom line is that Lindows as it stands today is not a boon to the Linux community, and it could cause a dangerous black eye to those currently promoting Linux on the desktop. Tread carefully.
Simpli - Your source for San Jose dedicated servers and colocation!
Ask this question again and again. Ask it to yourself everytime somebody says "Linux on the desktop".
Linux can make it on the desktop, as long as they don't try to be a "me-too" Windowsalike.
Free top-of-the-head ideas for a Linux-based focus:
Linux needs to find its niche (small/medium servers is a good start) and excel there. I can predict that Lindows will soon join Loki on the bench.
Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
Unfortunately, history has told Lindows a bit, but I'm not sure they listened. Hardware compatibility issues aside, IBM OS/2 had a great platform for running windows, unix (with some free software) and os/2 apps all on the same box at the same time. It was awesome, 32 bit pre-emptive multitasking running 16bit windows apps. If an app crashes, just ctrl-esc and kill it. Unfortunately, IBM practically couldn't give it away. It didn't take.
.02
If people want to run windows apps they are going to choose windows. If they do run Lindows, Lindows itself will not be able to keep up with changes microsoft implements just to cost companies like lindows money.
Just my
-Sean
For all the hubbub that Steve Gibson made about Windows XP and it's raw sockets taking over the world, burning your toast, and painting your room pink, I would think Lindows would make him, and other over-reacting folk, well, over-react.
Sure, you need root access to use raw sockets, but if Lindows forces you to run as root (let's be honest here, if it doesn't work as a regular user you're only viable option is to run as root). So now we have Linux machines with computer dolts running as root who also have the ability to unleash various macro viruses upon the world.
That's double plus ungood.
>1. the public's general dislike of windows
Just curious, not intending to troll, but will probably be regarded as such...
Which public is this? The open source loving slashdot reading MS bashing public? Or the remaining 99% of the computing world, most of which have no opinion on Windows positive or negative, it's just what their computers at work and home happened to come with (unless they're using Macs, of course)?
For the vast majority of computer users, the OS isn't the source of religious fervor Linux users seem to think it is. It's just what runs in the background while they look at web pages or read email or balance their checkbook.
They couldn't give a rat's ass what their computers run as long as they can double-click on the picture of a 1040 and fill out their tax forms.
Ask 100 random people on the street what operating system their computers run, and of the 95 that answer "Windows", probably 20 will be able to tell you which flavor of Windows it is (95/98/NT/ME/2K/XP). Ask those 20 how much RAM their computer has, and probably 10 will tell you it came with 40 gigs of RAM.
Honestly, folks, it's nice that you find so much meaning in hating Microsoft, but please don't assume that the rest of the world feels the same way.
The vast majority of people out there DON'T CARE.
Slashdot is NOT a cross-section of computer users.
-l
Let's say you're Mr. Joe Generic PC User, and you run solitaire, Outlook Express, some Internet Explorer, and maybe you have an AOL dialup account. You also run a couple of other programs you happen to like, such as Quicken or Word.
What is the incentive for you to change?
Think about it. The biggest killer of Office sales is not StarOffice or KOffice, but older versions of Office. People want something that just "gosh-durn works". They don't care about upgrading, and they certainly aren't interested in the fact that the new Athlon 2GHz processor is faster than the equivalent Intel.
If you've ever done PC helpdesk, you know the inevitable deer-in-headlights look that regular computer users get when you say "the U word": upgrade. "Will my applications be okay? What about my documents? How about my email?" Change scares people! Even changing to Windows XP is scary because it doesn't look like other versions of Windows.
I can't even convince people to get rid of 9x and switch to Windows 2000, even though I can promise them stability and more configuration options. The panicked look comes onto their face, and then they say "You know, Windows 98 isn't that bad, and it runs this and this and this, and what if my documents get deleted?!" These people in no way are ready to switch to something that is not Windows, and the more someone makes a big deal out of it, the more scared they get.
I think the parent post has a valid point. If what you are using works, why change? Personally, I'm still on the crusade to rid the world of Windows 98 and switch people over to 2000/XP, but even that is a long and unforgiving ride. If Lindows doesn't even run the applications these people need, forget it. That battle isn't even worth fighting.
Simpli - Your source for San Jose dedicated servers and colocation!
>The majority of people don't like their PC
>crashing randomly, or having to defrag their
>hard drive, or having to completely reinstall
>everything.
Then again, the majority of people don't understand that Windows has anything to do with that. They think it's just part of using a computer.
Quick, what's the most often-cited initial reaction Linux advocates get from new (usually neophyte) converts?
"My computer doesn't crash anymore!"
The reason that's the initial reaction is because it's the biggest shock - they really honestly EXPECT their computer to crash because it's all they've ever known. They don't blame Windows for it. They don't hate Microsoft for it. They blame their COMPUTER and they hate COMPUTERS for it.
If your fuel injectors on your car break, do you hate your car, the manufacturer of your car, or Bosch? Unless you're a mechanic or a car guy, you probably don't even know who the hell Bosch is.
-l
Yeah, sacrifice ease-of-use for filesystem security that isn't needed on a single-user machine. Brilliant.
It's not a single-user system by any definition. Maybe out of the box it is, but the second someone discovers it online, it's gonna be cracked and become a multi-user system. No password for root? Why not just hand them a shotgun and say 'aim squarely at feet'.
THINK BEFORE POSTING.
Why not? They are the manual pages, hence the name. The original Unix manual was the man pages printed out; the man pages were the manual, online. The pages offer help and documentation for every part of the system.
This is, incidentally, why GNU's broken manpages are so intolerably evil. Info's great--it's far better than man. But it should never replace man. Man is usable in situations where info is not. Man has advantages info lacks.
I want to change the file permissions on this file so that noone[sic] can read, write or execute this file but me... Let[sic] see... 4 = read, 2 = write, 1 = execute. Therefore I have to chmod 0700[sic]
Alternatively, I want to make sure that none but I can read it. This means that no other user or group of users can do anything to it. I want to subtract all privileges from others and groups. Thus I want to chmod og-a. There, that wasn't too bad, was it?
One of the reasons I fled the Windoze world was the crappy limited UI.
_ __
KDE can look like Windows (or half a dozen other OSes) or I like using Gnome's CDE panel layout with a Mac OS style thin menu up top which gives a similiar look OS X.
Why are we in the Linux community so damn intent on copying Windows. Everytime someone talks about Windows and its shortcomings the UI and its inconsistencies and oddities come up. However, when we as a community start building a Desktop environment everyone brags on the interfaces, desktops and even the distros that imitate the Evil freakin' Empire. If you like it so much then stay in your Windows world.
There are so many linux diehards that run linux on your servers and screw around with it occasionally but don't take the few hours on the side to set up a user interface and actually live with the OS 24/7 as your workstation.
I do live with it and once it is set up properly anyone including my wife can use it. The Distros need to hard look at moving the desktop interface, UI and user experience forward instead of blindly following the lead of Redmond.
_______________________________________________
ACK