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)
The state of DVD playback on Linux is not what it is on Windows. Maybe Lindows along with the Linux DirectX equivelant libraries will allow Windows software DVD players to work?
I watch DVDs all the time and find it annoying that Linux doesn't have decent DVD playback. Hmmm maybe I should help write one...
I preffer to stay Anonymous (you know - NDA stuff)
/opt/wine-lindows). But - you can move the wine out and play it on Mandrake, SuSE, Redhat or Slackware quite easily ;)
;)
To make long story short - it's based on Debian Woody, it got Xandros (previously Corel) nice file manager, and it got a special version of wine which can install Office 2000 very nicely including Explorer 5.0
You can't install Explorer 5.0 or 5.5 seperated - the process fails after download. You cannot install Windows Media Player 7.1 since it's saying "unsupported OS" and Windows Media 6.4 simply thinks the URL's are wrong.
Running Office 2000 (not 97, not XP) runs pretty nice although there lots of GUI bugs there needs to be fixed.
Biggest shit - it installs and doesn't open users - so all done as root, and even if you open users you won't be able to use the "wine" stuff since it needs root premissions or some serious hacking (it's on
Does it worth the money? yes! I need to run Office 2000 - and that gives me the option to use Office 2000 (and I cannot use other Linux office stuff - need to connect to exchange and just the Ximian exchange connector costs $70 - so $29 more won't kill me).
And since it's a debian woody, then hey - APT heaven is here - give me an hour and the distribution will be totally customized.
Some other stuff - it uses XFS as filesystem, it doesn't install nvidia binary drivers in default (need to do it manually), kernel is 2.4.14 + tons of patches, it tries to load every module on earth and frankly - doing a damn cool job. They'll need to fix the network and priting stuff - it sucks as it is now.
Definately recommended if you're planning to use it in corporations.
Oh, as for who did the wine stuff? lets say it's not transgaming, you know who
MeshMesh
So we know what their secret to running windows apps is: Wine.
What I find unsettling is that this sneak preview states 99% of Windows applications go "poof" on install (which is not very surprising for anyone who has ever used wine). Yet we've seen screenshots showing Internet Explorer on top of KDE.
So another question stands: are those screenshots real?
To my dismay, the reviewer's experience with the preview LindowsOS exactly mirrors what you get with a recent build of WINE. Many applications run, but there are serious problems with installers.
This is not to bash the WINE developers who are making great progress with limited resources. I wish them, and Michael, all the success in the world. I just wish that Michael Robertson would commit some of his development staff to improving the core WINE code and contributing it back to the WINE project.
Shameless plug: Do you need step by step instructions on configuring WINE to run popular Windows applications? Check out my web site, Winecentric
Um...why do we need another totally insecure OS? From the review, I got the impression that, thus far, Lindows is a dumbed down XWindows, with Wine and ungodly horrible security.
Linux users won't want it because they won't want to be root all the time. Windows users won't want it because Windows apps won't run as well.
Admiteddly, this is not a full release, but even so, what is the point of purchasing this? With Wine running, a tempermental app at best, you lose a lot of the stability of Linux. With X running as root, you lose the security of Linux, and gain all those nice outlook viruses. And if the primary target is current Windows users, well, I just cannot see a reason they would switch.
A dumbed down X with Wine just ain't gonna cut it in the market, I have to believe.
I am a windows sysadmin by profession (its paying the bills today folks, save the zealous remarks) and we have very good uptime numbers here, but it's a full time job even for a small shop.
Basically, I think you're right on. Saying "well, linux is just inherantly a stabler system" is akin to saying, "you know, most of those old mechanics who build hot rods in their spare time have cars that run much better than the average driver." Yeah ... what did we expect?
Cheers,
-- RLJ
Oh. Right. Real insightful. Excuse the dripping sarcasm.
"It's not the OS it's the user that sucks. If it's user friendly, you get stupider people."
How self contradictory can you get? It's *not* the OS. No matter how user friendly or unfriendly, it's the user. Period. End of line.
If it's user friendly, you get a pleasant, useful, powerful, computing experience. That's it.
A user friendly OS and program with a stupid person does not make the OS insecure or the program flawed, or the UI wrong. It just means the user is stupid.
User friendly does not imply a stupid user.
GPL Deconstructed
After reading this article. It basically sounds like they are going to take debian, add some KDE skins, tweak the KDE menu and configure WINE so that they have a stable and reliable version that can run as many windows programs as possible.
This sounds basically like the crossover plugin done totally wrong!
There is no reason (technically) that this needs to be a dedicated Linux distribution. The only thing I can think of is that they are doing this for marketing and/or political reasons. I am sure Michael Robertson knows what he is going from a marketing perspective but he is trying to succeed in a technical market.
The one thing that we should learn from this is that it might be time to a dedicated wine-bundle project.
Specifically... Take wine snapshots and QA them and try to get them as stable as possible. This would of course have to be coordinated with the wine project.
This should also include bundling wrappers around Windows programs so that they can be installed easily.
IE you could have a debian package named wine-bundle-ie which would of course install Internet Explorer by downloading it on the client machine similar to the way crossover does it.
This would get you the best of both worlds... Windows apps on a Linux machine and would be an Open Source collaboration.
I try to run 100% Open Source/Free Software but it would be nice to complete invoices for my clients who use Excel.
Kevin
There's probably some truth to both sides of the issue. It's true that careless or incompetent administration can compromise the security and stability of even the best designed system. But it's also true that a well designed system requires less care and less competence to maintain as a reasonably secure and stable system.
Take dealing with services as an example. A well designed system has unnecessary services turned off (or even better, not installed) by default, so that any flaws in those services won't compromise the system. This means that a casual user, who won't be running them anyway, has one less thing to worry about and doesn't need to be as smart or careful to keep his system in good shape. Similarly, a system that allows users to spend most of their time in an unpriviledged mode is less likely to cause problems if/when those users eventually stumble onto trojans/viruses/worms. Adding in an extra, necessary step to make those malware programs really vicious makes it that much less likely that they'll cause problems.
Is good security something that you can buy off the shelf? Of course not. Security is a process, and administration is the key part of that process. But the quality of the product can make that process easier or harder.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
Microsoft has now put security priority #1 and I don't know what that's worth, but I would bet that they're going to start getting away from running everything as "root" on the latest and greatest MS OS.
Having Lindows log in as root and run everything as root is backwards. At a minimum, create users that have near root access but not EVERYTHING.
It seems like the time spent developing this "piece of art" could be better spent writing documentation and GPL software to manage linux for dummies.
Then there wouldn't even be a need to run Windows software.
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
I fear the license wars about to erupt.
314-15-9265
I don't understand how these guys got to this point. Clearly Robertson is connect to some kind of VC funding hose, or he would be working on his second startup in 10 minutes.
But there's next to nothing to this distro:
But clearly what Linux has been waiting for to turn into windows is progress on WINE . When it works, Linux will run the Windows apps the rest of the world uses. Until then, the idea just won't work.
In this situation the straightforward thing to do is to hire first-classes WINE hackers and move the project forward with the force of money. And why Lindows isn't doing this is beyond me. Perhaps some kind of brand-development trick? Unless the VCs have some other tricks up their sleeve, I don't see how anyone's gonna get their money back. Anyone know anything about why Lindows is proceeding this way? Anything tidbits on FC?
I have two words to summarize: bottom feeders
Contribute to the community or get out of the game.
I believe the original goal of Lindows was to provide an alternative to the users that don't want to constantly pay for upgrading the Windows operating system, as well as to provide a way to convert users from windows to linux by providing a medium. This means, the primary market are the users that don't want to, and probably haven't yet upgraded to 2000/XP yet and are probably still vulnerable.
As my friends who are diehard windows fanatics keep telling me, I am simply not familiar with the rock hard stability and unbreakable security of the latest Windows operating systems. I am not aware if a regular user is able to install any program on the system without that program comprimising system security or crashing the system.
However, if those users are still running 98, then they're still subject to the same security issues we've all been joking about for the last 5 years. And if they move over to Lindows, and assume the default root user for running all programs, they'll be no less vulnerable on that platform. My bash in this regard is appropriate.
And if after 15 years Microsoft finally got it perfect, well good for them. Move beyond that. If Lindows is supposed to help us replace it, it needs to provide all the good things that windows has provided over the years (primarily the userfriendliness and wealth of applications) and not drag with it all the bad things, that for the sake of not bashing windows constantly I will omit this time.
And remember, NT 3.51 was pretty stable in its own right, but they managed to screw it up on later operating systems, even in the NT line, and service packs have typically created more problems than they've solved. I'm glad you think the latest incarnation of windows is perfectly bugfree and secure. That doesn't mean I need to ignore their previous track record, even if now security is their topmost priority. If being secure and bugfree had been their goals from the beginning we wouldn't have had so many fun years worth of material justified bashing them over. Of course, that might have meant they would have had a slower production cycle, and competitors might have gotten the upper hand in some markets, and it was far more important to Microsoft that they remain the industry leader, product quality be damned.
But thats just my opinion.
-Restil
Play with my webcams and lights here
BEing an administrator in Windows is not the same as being root in UNIX. Root is a FAR more powerful account. With root you basically become the system. With Administrator rights, you have the ability to excersize a great deal of control over the system, but you still have limits. For example Windows XP exerts some protection over it's system files, to keep them from being replaced/corrupted. Now certian things (like driver updates) can override that, but in general use, it is enforced, even for admins.
I don't espically worry about doing my work on a Windows system with administrator rights. I DO worry about staying logged in as root. It is more powerful, and as such more dangerous.
Jerry Pournelle wrote an excellent article circa 1997 for Byte about how badly IBM dropped the ball on OS/2. Of the interesting highlights:
- IBM drastically underestimated demand for OS/2 2.0 when it first came out. They didn't make nearly enough diskettes, and there were many stories of Eggheads (and other stores) running out of copies. I can attest to this, I couldn't get a copy when it first came out, either
- Comdex, 1991: IBM was charging an OUTRAGEOUS price for their SDK (on the order of $150-$200). MS was handing SDKs for Win3.0 out to anybody who walked by.
- Comdex, 1991: IBM OS/2 2.0 won best-of-show against Win3.0. Jerry recounts having to wait HALF AN HOUR at the awards show while they hunted down an IBM rep to even accept the award. All the while, the runner-up (Microsoft) was swarming with reps, all asking questions as to why they didn't win, handing out more SDKs, etc
There was even the time I called IBM tech support and got literally laughed at by the tech support for trying to run OS/2 on a 386/40 (recommended was a 386/33 at the time). 486/50s were bleeding edge at the time.When OS/2 2.0 came out, only Win3.0 came out. IBM dropped OS/2 big time. By the time OS/2 2.1 came out, Win3.11 was well on its way and nobody gave two wits about OS/2 any more.
Finally, keep in mind that OS/2 1.x was the laughing stock of OSes at the time. Even more so than Win386, Win2.0, etc. The DOS box was nicely referred to as the "penalty box" for how miserably it performed.
Say what you want about Microsoft (I don't like them either). They know how to market their wares. And when you bumble as badly as IBM did, you have no chance.
Also to all the idiots who keep posting "XP has permissions", well of course it does. The complaint here is that Lindows would be like an XP setup that purposely turned all those permissions off!