Slashdot Mirror
Lycoris Linux at ExtremeTech
Eugenia writes "Most of you probably remember Redmond Linux, the user-friendly distro that tried to duplicate the familiar WindowsXP UI feel under Linux. Well, there is no more Redmond Linux. The company recently renamed the product "Lycoris Desktop/LX". ExtremeTech features today a very favorable review of the distro, includes screenshots and information on the installation, network setup, desktop environment etc."
Please tell me why I would want something to look like an MS product?
"If you are on fire you can just stop, drop, and roll. If you fall into Lava you are just dead." - my 5yr old daughter
I think its funny how linux wants to be so "different" but yet tries to hard to resemble other platforms (apple via the acqua theme(s), windows via this and other windowish themes) anyways, thats my two cents. =)
I SURVIVED THE GREAT SLASHDOT BLACKOUT OF 2002!
Don't ya think?
A free OS, that tries to duplicate
Something you can already buy
From our friend, Bill Gates
A pretty cloud background
Start menu, task bar
The Microsoft Sound
A wise man once said 'People have an irrational like of rubbish'. Hence Windows is very popular. So if Lycoris can get people to transfer onto Linux by making it 'just like Windows' and then gradually point out its other benefits it should make good progress in the Linux desktop market.
The first thing I noticed about the web page was that the banner ad was for Windows XP...
It seems that more and more, Microsoft is trying to make their products more stable and Linux is trying to make their products more flashy like Windows. If this continues, Linux and Windows will essentially become the same operating system except for the much larger budget of Microsoft. Linux remains a viable option because of what it offers that windows doesn't (increased stability, better environment for development [its also free, but i'm sure that most normal people don't pay for windows either -.-]).
IMHO, Linux will dig its own grave by developing the shiny things that windows has instead of further strengthening its own unique aspects. [The grass is always greener on the other side]
Since when is it about copying stuff? Nowadays it seems that re-implementing others' ideas is the way to go. Ximian didn't invent Evolution, it copied the Outlook (sole decent MS product, hmm, maybe not) application. .NET Framework isn't a Miguel original. It's an MS invention! Where did all creativity go? Can we still come up with new things?
StarTrek.org Free Webmail
I sure hope they aren't running it on their servers. =P
One of my biggest pet peeves about Linux was that it was always a bear to configure + use. Sure, the command line is useful sometimes - but usually not. KDE + Gnome have come a long way towards putting a decent UI on top of the kernel, and now the user experience is much better. Lycoris goes a step further - there's something to be said for a distro that looks + acts a lot like windows. People who don't know computers (the suits, mostly) are afraid of them. They know Windows, and they're comfortable with it. Give them something that looks + acts like Windows, and they have a much easier time accepting it than something that looks nothing like Windows. While some might complain that it's selling out/pandering to the Windows crowd, I think this distro (if marketed properly) could make some significant inroads into Windoze-land.
I'm not sure how they are expecting to justify $30 for this product. The review states something about "making the networking easier". I didn't realize this was a problem in linux.? Maybe the wallpaper, icons and docs I could see, but I think the price is a little bit too much for the services rendered. The review looks like it's trying to sell the product rather than tell me why it's something I need to have.
Good reviews like this one are going to make those people who are on the fence take a closer look. The "it just works" comment is going to grab at those who are afraid that the OS is just to hard to config for everyday users.
Some people feel safe with the MS feel, but thats all it is a feel. Now people might feel safe with the MS feel and the raw nut of the OS.
-- Snowmen fall from Heaven unassembled.
If I were only smart enough to accomplish the things I dream about.. Or maybe too dumb to care.
The point of making it look more like 'that other OS' is so a newbie user will feel more at home using it. i mean really, macos and win* aren't that 'different' as far as the actual desktop is used. the main difference is the menu systems used to load programs/config/etc.
people want linux to be more mainstream, guess what, it needs to act more like what people are used to. do we rip a hole in nintendo for featuring analog controllers just like sony did? it's about convenience. get over it.
your jesus is another mans xebu. chew on that hypocrites.
Ximian didn't invent Evolution, it copied the Outlook (sole decent MS product, hmm, maybe not) application. .NET Framework isn't a Miguel original. It's an MS invention! Where did all creativity go?
RMS didn't invent GNU, it copied the UNIX (sole decent Lucent product at the time, hmm, maybe not) system. Selling a stable OS to home users isn't an MS original, or even an Apple original. It's a Mandrake innovation! Where did all creativity go?
The innovation comes from the added freedom.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Going from one controversial name to another. I bet Lycos just LOVES their new name! :)
why not create something diferent like Apple did with osx ?
I mean center every single thing on the "start button" (even to shutdown, heheh) isn't very clever anyways .....
Migx
This could be what we need to migrate linux newbies away from Windows... if it delivers on all the promises.
Example. I am a Win95 trained junkie. Certainly not a clueless one who just uses it to e-mail grandman, but my sumo was insufficent to deal with Linux. Last year, at the advice of a friend, I got a second hard drive and installed Debian onto it alongside my Windows disk. Configuration was a nightmare; it took multiple visits by my Linux guru uncle to get the networking going, THEN we had to try and get Xwindows to deal with my video card, and we never got sound to work properly. In the end, the wholly alien system and configuration woes (try as I might, I couldn't get package manager tamed) led me to disuse the Linux side of my computer, and eventually format over the disk so I could have more Win 9x storage.
But this... this could be what I want. Something that's simple without sacrificing power. It doesn't have to clone windows as long as it's not like herding cats trying to get the thing to work properly. Every feature I could want -- autodetecting of video and sound, installation of various key applications, graphical frontend for nearly everything you could need to do -- is here.
So what's the catch? Has anybody worked with this thing? A second opinion is always key. Does it have weaknesses, stumbling blocks that would leave a newbie floundering around in icy water without a life preserver? I might very well join the Linux hordes if this distro meets my needs in a fairly comfortable manner.
Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
Aha! That's what Aunt Tilly looks like!
It not that contradictory, it simply that the linux community is trying to have linux suit all sorts of people. including windows users.
having desktop themes or wm that look like windows is good for those making the transition.
but remember with linux unlike windows u not stuck to their choice.
i for one run Enlightenment, but i am trying out rox at the mo too, and that copies risc os =)
I never installed redmond. and once i got use to linux i chucked out my mandrake and installed debian.
I have to admit to a windows partition buts thats for my gaming adiction, and I refuse (to the point of dening that i have win installed) to use it for any thing other then games.
Just so long as it does try to duplicate those ever so helpful crashes and blue screens.
Of course, you could always run a shell script and have a blue screen display with the appropriate message at semirandom intervals, just in case people want the complete eXPerience.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
One of the key points the reviewer makes is that this distro does not take the 'everything but the kitchen sink' approach to software it includes. It only includes apps and libraries that are known to work, and work in combination.
Some people might like that other distros give you the option of 5 different CD players, some of which may be in beta, or pre-beta - but most people just want a CD player that works. Ditto with other application categories. It's better to include solid software that is known to work, but might not have every last bell and whistle.
-josh
As usual, yet another review of the latest and greatest, easy-to-use, Windows-friendly Linux distribution XYZ.
This review is a waste. It's purely propaganda. I love Linux, but he doesn't really offer any counter points to the review. No "This is great, but..." and certainly insufficient detail. I wouldn't even call this distribution remotely good. Sure, it's got cool icons and desktop wallpapers, but it looks kludgy and messy at best. The choice of an Aqua-esque theme is only a point on which to confuse users. Doing menus the non-standard way only will cause problems when users want to install packages not supplied by these Lycoris people. I'm sure nobody is really head-over heels for this thing, so I'll stop preaching to the choir...
But what can you expect? The community is producing a dozen new distros ever year and all we're doing is adding dead wood to a lot of existing dead weight. This distro may be organized in a "cool" way, but all it will cause for users is a mess. Linux needs to move forward and as it does, paradigms change. I am all in favor of having lots of choices... but we've got hundreds of distros as it stands now. If half of these people/groups wrote software instead of repacking it for their own self-validation, imagine how far we'd be.
Emulating the way Windows works and feels is not the answer! We need the solve the problem! The problem is Linux is difficult to use for the average user, and not necessarily the Windows user. Let me make it clear: Microsoft Windows is NOT easy to use. It simply is not. The Macintosh is easy to use. That's an example of slick, clean, effective interface design. Windows, however, regardless of MS's BS about how they spend millions researching inferface engineering, is difficult.
Ever watch a novice computer user attempt to use Windows? It's unbelievably clunky for them to do even simple tasks. Some users I've seen still don't understand how to switch between tasks. Others can't use max/minimize buttons. Most can't even figure out where their files went or what those files are! "I saved it, but now it's gone!" Do we really want to make Linux more like this?
If we can create a user-friendly environment, it won't matter if it looks/works like Windows. People will be able to figure it out. When novice users explain they want to "just be able to write email and letters and surf the web", they don't mean they want their computer to "look and work like Windows".
I say again. Solve the problem.
Make it easy for users to write letters and surf. Doing this the Microsoft way makes it hard. Let's figure out something better.
Why bother.
you silly naysayers:
.. and in my opinion .. nothing beats em. But linux on the desktop has always been .. lacking .. for the practical world.
.. the folks that NEED visual interdev cause your office is in bed with M$.
.. in MHO .. is a step in the right direction if all hales as they have reported. I'm willing to spend $30 to find out .. I have been holding off on running a non MS workstation because wine isnt very stable on either of my server boxes. [just a small segway, sometimes people are very suspicious of free things, and in America at least, something with a price tag hold value with the consumer .. seems silly, but we're programmed that way here from birth.]
.. sure .. I breathe ozone for breakfast, but my 80 year old mom can't even install windows - who here thinks she can install mandrake ?
t he-underdog outlook, and take a look at the world around you.
.. conservativly 70%) are sheep, they don't want to learn new things.. they want the world to be comfortable and safe, and to act how they already know it to act. These are not the people who install a new operating system "just-to-see" these are folks that run a p200 into the ground becuase to them its just another 'magic box' that gets them e-mail.
'Why do I wan't an operating system that looks like windows?' or 'where do they get off charging $30?' but this has got me to stand up and look.
I use free bsd/linux for servers
the world that NEEDS photoshop, because its what all your business contacts use
THIS
i especially like the sound of the installer
The fact that the 2 main kicks in the article are about its web-browser and e-mail warms my heart, since this is what the average joe in the world uses their computer for anyways. Appealing to the folks who are afraid of anything new is a good step i think.
As for who would want a desktop that looks like windows ? How about every existing customer who currently USES windows ? Folks who 'poo-poo'the windows look and feel should get off their college-I-need-a-crusade-I-will-commit-myself-to-
Most people out of college (lets say
so anything that can get the mass market less afraid is a victory in my opinion.
--Ne auderis delere orbem rigidum meum, non erravi pernicose!
For everybody who comments that this distro tries to emulate windows; note that taking the positive and useful stuff from other operating systems is a god thing. Windows has done that and became successful...
At first sight you see a windows XP look. Then the GUI widgets has Mac OSXish theme.
The network neighborhood stuff is a very good thing if it works as advertised. Yes, it is trivial if you are on a corporate network with each computer having a static IP address, etc. I am using Mandrake 8.1 at home with a cable modem. I have a router with three computers connected. I took me a long time to figure out how to see the windows computers on my home network and the only way with mandrake was to edit bunch of configuration files manually. By the way, I forgot how I did it, so if I reinstall my linux system, I would probably spend another day to set this networking thing up..
I've seen a couple window managers/distros that try to look like Windows, but each one uses unique fonts, slightly different widgets, different icons, etc. In the end, it's easy to tell that they're not actually Windows.
Why doesn't someone make a window manager that's pixel-per-pixel compatible with Windows? Obviously you'd need to replace the actual product and company names. But I think it would be hilarious to have a linux system that so closely resembled the Windows GUI that you might mistake one for the other. Not to mention that it would piss MS off to no end...
> ... tried to duplicate the familiar WindowsXP UI
> feel under Linux.
Familiar? Hmph. I've been dorking with my wife's new HP laptop running XP for the past week, trying to get TCP/IP bound to the wireless LAN card. Took a usenet search to reveal that the bindings are gotten under a_menu pick and not in the pop-up for the interface (Lordeee, save us all!!!). Why do they feel that they have to keep moving things around, except to justify their self-perpetuating training program?
Soooo, I'm copying crap off my Win98 laptop to my wife's XP laptop so I can burn CDs of it and make room to install a Linux which I'll then boot and run Win98 when needed under VMWare. Not a solution for everyone, but I feel like I have more control in a Unix OS.
The biggest obstacle I faced in changing an office full of non-tech people from Windows/Office to Linux was training time. Despite the cost of Windows, Office, Project, Exchange seats, etc. it was nothing compared to the loss of time/productivity/money retraining them would have. Hell, just the 3-button mouse causes dozens of phone calls from Windows end-users!
Making the tools similar to what they are used to will get rid of most of that problem.
The big benefits come to an office with what ISN'T included in this package -- BSODs, Fatal Exceptions, and 5x-daily reboots.
It took me two years, but eventually I had trained most people in the office to accept the fact that Excel, IE and Word crashed on a regular basis. No, it was not their fault. Reboot and get on with life.
The final benefit was the statement "it is pure Linux in there".
Power to those that know how to find/use it. Functionality to those that don't.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Let's be honest, creativity doesn't sell products. I really think that linux itself has more creativity that all Redmond togeter. The thing is that, in order to make people use Linux it has to be compatible with the "establishment". It doesn't matter if we have to copy-cat Windows to do that, I mean, that was not what MS do with apple in late 80's. please!
Followed the link (on my W2K laptop mind you)- what a neat looking distro. And it sounds like it's very easy and usable. Okay a confession here I've only ever tried Linux once, on some junk machine and didn't do anythign with it. I have always used Microsoft stuff (and some Novell back in the day). I want to try out Linux more, but it can be quite daunting...
Reading about this distro though, it looks very familiar to me. I love the browse network options. Looks nice and clean and sounds easy enough.
Long story short- I've bookmarked the page and I think I'm going to take the plunge and try out this Linux! Wish me luck!
(this is just what Linux needs for the desktop IMO, something that just works and is familiar to outsiders)
From all appearances it would seem to be able to pass the 'wife test'. That is, can she intuitively find what she wants and enjoy her media and surfing? While the purists might balk at a distribution that makes Linux look more like Windows, I offer nothing but praise. If more people are willing to try a distribution of linux that has a more familiar feel to them and uses a structure they understand, then I consider that to be a victory. It's still one less Windows machine in the wild no matter how you count it. While I prefer my X with Gnome a la Blackbox, I applaud the efforts of groups to create a nice middle of the road solution for those that don't want or need to to know how the internals work. I think this is an area that seems to be a much contested battlefield and ideal here on /. where people tend to use their desktop and OS to form a sense of identity. However, we must remember the vast majority of corporate and home users (think of your seceretary, or execs) can not and will not be swayed into trying anything new as long it requires a steep learning curve from what they use every day.
my $.02
We need to stop looking at each new review as just another review of XYZ Linux distribution. There are hard working people and companies around now that are doing more than distubuting the Linux kernel with some other neat stuff. These folks are producing a complete Operating System for IBM compatible PC's based on the Linux kernel and there IS a very distinct difference.
It is also interesting to note that the number of positive comments amongst Slashdot readers for a user friendly operating system based on the Linux kernel has increased dramatically over the years. The naysayers are still around, but the positive comments are flowing where once they only trickled.
Hyperbolic much?
Please include parent in the Troll Library.
I sent Redmond the thirty bucks because: 1. I didn't feel like downloading then burning the cd. 2. I want to support Linux. The Linux elitism is getting a little too much for me. I think it's cool that Lycoris looks and feels like XP - I think it's a nice slap in the face. Who cares that it looks and acts like MSFT? It's still Linux underneath. Isn't that what people are always arguing about? Substance? Who cares what it looks like? Or are all Linux users the same as MSFT users? They just care what it looks like.
I don't use Microsoft products (I fired MS several years ago), but on my home computer, I maintain an MS-looking desktop, so my MS-dependent friends who visit, can use my computer without bothering me about how to use thing. It's very easy to do, especially with the qvwm window manager. Unlike the examples on the qvwm page, I made a point of customizing my start menu so users knowthey're using Linux!. This may be overkill for a home user, but in an office environment, especially where an admin is switching users off MS, it would help to ease the transition.
Just how many flavors of Linux are there? And how many are worth the money over downloading one for free? Everytime I turn around I hear about a new Linux distibution. Next thing you know there'll be a Linux distro that looks like my Playstation 2, oh wait....
After reading the comments in this thread so far, I am a little ashamed of most of you. Can we let go the days where every Linux user has this attitude of learning the OS inside and out? Give me a break, this distribution looks great for joe-bob computer user who would like an alternative to Windows.
:-)
A distribution like this can be installed in an office enviroment. Think about it, if you have a small company with little money to spare on software licenses, for $30 you can have a complete turn-key workstation solution for everyone. Just don't give the receptionist root!
Anyway, can we please demonstrate more maturity and wisdom by not instantly bashing a distro that tries to attract new people? These newbies aren't stupid, they just don't want to spend 2 weeks setting up and tweaking out their first linux box. They don't have geek jobs and they make more money being doctors, lawyers, etc.
Victor
These guys would have been better off creating an addon to a major distribution ala Ximian rather than making an entire distro. *shrug* I wish them luck anyway. :)
The more you know, the less you understand.
The default Web browser after the base installation is Mozilla 9.7.
:)
Ok, now we know that this review was leaked from the future.
Far future.
EXTREMELY far future, I'd say
Am I the only one who thinks that it's odd an OS tries to run Windows programs and look like Windows, but is in fact this great option that is "better than Windows"?
Let's see...I'm going to go out on a limb here and say there's two smart-ass responses to this, both of them growing from the same condescending, bitterly hermitic, overzealous group of diehard(read fanboy) linux lovers who can't possibly see that the only thing that can bring Windows down(TM) is to BRING PEOPLE FROM WINDOWS TO LINUX.
No, its not ironic that a linux distro would look like Windows. No, your operating system does not make up for your lack of length. Yes, you do want people to actively explore this option. Unless of course, you like being a bitter little man.
The only way I will ever move the wife and kiddies over to Linux is if it makes sense. It does not make sense to move them to a clusterfcked environment where every dork in a closet wants everyone else to absorb his particular brand of dystopia. It would make sense to move them to a user-friendly, elegant, secure environment where I can turn off options that would let them break things. This is where something that looks and feels like what the wifage and kiddies are used to would come in handy.
I want to try it but it is unavailable. Anybody got an iso image on a mirror?
i just put in
I was a windows developer before I even knew what linux was. I remember one day looking at a redhat sticker on someone's briefcase at work and asking what it meant.
:)) just so that I could get help figuring things out.
:)
Not long after that I started to look into what free software and linux were. I pawned an old version of RedHat off a friend and sat down to install. I grew up being the person to ask if you had a problem with your pc, but after 5 minutes of looking at a text-mode installation where I had to choose from 5,000 packages my blood pressure was going up and I was starting to panic. I was in a new world and it didn't like me very much. I managed to partition an ext2 disk, get a base install and get to a command prompt. After a while I figured out I needed to type in root as the username. I never did get X to work on that first install, even after I figured out how to set up my video card. It was pure hell.
After a while (and after keeping my eyes open for some time) I discovered that there were other ways around the nightmare. Suse had a pretty good installer and it actualy detected my video card (even though the darned old thing wasn't accelerated so X ran about as smooth as dried-out oatmeal.)
The point of all this is that IMO (at that time) linux just plain sucked. I could definitely see it's use as a server system but I wouldn't dream of trying to use it to actually get stuff done. Now I can't go to a dos window without yearning for the ease of bash and I can't use a computer for 5 min. unless it has a copy of Vim installed. The single thing that got me to this point is a decent installer (anaconda) and a decent desktop environment (Gnome, believe it or not). Once I could get to a point where I could actually start experimenting I was able to start learning. I needed to be able to get to the internet and to IRC (#linuxhelp
So don't call Linux friendly until every distro gets even the most novice user to a desktop and the internet. Once you get them there consitently and without too much pain then you can expect Linux to be taken seriously on the desktop.
And to think I almost gave up...
My $0.02 will always be worth more than your â0.02, so
Comment removed based on user account deletion
It's unfortunate that the Linux/BSD community has to create new distributions to attempt to find the magic button that's going to capture market share.
:)
.rtf .doc 's.
I love the idea of Linux and the BSD's but installation and configuration can be insanely hard if things don't go right the first time.
I've installed:
Redhat 7.2 - this went pretty easy on my work pc, except I couldn't even boot the install disks on my home pc.
Mandrake 8.1 - wouldn't boot on my home PC- did install on work pc, but couldn't configure my laster jet printer due to some cryptic bug. I sent my cap file and hopefully they will figure it out, because I have not clue
FreeBSD - It was easy to install the OS, but configuring XFree86 has me comletely confused. I have gotten the GUI to render, but there are no buttons. But I can use the mouse to drag windows around create a really cool tracers
It's frustrating to want to do something that I believe in so much.( I even donate money to Mandrake, FreeBSD and several other projects ) Despite the fact that I know more about computers than 90% of the general public, I still haven't been able to get a "free" version of a OS to be fully functional on any of my computers.
Fortunately, I do have access to most of the software because I'm a OS X user too. I've configured my iBook to be able to use the FreeBSD
ports.
Enough of my rant, but there are a few things that I think need to be done.
HP seems to dominate the Printer market. I think that getting All the HP printers to work by being able to click a button is critical for Linux to ever be a viable desktop option.( add in NEC and you've got 85% of the market )
The configuration of XFree86 needs to be simplified somehow. Mandrake and Redhat seemed to have done this and I'd love to see FreeBSD do this too.
Finally, someone needs to create a virus that somehow sets all infected PC's to default to
to purge themselves of those nasty
Laugh at my ignorance while I learn Rails - a Real ne
I've been using build 44 for a few months now. I have been trying to switch to a more Linux type desktop and this OS has been a god send. The installation is a breeze and actually fun (They let you play solitare while the OS installs!). Sure many aspects of it really do resemble windows but for a user like me that's trying to make the transition in small steps it's perfect.
Man somebody got really smart and made understandable menu items instead of all of that
Kthis and Kthat crap.
- Copy a flawed Microsoft systems design that many security experts say is stupid, linux geeks burn you at the stake.
- Copy an equally flawed UI design that many usability experts say is stupid, get praised by the same exact linux geeks for creating "a familiar interface that can help with the migration of windows users to linux".
Bad UI design is Bad UI design. It doesn't matter what kernel you're running it under.Ergonomica Auctorita Illico!
The interesting question for me is: How much do I save by buying their hp-offer (preloaded pc with lycoris) in opposition to buy the same PC with Windows? Anyone eager to try to find out?
than windows (98SE, 2K, XP)
& the whole installer works without having to reboot half a dozen times like the Windows installer does.
You just boot the CD, click ok about 20 times or somthing, then it reboots & you are on the desktop with everything configured.
Well that's a bit simplified, but you know what I mean.
Maybe I'm missing something, but the average windows users this appears to be targeting would seem to be the people least likely to use it. Most of your home users are still running the same version of windows that was on their gateway/dell when they bought it. As far as they're concerned, windows came free with the computer (most people don't know about 'windows tax' and whatnot). So, for the most part, telling them that they can get this great product which looks exactly like what they use now, behaves almost identically, and only costs them $30 (or $40 to have source code that they'll never use) seems rather pointless. Why would anyone pay money for something they already have? And those of us who use linux already aren't likely to dole out $40 for the source to a customized window manager. How are we to convince people to switch to free software when we're charging them for it?
do not read this line twice.
Put a red, purple, green and yellow humanoid on field in the wallpaper, now put a nice XawTV windows on top of each humanoid tummy.
What do you get?
I realize it's targeted at the WinUser, but can the power-user still do all the standard geeky, Linuxy things they're used to. I'd like to see a Linux that's simple enough for my mom (neither RH nor Mandrake quite does it), but still lets me fiddle if I need to.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
I find these comments, even the negative ones interesting. I am the author of that article, and RedHat is my primary operating System. I no longer have the w2k in my system because I used it only for that review to see how inter-OS file sharing worked in the distro. Of course, there was no reason at all to compare Lycoris with RedHat from a critical point of view. Lycoris Desktop/LX was designed for the desktop user who needs a working OS for other reasons than for development, general geekability, and Kernel worshiping. It is a surprisingly useable Linux distro in which everything works. As for as the "XP look" goes, that's just simple wallpaper, over which the user has total control, as with the icons on the desktop and their naming. This is a Porsche engine in a Volks body. What better way to take someone not familiar with Linux for a ride? This distro may be easily built upon by the user as he gains experience. The very experienced user will see immediately that this is Linux, pure and simple instead of obscure and esoteric. That's all. As far as negatives go... a bit more support for ZIP drives etc would help, but that's forthcoming via their site.
Rien n'est plus beau que le creux du 0.
Amen to that. Maybe this is finally something that really works for newbies. I'm one myself, having tried migrating to Linux from Win9x a couple of times without success (although with SuSE 7.2 I came quite close). Now if I only could get those TrueType fonts working properly and get the Windoze feel to the mouse under KDE...
Seriously, with a pricetag like that, it sure isn't much of a risk. Why not just give it a try?
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Like many people have stated, all you have is KDE, with some icon changes. Give me a fast window manager(icewm or sawfish) and i'm set. the beauty of Linux/Unix is that you can have it look and do what ever you want. If you try to dummy it down, this will get lost and all you will have is M$. For all that haven't tried icewm out, you should, it loads about 20X faster than KDE/GNOME.
You're right, but I think you might also be somewhat mistaken. Yes, Windows certainly is not an example of an easy, powerful or intuitive interface, and certainly (imo) emulating it is not going to give you an easy-to-use desktop system. However, many people are already very used to Windows, and giving them a aystem that acts similarly means less confusion and frustration for them, and a much smaller learning curve. This is what I think this distribution is trying to address.
The biggest question here, is if the distro is actually stable as other linux distros...
It came to my mind that MS have thousands of programmers that write their programs and they still make improper results.
They didn't really mention it's released under the GPL, and didn't say it's "here for download"...
Because if it isn't then what's the big fuss? It should be by the linux standards, GPL, stability and still give all the options that Linux gives (and windows doesn't)..
I've read that this new distribution just has the user run as root to reduce complexities of file permissions. Is this correct? If so it's a bad, bad idea as it makes the system just as vulnerable as Windows.
Does anyone have info on this?
Can I open my mouth about the 50 or so ignorant "Why are we trying to be just like Windows?" comments. If you knew what you were talking about, you would have found an article by Creek on the Redmond Linux web site (which I think I read about six months ago) talking about the new UI concept he was trying to use, which just happened to be the same one Windows XP was moving to. He didn't copy their menus.
Take a look at the stinkin' product before you open your biased mouths. The RC1 was good enough that my whole country took the distro and translated it in order to be the "official" Linux distribution of Thailand. (nectec.or.th if you can read Thai) Creek wasn't trying to repackage Redhat or Mandrake and sell it as his own... he did what most of us who don't want to be part of the elite "I use Linux == I'm not a Windows loser" think we as a community should do to make a preloaded computer sell: He chose one desktop, which he felt was the best, and put one app of each kind, which he felt worked the best, made everything work out of the box for the USER!!! He made the interface, not like Windows, but so that the average user could figure out what to do if they've never used Linux before.
So... go ahead and spew your lofty "why are we trying to be like Windows," but, if you do, shut the fuck up about why Linux isn't accepted by foo corp or your brother-in-law. Anyone have a problem with that email me. For the record, I use Mandrake 8.1 and Linux-TLE 4.0 at home, and K12OS on my 45 client diskless server at work.
Put identity in the browser.
I'm not interested in philosophical digressions as to what is and is not user-friendly.
I'm looking for something that my dad can use. Pretty simple, and you'll probably argue that any distro could be used for this purpose, once it's set up correctly.
And you're dead right. But I don't want to spend hours configuring $RELATIONS machines (I already do enough tech-support in my spare time).
Here's something that sounds like it will work out of the box, and is uncluttered and simple enough for Windoze users to use.
This could be it.
My 0.02.
Al.
Wine (WINdows Emulator, which substitutes Unix or X11 calls for Windows API calls, allowing Windows 3.1 and Win32 programs to run) is also included in the distribution and installs automatically by default with no need for user configuration.
Just for the record, Wine Is Not an Emulator!
I just had to put that out there so anyone unfamiliar with WINE who read the article didn't learn it the wrong way. The WINE folk are clear that they like the idea of "Windows Compatability Layer" much better than "Windows Emulator."
you probably shouldn't have read this.
I know this is the dog chaising his tail, but if you plan on having a distribution for download for people to try out, it needs to have some high bandwidth mirrors. I dont know how many people are trying to download an iso right now (because their ftp server is unresponsive, and the 1 mirror they do have is not working for me) but it seems to me that getting a subdirectory somewhere like ibiblio.org should be priority #1 for a new distribution.
What a wonderful opportunity for them to get widespread exposure and install, except for no one can download it to "try before they buy".
Tis better to be silent and thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt --Abraham Lincoln
If not, then let's face it, the DVD player will be so unreliable (from the user point of view - "it only plays 3 of my DVDs, the other ones break it!") that it would have been better not included.
If it does include DeCSS or a similar program, surely it would be a potential violation of the DMCA, as much so as 2600's distribution of the DeCSS code?
Of course, even if it did, somehow I suspect that the usual selective enforcement policies would apply - nobody would bring suit against them (at least, not YET). After all, the last thing the movie industry would want is to parade an example of DeCSS allowing fair use before a court of law. They'll choose their battles very carefully until precedent is tilted firmly in their favour.
Mom will get MacOS X, my server will get Linux or if I am really nice, BSD.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
This post had me really excited for a moment, right after I saw the topic. Unfortunately, my lysdexia was harassing me, and my hopes of a Clitoris Linux have yet again become a dream.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
I recently took the plunge from using Win 2k and switched to Red Hat. There are several things I have run across, both good and bad about Linux. .xls and.doc formats.
1- For the most part, experienced Linux users seem very happy to help me out after they figure out that I am actively trying to learn a new o/s after using Windows since age 10.
2- The Red Hat installer is incredibly easy to use and faster than anything I have ever used in Windows
3- Maybe there is a way to get by this (file converter) but I am getting tired of not being able to read job related documents in
4- Multimedia capabilities seem to be lacking.
File sharing is harder and video playback sucks
5- Stability is truly awe inspring on my desktop, buggy as hell, but really fast on my laptop.
I would imagine that most halfway experienced users would solve these minor gripes in short order, but this is what a new Linux user is going to run into. WinXP clone interface or not, the basic concepts will still confound the average user who really does not care what he or she uses, just that e-mail and Word work. The stability and possibly the large number of really good bundled programs, would be two attractive concepts for the Windows using world, that and just using something different. (Kind of offtopic) Is there a good book anyone would recommend to a new user trying to learn Linux?
You want Mandrake. All mom, dad and sis use it without any problems.
Window XP is advertised with the implication that once I installed the OS, I can immediatly use my Cd burner. Something I still have problems with in my Suse 7.2 distro.
They didn't address that in the article, but if I could install it and have evrything working, including the cd burner, I'd go out a buy a copy today.
I purchess all my distro these days. what better way to support Linux development?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Nah... I disagree. What will ultimately "make or break" Linux is the overall quality of the apps. Short of Linus Torvalds and company suddenly deciding to churn out slop code, the core of Linux will remain quite solid and stable.
The OS itself isn't really the issue. It's already built on a solid foundation that other commercial OS's (MS, ahem...) are working quickly to emulate, due to their relatively poor initial choice for a foundation.
What really gives Linux a "bad name" is the slew of half-complete apps that are thrown onto distro CDs, all in an attempt to offer "bigger, better, more!".
Honestly, if you're a regular user of both Windows and Linux environments, count how many beta version of your Win apps you use, vs. beta versions of your Linux apps. I'm pretty confident you'll find at least 5x as many betas in use on Linux.
Being largely freeware, Linux has issues with lots of unstable/incomplete code floating around. (Often-times, code which has been abandoned - in the hopes that some other brave soul will pick up the source and continue the project.)
Distros like this one are sorely needed, because they weeded out most of the garbage, and only installed the apps that don't bomb too often and make the whole OS look bad.
This is all pointless and just a waste of
time re-inventing the wheel. People who
want Windows will run Windows!! People who
want Unix(tm), but don't yet know that true
blue BSD Unix(tm) is available in FreeBSD to
run on your pc with ALL source, including
the installer source which most *linux closed-source distributions will not give you,
will run *linux until they learn about truly
free source FreeBSD.
I remember that Lindows OS has everyone run as root to make WINE work better (at least in the demo discussed in the linked /. article). This is probably what you remember.
If you look on the FAQ page for configuring Lycoris, there are several instances where the answer involves "su to root" or "edit as root." To me that says that they do NOT have everyone running as root, which I agree is a terrible idea.
you probably shouldn't have read this.
A friend of mine has been wanting to jump into Linux but, being a Windows trained type, has been hunting a distro that would flatten the learning curve somewhat. All this lead me to installing Lycoris on a Dell GX240. Couple of problems were encounterd:
- The standard install would not give me a Next button after asking about my video card settings. Had to run the Safe install.
- Once it was up and running, only got 8-bit color. The included X version is 4.0 and the Rage Pro Ultra in the Dell is not supported. Had to manually upgrade to 4.2.
- Found a typo in one of their config files. First time I have ever run into that!
So although it my flatten the learning curve, it still has some issues that need to be resolved. It's got promise, let's hope they can make it happen.
It's better to include solid software that is known to work, but might not have every last bell and whistle.
I don't mean to sound like an ass here, but the fact that that statement was made indicates exactly where Linux (even this distro) is compared to Windows XP. Microsoft, a portrait of coordinated software development, doesn't have to choose between unstable bell-and-whistled programs and stable less-featured programs, because it produces stable bell-and-whistled programs. I think Linux will be perpetually playing catch-up unless it finds some vast new resources...
The coolest voice ever.
I use slakware for my work, this another windows like linux'es be more and more comercial and complicated. It sucks :/
WBR Someone
http://www.world.lv/someone
I've been pondering this very same idea for quite some time now and I'vve finally started to put my ideas down into some form of a white paper, which hopefully may one day turn into a large software project.
I'll post some of my key points here and if anyone would like a complete version of the document, please contact me and once it is finished, I'll do a mass mailing. My email is voidmain11@yahoo.com.
"The main concept is to create a complete operating system that is equally as useful to home users and developers/power users."
"The performance and stability of the core operating system will come from using an open source core such as Linux or FreeBSD."
"The graphics system will be written from the ground up."
"When a new installation of a unix variant is complete, the system is usually not setup correctly for use." (snip) "This system must be one hundred percent usable directly after install."
"In the root directory (/), there exist a number of directories such as usr, proc, dev, etc, and many more. These are unacceptably named for a home user." (snip) "A new layout will need to be devised around the key files of a working computer's disk."
"A new graphical system needs to be created." (snip) "With comparisons based on X, current graphical systems are too complex, too slow, have poor font support,..."
Of course these are just some key points, but I think they are valid. I have to take the stand with Lycoris, that changing the face of Linux won't work. Apple, which seems to be brought up quite a bit lately, seems to have done most things right with the release of OS X. Yet, "no system for Intel 32 (I32) architecture has yet been developer."
Brian "ponch" Pontarelli
Brian Pontarelli
CEO and founder of Inversoft.com : Invert Your Mind
But until software developers (specifically free software developers) catch on and learn that new users and people switching to Linux are not going to want to compile every single app, and start providing more binaries, Linux will be a tough switch for the new user.
I'm a long time Windows and Mac user, who recently bought Mandrake 8.1 after I got sick of Windows. Installed beautifully. I love KDE. Plug and Play actually works...
Then I started downloading some usefull apps that I wanted. They were all source. NONE of them would compile on my machine with the instructions that the developer provided. I'm not a computer newbie. I even understand some programming. But I'm not a C expert. Something that most developers seem to think everyone is.
So, this is a message to all you Linux developers, building cool little apps for people to use: We don't all have your development machines, with every single library in existance. You want your software to really catch on and help make Linux attractive to new people? Provide binaries that are easy to install.
Try Mandrake. My first distro was RH 6.2. It actually installed and worked without giving me, a poor clueless windows user at the time, a lot of grief. But couldn't get font server to work properly.
Someone recommended Mandrake for that particular problem. Not only did it solve that problem, but I found it a lot more intelligently put together for the desktop, not just a mishmash.
Appearently the defualt install also comes with a time machine.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
"Linux was born out of one person's need to get his work done. It's that simple."
Jason Spisak, Marketing Director of Lycoris
That is so simple it is just plain wrong. Neither Linus Torvalds nor Richard Stallman gave birth to this software simply to get work done. Linus had a new toy to play with (his new 386), and Richard wanted to share his work with his friends. And then where is the acknowledgement of the thousands of other people who have contributed to make the system what it is today? Why ignore that all this software exists because so many people like sharing?
Which actually supports your basic point. The distro builder's job is to make decisions about what the system should look like, not duck responsibility by throwing in the kitchen sink. As you say, Lycrois seems to get it.
I have a Linux test box with a fairly jumbled setup I've been meaning to reinstall from scratch. Been dithering between Mandrake, Power Linux, and our old friend RH. But now I'm convinced Lycrois deserves a look. If even the network setup works as advertised, the distro will have proved its worth to me.
thanx
LinuxWorx
Spelling errors are intentional as are gramatical error
I have been using varios linux distros for 5+ users. My first distro was slackware. It was no easy feat to install. I enjoyed tinkering with it to get it to work. Unfortunately most people have lives and can't be bothered with playing with there OS to get it to function. The distro's have come a long way, but non-technical people still can not be bothered with configuring the software on their computer. If this distro will get more copies of Linux onto the desktop, then great. Now I can actually recomend Linux besides for just servers!
With a 0.25% desktop marketshare any normal company would have been killed and buried already. but linux desktop(s) appear to get easier and easier (slowly though)to use nonehteless.
The mistake you make in your analysis is thinking linux is one monolithic entity.
linus trovalds et al have nothing to do with kde or gnome desktops, they continue to work on improving the kernal core for scalability and stability (such as adding asynch i/o to be on par with the iron clad unixes)
I am an Unbeliever, by nature. Tell me that a distro is easy to use, and I will ask you what your biases are that lead you to make such a statement.
SO I ordered a CD of Desktop/lx to run my own tests. I built a box from parts, just so I could have something to test it on. And then I ran my own little lab using Mandrake 8.1, Windows 2000 Professional, and Desktop/lx.
The machine is this: Abit SL6 motherboard, Intel Pentium 4 1GHz processor, NetGear FA310tx NIC, ATI Rage128 Pro AGP card, Maxtor DiamondMax 30GB HDD, a generic 1.44 floppy, HP cd12-series CD-RW. Total RAM: 384MB.
The first install was Mandrake.It installed, but didn't recognize the card on installation. I got it working, but only in 16 color, 640x480 resolution. It did not recognize the VIA onboard sound, nor the CD burner. As an out-of-the-box install, it wouldn't have won any prizes. I purposely did not spend any time on it, as I was testing the distro's ability on a clean, simple install.
Next, I tried Win2K, just to give myself a benchmark. After all, hardware manufacturers almost universally create their wares for the MS world. Surprisingly, the Win2K also did not handle the Rage128 correctly, leaving me with the job of downloading and installing the new driver. Same for the cd-burner. I have to say, I was pretty shocked. I expected the machine to install right away.
The Lycoris distro happened to arrive in the mail that same day, so I blew away the partition for a third time and popped the disk in.
Installation was a breeze. After answering a few questions, the file-copies started, leaving me with a Caldera-like configuration, answering network and user-creation questions. Having answered all those, I got to play solitaire for a bit. After the copying was finished, I started the X configuration. The card was recognized and configured on the first try with no input from me. After I rebooted the system, I was left with a KDE system which had been themed like Microsoft's XP. And here's where things got interesting.
On the desktop was a cute little Network Browser icon. I clicked on it, largely to see how much it failed in my work environment, where I have Win2K servers and workstations, Linux servers and workstations, and Win98 laptops. The Win2K servers are running an Active Directory tree. The browser not only found them all and displayed them, I received access under my normal user account to all resources on the network. On the first try.
All in all, I think this distro is one to watch...
Believe nothing, not even if I say it, if it violates your sense of reason -- Buddha
...set up a cron job that reboots the computer and fsck's the disk every other day.
I obtained a full set of CDs and installed on a Soyo Dragon/AMD Athlon motherboard, Yamaha CD burner, GeForce2 Analog/Digital video card and firewire.
/usr/src files for compiling a new kernel module.
1) All hardware recognized and functional, including onboard 6-channel sound, except for midi input;
2) Able to burn CDs right away, use the firewire card right away, surf to my server's samba shares right away, with no additional configuration.
3) Installed VMware with a small tweak to the location of the
4) Used a well-known XF86Config-4 workaround to enable digital support for my Gateway FPD1500 monitor, which has always been troublesome on ANY Linux distribution.
5) Installed accelerated NVIDIA drivers from the Lycoris CD set.
I'm now a happy user, because it works on a day to day basis AND I can get under the hood and mess around. It's a great balance.
I have an IBM NetVista (cool flat screen thin client machine from IBM). I tried every distro from Slack ware to Mandrake, and Redmond was the ONLY distro that had the vid card and Flat Screen drivers in X11.(Mandrake 8.1 had it too, but the mouse pointer "disappeared" when you moved it to the left edge).
I think it's a GREAT distro for my wife, she loves it. One problem I'm trying to sort out. It looks to me like it's based on Caldera. So if I want RPMS, I have to get them from Caldera (RPMfind doesnt seem to care about Caldera). Redmond does have a "RedmondUpdate" utility that s damn nifty, but I'm not to sure if they have a prebuilt binary archive. Oh, and another thing, to compile ANYTHING, you need CD number 2, which has devel tools. I think thats how they wanted it. My mom shouldnt be compiling software OR the kernel, so they leave gcc and header files out of the vanilla distro.
If you're not a Liberal in your 20's, then you have no heart.If you're still a Liberal in your 30's you have no brain.
I just downloaded the IS0 to see how what all the hype was about. I popped in the CD, it showed a nice graphical installer and then the installer appears to try and config X automatically before even copying files to your drive. Needles to say, the X configuration was wrong, the screen was unreadable, so I couldn't try out the distro.
I've been wondering when he would drop the juvenile title and go with something a little more professional sounding.
It's about time.
Has this guy ever reviewed anything before? So I guess their are no negative aspects to Redmond Linux? Its a perfect distro??? Reviewing 101, somewhere in your article point out negatives no matter how small and give a weighing of positives vs negative at the end. Maybe also try the freaking distro out on at least a few machines! God what a crappy crappy review.
Im sure it IS a decent product, but until this guy learns the basics of how to write a review, I'll be skipping that entire website.
Sad thing is bunch of newbies here are sold already and can't wait to get it. Please if your reading this, wait for a reputable site or magazine to write a real review before you spend your hard earned money. Please also keep in mind that every "desktop" linux company has failed. So don't be surprise when their is no more redmond/lycrois linux a year from now. Don't mean to be nasty, but that's the way it is.
I have used this in the past and one of the most impressive points are the fonts. I have never been able to get aa fonts to look good in linux, but in lycoris, they are perfect. The user interface is really easy to use and this is a big step in the right direction. So quit complaining!
Mr. Average User buys a new computer with Windows-XP pre-installed. Why is this guy going to delete and throw away the standard OS that is already optimized for the PC?
Just to go through the considerable trouble and expense of installing a non-standard OS? An OS that will not work with any standard applications like Quicken or MS-Office?
performance
font rendering I used Desktop/lx for several weeks, and I found it to be slower than Mandrake 8., which I normally use. If I had to quantify the drop in performance I would guess at around 15%. Not that much but enough for KDE+Linux to lose its snappy-feeling.
This isn't a great problem, as there are performance enhanced contributed RPMs that you can download from an ftp site. These drop the performance decrease to somewhere around 5%-10% at a guess.
I had great problems with the font rendering. I installed my Truetype fonts, the same ones that I use under Mandrake.
In general I found that the fonts didn't render as well (read look as good) under Desktop/lx as they do under Mandrake. Also, Opera 6 TP3 had major problems rendering some sites; I think the worst site was the forum at Arstechnica. The forum index page was about 10 screen wide! I don't know why this was, but it doesn't happen under Mandrake.
I will be keeping a close eye on Desktop/lx. After Lycoris and Mandrake have released new versions, I will revist the former to see how it fares. I like to maintain a profile in the Lycoris community, as I feel the project deseves all the support it can get.
Pity there's no Netware support. Or is there?
There are those of us who can configure linux, BUT HAVE BETTER THINGS TO DO WITH THEIR TIME. Shocking isn't it? Not all of us find screwing with rc boot scripts to be the be-all and end-all of life. Some of us don't want to become sysadmins, and shouldn't have to in order to use the computer to do our jobs.
MS feel? CUA was specified by IBM in the late 80s, and better or worse, has become what everyone expects a computer to look and feel like. But even for those of us who don't mind learning a new interface, I don't want to spend more than 1 hour tweaking the damn system before I can use it!
If you mean by "wife", one of the guys from the local user's group, yes, I suppose they do.
And lose all sense of perspective and objectivity. As well as overpay for all future hardware upgrades.
The mac was great if you were a rich silicon valley engineer. Wasn't so great if you were a kid trying to scrape together enough money to buy that first computer.
The fact that Linux users end up using more "beta" software than windows users is probably more a function of how companies name their commercial software versus the way open source developers do. Since nobody would ever pay hundreds of dollars for commercial software with a version number of 0.6.4b, the producing company would call it "Version 6" or something.
An equally good GNU licensed software project at the same stage of development as the commercial app above might use more meaningful version numbers, like 0.6.4b, because they don't have to worry about selling it to anyone.
Hence more software called "beta" in Linux.
> Short of Linus Torvalds and company suddenly > deciding to churn out slop code, the core of > Linux will remain quite solid and stable. *cough*greased monkey*cough*
Well over $100? How much is the tax in your state?
The Red Pill
Didn't they see the ISOs for free here among other mirrors?
-no broken link
.... at least in some of the screenshots anyway...
Screw you all! I'm off to the pub
When Lycoris/redmondlinux can provide support :-)
for USB keyboards, please call me collect
Attempts to install it under VMware failed.
Attempts to install it on a dedicated system
with USB KB/mouse failed. When a user account
cannot be created due to poor hardware support,
(i.e.- the USB keyboard responds in BIOS but not
during installation, I wasted $0.68 in blank CDRs
to figure this distribution is worthless.
I hate it when Microsoft always wins!
We can talk all we want about how we want people to transition over from Windows, and I'm certain many would like to, but they are addicted to a specific windows program that isn't on Linux (perhaps a filesharing program, a game, Nandub, or some such thing). A working WINE would win over so many peeople to Linux that the effect could be huge. Linux advocates simply can't get in through their heads that you can't do everything in Linux that you can do in Windows. When they tell users the opposite and their lie is found out, it makes people bitter, turns them off, and makes them wonder what other lies are a part of standard Linux advocacy. WINE is the way to fix that. If we want to dramatically increase the Linux user base (and it's not obvious that we should) WINE is the answer. I'm glad this distro is taking it seriously, and I hope others do too.
yeah .. it's actually quite good in this respect. they've done a nice job of stripping out all the stuff only a power user would care about, and left the pretty stuff: the best solitaire, the simplest install, the stuff my mother in law would recognize fFrom her win98 box.
.. of course we do. but we really need some simpler systems.
i genuinely think the linux world needs to aim more in this direction, making linux a lot more useable to all. not that we dont need higher systems like debian
anyway, my very good fFriends at Annexa in Rochester, NY, acquired big legal rights to redistribute.
you can get it here:
ftp://ftp.annexa.org/pub/redmond/
You are right about that. My apologies. I didn't try a laptop install.
Rien n'est plus beau que le creux du 0.
It might be $89 for an /upgrade/, but /full/ versions of Windows have traditionally retailed for more like
$189. . .
Just wanted to take down a strawman before someone started ranting about having to pay an extra $10 just to see the source.
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
One thing that bugs me about Linux is the dirctory/filesystem layout, esp. having almost every program in /usr/bin or /usr/local/bin. Mac OS X retains that structure for POSIX and BSD compat, but at least all the Cocoa (GUI) apps are in /Applications. Does anybody who's tried Lycoris know if it attempts to make the directory structure easier for users besides the My Documents, etc?
Why would anyone want a Linux distro that looks like XP? I thought that people wanted linux to be it's own OS, not just a cheap spin-off of Windoze. MS should think about exactly what the market is looking for, in power users, and go that route. They harp on being the best, making everything too simple and nagging, and also trying to amke as much money as humanly possible. They should really think these sort of things over before releasing a new OS.
I bought the "Home" version of XP ($100) - and though it says "upgrade" on the box, you are able to install it on a freshly formatted computer. It just is missing some of the features of the $200 version.
After reading the list of the differences, I decided that I didn't need to pay an additional $100 for them - and I haven't missed them (can't remember what most of them were).
The Red Pill
I've installed this (actually, I installed the free Redmond Linux, the previous version), and it strikes me as just a little too user-friendly: it does not have gcc in the default install. Now, I installed it because I thought it would be a good way to get my feet wet in Linux for the first time. But I run Apache on Windows 2000, and without gcc, Apache cannot be made to run, and without gcc, gcc cannot be compiled to run on the system. What do you do with a machine that lacks a compiler and is too new to have binaries available? What do you do?
I will only use it at length once it can do what Windows can do, for my only critical application (Apache).
Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.