Slashdot Mirror


Two Lackluster Reviews For LindowsOS on Wal-Mart PCs

Eugenia writes: "Two individual reviews of LindowsOS running on the MicroTel/Wal-Mart hardware were published today. The first can be found over at NewsForge and the other one at BayArea.com. Both reviews are not positive for the Lindows solution and they are not excited about the idea of Click-n-Run."

354 comments

  1. 'Lindows' oxymoron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is called "Lindows", yet is neither Linux nor Windows in nature.

  2. It is a veritable black fly in one's Chardonnay by gazbo · · Score: 0

    enn tee.

  3. non multisync monitor? by GoatPigSheep · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So far, very nice. But then X Windows came up. Unfortunately, the monitor I normally use for testing is not a multisync monitor. This apparently was a problem for the system as configured. As a result, the screen became entirely unreadable. Faced with this, I decided to do what any novice user would do: I powered the machine off. Yes, I could have gone to one of the text consoles, logged in as root, and issued the shutdown command, but very few Wal-Mart buyers would know about that.


    I do not find this part of the article fair. I don't know about most of you, but almost all monitors that have come out in the last 7 or 8 years are multisync compatible. I don't think it's fair to blame ancient hardware not working on the system. Besides, most people who buy these walmart systems would pick up a new, and most likely multisync compatible, monitor.

    --
    GoatPigSheep, the 3 most important food groups
    1. Re:non multisync monitor? by erasmus_ · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why is it not fair? He does not seem to assign a great deal to the fact that it did not work initially, giving them more credit for the fact that when he simply shuts off the machine, as Joe Consumer would, it comes back up ok. To me, it was a recoverability test, not a hardware compatibility one. His biggest problems are with Click-n-Run, as evidenced by the review summary.

      --
      Please subscribe to see the more insightful version of th
    2. Re:non multisync monitor? by tomstdenis · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why? Any decent OS should let you use a safe mode [e.g. 640x480x16 colors] before switching automagically to a higher color mode.

      Next your going to comment that anyone with a 5 yr old soundblaster PCI16 should get the latest and greatest PCI64 Soundblaster 128 or something just because supporting widespread hardware that is older than a month is taboo.

      Tom

      --
      Someday, I'll have a real sig.
    3. Re:non multisync monitor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      bzzz... sorry... thanks for playing...

      I got a non multisync monitor. It works in one resolution, in one frequency (1024x768 @ 60hz), much like LCD panels. Why do I put up with it, its a 21" monitor and I dont have money to spend frivously.

      With this monitor, even text mode (yes, I mean bios too) fails. Do I fault bios makers for not working with my hardware? Do I fault MS that it cant recognize my monitor?

      nope. nope.

      and finally, iirc, in x when you press ctrl-alt-[plus/minus] you can switch resolutions, so with few switches he could have gotten the resolution to usable state.

      If lindows disabled the ctrl-alt-[plus/minus] then I would have a bone to pick.

      Lindows was not advertised as: working with your 286 by emulating protected memory modes, it was advertised as the next os, future to windows.

      If you want some more hardware friendly distro go with Slackware or gentoo..

    4. Re:non multisync monitor? by Evro · · Score: 1

      Additionally, I don't know anybody that just turns off the PC anymore. Even my grandmother and mother know that you shut down the computer, and one's running Win98, the other's running MacOS 9. I have a feeling that an experienced computer user trying to emulate a newbie would work about as well as... say, lindows emulating Windows.

      --
      rooooar
    5. Re:non multisync monitor? by m00nun1t · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Funny, here's me thinking that being able to run on old hardware (something windows generally can't do) is a selling point of Linux.

    6. Re:non multisync monitor? by rizzo420 · · Score: 1

      he couldn't just shutdown the computer like a "newbie" would. he specifically said that X did not agree with his non-multisync monitor and he couldn't see anything to do anything, so he just shut it off. probably the same thing my parents or girlfriend would do if they didn't have me to call and bother with every little computer problem. i think it was a valid solution to the problem, and it turned out to be a good test of system recovery as well. i know my linux box goes through fsck every time it loses power without being shutdown properly, and it takes forever to bootup after that (of course mine is a p120 with 64 megs of ram, but that's besides the point). the best recovery i think i have seen by an OS was BeOS. i watched a demo of it and i think it booted up within 10 seconds after the guy just pulled the plug on it. it was pretty impressive. that was the time it took the OS to boot, not counting the bios. if linux could do that, i'd be very impressed.

      --
      please me, have no regrets.
    7. Re:non multisync monitor? by slaad · · Score: 2, Informative

      So if the monitor went completely wacky and you couldn't see anything at all, your grandma would be likely to go to a text console, log in as root, and then shutdown? Even though most users now understand that they must shut down computers instead of just turning them off, they will still hit the power switch if they have no way of actually shutting down properly.

      --


      ~Warning!~ The above is encrypted using rot676!
    8. Re:non multisync monitor? by rtaylor · · Score: 3, Informative

      Given a good chunk of video card manufacturers are considering removing VGA and lower from the cards themselves (gets back a large portion of ROM space and some freedom I suppose) the 640x480x16 color standard VGA mode won't exist in a couple years.

      --
      Rod Taylor
    9. Re:non multisync monitor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not the selling point of Lindows, though.

    10. Re:non multisync monitor? by Mwongozi · · Score: 2

      Most LCD monitors are not multisync.

    11. Re:non multisync monitor? by Tony-A · · Score: 2

      I don't know anybody that just turns off the PC anymore
      I've found that Microsoft Windows is a lot more survivable if you hit reset or the power button when it starts acting up.

    12. Re:non multisync monitor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Any decent OS should let you use a safe mode [e.g. 640x480x16 colors] before switching automagically to a higher color mode.

      Totally agreed! Windows XP sucks the worst for that!

    13. Re:non multisync monitor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Linux can, if you use a journalling file system like ext3 or reiserfs. One of the most beautiful things to have, especially in a dual-bootup situation for demonstration purposes to the uninitiated (yes, you'll have to show them at least once, because *not* running scandisk/fsck seems so normal that most people won't even notice the advantage!).

    14. Re:non multisync monitor? by MaxVlast · · Score: 2

      But most scale.

      --
      There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
      Max V.
      NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
    15. Re:non multisync monitor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have an rca mm32110 32' SVGA monitro/tv http://www.audioreview.com/TVs,32,inch,and,above/R CA,MM32110/PRD_129174_2725crx.aspx It is not multisynch (multisync is an nec trademark).

      When I spend $850 on a monitor, any OS had better not attempt to send it signals it cannot handle.

      Windows XP does the same thing to that monitor that Lindows apparantly did to the reviewers fixed frequency monitor. Could you imagine a nebie feaking out because Windows XP almost destroyed a $1000 monitor!!!! Basically Windows XP gets confused on the circa 1999 Rage Fury Pro and thinks that it must send a composite signal to the SVGA input of the TV. And let's not mention that WinXP refused to stay at 640x480 because it wants to tell you what the ideal resolution is. Without the RFP there is not problem.

      I have also had similiar problems with win 98 and switching between fixed and multisynch moitors.

      The bottom line is that you cannot expect any OS to support every hardware possible as PnP. At least with Linux or Lindows, you can tell the OS how to handle the hardware, you cannot do this windows a great deal of the time.

    16. Re:non multisync monitor? by mrseth · · Score: 1

      It does have a safe more: Runlevel 1 (single user mode).

    17. Re:non multisync monitor? by tq_at_sju · · Score: 1

      are you serious pay to see a comment ?
      you oughta be ashamed slashdot

      --
      http://www.vanillaafro.com - take me seriously and I will shoot you
    18. Re:non multisync monitor? by nemski · · Score: 1

      Pay for insight? No thanx.

      --
      Some people have a way with words, others not have way.
    19. Re:non multisync monitor? by TastySiliconWafers · · Score: 1

      Additionally, I don't know anybody that just turns off the PC anymore. Even my grandmother and mother know that you shut down the computer, and one's running Win98, the other's running MacOS 9.

      I wish that were true. I've seen quite the opposite. People's rebooting habits for PCs are their default behavior and extend to all computers (because most users don't understand the difference between a Wintel PC and other computers). Incidentally, this behavior comes from otherwise intelligent folks, the more savvy users. The least savvy users just call help desk anytime stuff goes wrong and they don't reboot unless you tell them to. The dangerous ones are the people that know a bit more and think they can fix their own problems. They call help desk after they've power-cycled their Sun workstation and corrupted the filesystem. This has happened enough times that I've taken to putting stickers on UNIX workstations next to the power button telling people NOT to reboot them, let the sysadmin do it.

    20. Re:non multisync monitor? by Erasmus+Darwin · · Score: 2
      "almost all monitors that have come out in the last 7 or 8 years are multisync compatible. I don't think it's fair to blame ancient hardware not working on the system."

      Of course the Lindows PC is a bare-bones system that comes sans monitor. Sounds like the perfect upgrade for someone who's currently doing word processing on their now ancient 286 or 386. And if it's just a simple, utilitarian solution, they might be interested in cutting corners by reusing the monitor.

    21. Re:non multisync monitor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      most people who buy these walmart systems would pick up a new

      I don't know about this. Most newbies I deal with want it all as cheap as possible. I can see someone buying one of these boxes and using a garage sale monitor.

    22. Re:non multisync monitor? by sir99 · · Score: 1
      Vendors should make a setup like mine then: My power button is linked to the motherboard's ACPI functionality (this is pretty standard now I believe), and I'm running acpid, which monitors acpi events. Whenever I press my power button, "init 0" automatically gets run, and powers off my machine safely.

      Just for usefulness, I set it up so that pressing the power button twice reboots safely instead (since my reset button apparently doesn't hook in to ACPI, grr). This could be especially useful for stupid Dells that don't have a reset button.

      --
      The ocean parts and the meteors come down
      Laid out in amber, baby.
    23. Re:non multisync monitor? by tomstdenis · · Score: 1

      Yeah, informative, "say wha?"

      Stupid /. moderators....

      Um VGA mode has been around for like 15 or so years now [late 80's]. I doubt it will be dropped on a whim since supporting it has become trivial and to some extent required.

      I mean if nvidia dropped VGA support then they would lose their somewhat strong linux group. Also your BIOS would no longer work....

      I can imagine in the next 5 to 10 years it will be gone but not soon and definiately not without a change to the MOBO bios.

      Tom

      --
      Someday, I'll have a real sig.
    24. Re:non multisync monitor? by rtaylor · · Score: 2

      My Bios (AmiBios) is SVGA based. I'm going to make the assumption since it's 2 years old most of the others are too.

      SVGA is a similar standard to VGA. 800 x 600 x 256 colors?

      But much like EGA and CGA aren't around on most video cards (driver implementations now) VGA will probably go the same route.

      --
      Rod Taylor
    25. Re:non multisync monitor? by duren686 · · Score: 1

      Actually, from my DOS gaming days, I remember VGA as primarily 640x480x16 and 320x240x256, and SVGA being 640x480x256.. I'm fairly sure that 800x600 and higher (as well as higher colour depths) fall under SVGA as well, though.

      --
      Y2K Compliant since the late 1890s
  4. how can they be? by 68k+geek · · Score: 1

    [quote]and they are not excited about the idea of Click-n-Run.[/quote] how can they be? it's taking money for free GNU software!

    1. Re:how can they be? by TheKid965 · · Score: 2, Informative

      And your point would be...?

      Read your GPL. You can charge money for GPL-licensed software if you so desire. Otherwise, every distribution on the planet, save the "true" Debian, would be in violation. "Free," in this sense, does not necessarily mean "no cost to the user."

      Now, if Click-n-Run both charged money for its service *and* provided no way for the user to acquire the source code for GPL-licensed software... now in *that* case, they would be violating the GPL.

      Besides which, the implication from the articles I've read is that LindowsOS, being somewhat built on Debian technology, still incorporates the apt-get system. An experienced user can still apt-get .deb packages just as s/he has always been able to do; Click-n-Run is a comfort-zone tool for the newbies. Nothing wrong with that.

    2. Re:how can they be? by fatwreckfan · · Score: 1

      I'm assuming that Lindows put a decent amount of work creating the Click-n-Run packages for people to download, so it's fair for them to get some compensation for that.

    3. Re:how can they be? by slonob · · Score: 0

      They have to buy this commodity called bandwidth to get it to the customer. Who will pay for that? Fanatical anti-anti-ism?

      --
      Strict obedience to the law is the key to liberty.
    4. Re:how can they be? by DrXym · · Score: 2
      Yes you can charge money - if you provide the source code upon request. Most companies stick it up on the web or ftp site somewhere.

      Where is it in Lindows.com? How else might we request the source code if we want it?

    5. Re:how can they be? by Master+Bait · · Score: 1

      I think it is pretty lame to sell a machine with Lindows preinstalled and then not supply the rights for this click-n-run nonsense. I hope the people at WallyWorld will switch to Mandrake.

      --
      "Only in their dreams can men truly be free 'twas always thus, and always thus will be."
      --Tom Schulman
    6. Re:how can they be? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually it seems very fair. You pay for people to do the things you do not know how to or do not want to take the time to do your self.
      So if you want lots of easy to install software you pay for it. Else use apt-get. Now if someone just writes I super nice graphical apt-get your are all set.

  5. Click and Run? by apoupc · · Score: 1

    Does "Click and Run" mean that once you click on Lindows you're never going to want to use it again and run away from ever using it again?

  6. Click-n-Run by squarefish · · Score: 1

    it's a bad name, sounds too much like 'hit-and-run'

    --
    Creationists are a lot like zombies. Slow, but powerful and numerous. And they all want to eat our brains.
  7. Time by Mr_Silver · · Score: 4, Interesting
    LindowsOS, at least in its present form, represents false economy. Any money you save buying a LindowsOS computer and downloading Click-N-Run software will be canceled out by the time spent coping with the many missing pieces.

    That reminds me of someone who said (JWZ?) " Linux is only free if your time is worth nothing ". Despite all the commendable advances, personally I'll keep it as a damn fine server and stick with Windows for my desktop.

    Next year though ... things might be very different ...

    --
    Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
    1. Re:Time by goldorak_dan · · Score: 1
      Next year though ... things might be very different

      Jeez I hope your right... but haven't people been saying that since 1998?

    2. Re:Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Windows on the desktop, Linux on the server. That's what I chose, too. But I'm evaluating Linux on the desktop now, because Microsoft's latest operating systems are too indiscreet. Combine that with Microsoft's plans to restrict what I can do with my own hardware and there's a good enough reason to attempt the switch.

    3. Re:Time by Myopic · · Score: 2, Interesting

      i agree. as it is, i have a years-old macintosh (original iMac) and i'm treading water waiting for Linux to become Good Enough for me. i had Linux installed on my iMac for a while but found it not-quite-usable enough to make it worthwhile -- it's not that i don't understand how a computer works (writing software is, in fact, my profession), it's that i don't know by heart the 150 little utilities, scripts, and commands to frob the tiny little details of the system, and couldn't convince myself to read any of the 1,000 page Linux tomes.

      i was heartened recently with the new releases of Mozilla and Gnome and OpenOffice. i'm waiting for those three pieces of software to make it into the distros and i'll be ready to buy a cheap PC and run only Linux (i don't and never have done Windows). i'm long past having developed a hatred for MacOS (for crashes alone; i think it's still the most usable OS).

      one really great thing about Linux is how absolutely sure i am that it and other Free software will "win". already, Free alternatives are just about as good as their commercial counterparts. already they are more stable and secure, and our community is watching as one after another popular title becomes super-user-friendly, too. it's folly to think that people will keep paying for software when free software is better. free operating systems, browsers, office suites, chat clients, file browsers, peer-to-peer software, mp3 players, and graphics programs WILL win market share in the end simply because they are Good and Free.

      plus, what about the next company which decides it wants to write it wants to release it's own web browser? you think they'll reinvent the wheel instead of using Mozilla? why would they do that? so they don't have to comply with the GPL? no way. with software so complex, companies will wisely choose to build on the already-Free options then bit the bullet and release their modifications back to the community.

      i really really believe that the momentum is absolutely impossible to stop. the future of consumer software will not be like the past. the reason is simple economics.

    4. Re:Time by rgbrenner · · Score: 1

      It is true that Linux is only free if your time is worth nothing. But it is also true for any other operating system and it is also true for most anything else you do. Consider the following: Sleep is only free if your time is worth nothing - Or: Reading Slashdot is free if your time is worth nothing.

    5. Re:Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Linux is only free if your time is worth nothing. Windows is only [insert your local cost to buy appropriate version of Windows] if your time is worth nothing, and you don't buy any of the somewhat necessary extras, like anti-virus software.

      You know what -- I'll even concede that an install of Win98 is quicker and easier than an install of Mandrake, say, although Win98 starts to go downhill rapidly with all the rebooting when you install updated device drivers afterwards. What I will say, though, is that my average Mandrake install has had a longer maintenance-free life than my average Windows install. Or, to put it another way, it's a good thing that Microsoft have refined their installation procedures so well, because their mean time between reinstalls is relatively low.

      Back in the bad old days when I was using Win95, I was very practiced at doing the install routine. I specifically configured machines with two disk partitions and the Win95 CD data on the D: drive (along with personal files and application setup files) so that I could format C: and reinstall from the D: drive in superquick time without resort to the slow and annoying CD at all. Windows has got its panties in a twist again? No problem -- a quick reinstall will fix that!

    6. Re:Time by Eythian · · Score: 1

      Linux is only free if your time is worth nothing

      While true, it is still also the case that Windows is only $510* if your time is worth nothing.

      It seems to me that a working Linux system is likely to take less time to keep working, or fix when it breaks, than an equivalent Windows system. This is backed up by seeing the sorry state of windows machines that I sometimes have to use, and the overworked tech people who have to keep them going. Also the fact that they had to provide me with expensive Adobe software to do something that I could do better for free on a Linux system - with software that was in the default install.

      * NZD, at a local shop.

    7. Re:Time by Nameles · · Score: 1

      Funny, I can get a windows box to do what I want/need, and I still can't get my Linux box to do the same. Maybe I just suck.

    8. Re:Time by GroovBird · · Score: 2

      I don't agree with your backing.

      You see the sorry state of windows machines that you sometimes have to use, but they're not YOUR windows machines. I bet that if Linux was a mainstream desktop OS, you'd have the same problem, working on someone else's machine.

      And I assume you're referring to The Gimp in your comparison to Adobe Photoshop. If it fitted your purpose better, you could have used the win32 port and saved you the money.

      Dave

    9. Re:Time by VAXman · · Score: 1

      I'll even concede that an install of Win98 is quicker and easier than an install of Mandrake

      Eh, why don't you compare Mandrake to a modern Windows OS -- such as Windows XP? The XP install is much easier and quicker than Windows 98 (and of course Mandrake).

    10. Re:Time by thetman · · Score: 1

      The point of the statement is, doing the same thing on linux takes much longer than on windows, for most people. So, you are losing MORE time.

    11. Re:Time by Eythian · · Score: 1

      Actually, I was referring to convert vs. Adobe Acrobat (to turn PDFs into images). The Adobe product also didn't do a very good job of it, restricted output formats, and so on, and convert with bash is very scriptable when it comes to doing a couple of hundred pictures.

      I have to work on both Linux boxes and Windows boxes, neither of which I administer. The Linux machines do everything I want, rarely have downtime, etc. The windows machines have a larger staff for a smaller number of boxes, and many have a peice of paper stuck to the wall beside them asking people to write down when they crash so it can be looked into. This includes Win2k boxes.There is always several entries written on that page, along with people asking me why it is that Word has put the conclusion to their thesis in the middle of the document, or that windows decided to BSOD and lose the last half hours work.

    12. Re:Time by slaad · · Score: 1

      $510 New Zealand.

      --


      ~Warning!~ The above is encrypted using rot676!
    13. Re:Time by travail_jgd · · Score: 1
      Despite all the commendable advances, personally I'll keep it as a damn fine server and stick with Windows for my desktop. Next year though ... things might be very different ...
      Next year? I'm using Red Hat 7.3 as my desktop, and I have to say that in the past 6 months things have improved dramatically!

      The sound, video card, and network card were configured during installation without problems. The CD-RW was automatically configured as a burner; with no work on my part I could start Gnome Toaster and burn a CD. The only "problem" I see are the less-than-automatic software installations and upgrades.

      Just out of curiosity, what kind of things are you looking for to make you change your desktop?

    14. Re:Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With win98 vs XP on the same hardware, win98 installs almost twice as fast as XP. I've tested, I know.

    15. Re:Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess kde is progressing as slowly as windows was trying to catch up to mac. that means we have to wait 5 years.

    16. Re:Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nice troll









      Slashdot requires you to wait 20 seconds between hitting 'reply' and submitting a comment. It's been 15 seconds since you hit 'reply'! If this error seems to be incorrect, please provide the following in your report to SourceForge.net: * Browser type * User ID/Nickname or AC * What steps caused this error * Whether you used the Back button on your browser * Whether or not you know your ISP to be using a proxy, or any sort of service that gives you an IP that others are using simultaneously * How many posts to this form you successfully submitted during the day * Please choose 'formkeys' for the category! Thank you.

    17. Re:Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      try suse ive installed taht pretty easy. and this is a guy who a few years ago couldnt install a dual boot windows NT/98 machine.

    18. Re:Time by Mr_Silver · · Score: 1
      nice troll

      If I was trolling, I wouldn't have mentioned that Linux is a damn fine server. In fact, I wouldn't use anything else. I just personally prefer to use windows on the desktop and I'm happy to ssh into the server and do 99% of the things I want to do that way.

      It would appear that you have two brain cells. Pity they're both fighting.

      --
      Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
    19. Re:Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, he said that already.

      $510 New Zealand = $510 NZD

      which is what he said.

    20. Re:Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must really work for a company of idiots. Keeping any computer running smoothly isn't difficult since the majority of problems are USER ERROR. If someone can't get text to line up right, that is just their way of saying 'The only computer I am intelligent enough to use comes in a TI naming system and must not exceed 34 for the model.'

    21. Re:Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude you are a troll. If you weren't you'd be stupid because you're citing a 1998 rant from a guy that now FUCKING uses linux on his laptop and his PC. Unless you think he thinks his time means nothing perhaps you better click here and get your ass set straight.

      Thanks for trying and as i said before, Nice troll.

    22. Re:Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> Despite all the commendable advances [...] I'll
      >> [...] stick with Windows for my desktop
      > Next year though...things might be very
      > different
      >
      Agreed, major advances have been made and quite frankly, I think, Linux is already up to par with Windows and MacOS *IF* the distributions would do what should be the most obvious thing to do: hire some 30 people thorugh some ads, sit them down in front of a PC and hand them your in-house distro and have them use it (with predefined goals, such as get online, send e-mail, install some software/security update, change background/screensaver etc.pp.) and TAPE THEM while they're doing it! Yes, both the screen and the test user. Afterwards have a human talk to them and clearly identify the stumbling blocks which you can now analyze and address! It's not Linux' inability of any kind that is usually the turn-off...it's the little, small but *really annoying* inconsistencies or difficulties that have sometimes even me as semi-experienced Linux user cursing at the top of my lungs.
      Example: I wanna cut/paste something from Mozilla into an xterm in KDE. Highlight the stuff, right-mouse click-> cut. So far so good. Switch to the xterm, right mouse-click...almost done...but, WTF? WHERE'S PASTE??!! Nowhere! That's bullshit! I mean common!
      I, of course, love Linux enough to use it as my only OS but the rest of my family will not until nonsense like this is ironed out and working smoothly. That being said, I also believe, that Linux will see a much more widespread uptake next year (people, give the latest Linux distro's as gifts for this years holidays!!), because it will have reached the point of "good enough" for most people. But usability studies are badly needed for it to become not just good enough but awesome! Listen to me, you Redhat's, Suse's, Slackware's, Mandrake's of the world!

    23. Re:Time by SCHecklerX · · Score: 2
      That reminds me of someone who said (JWZ?) " Linux is only free if your time is worth nothing ". Despite all the commendable advances, personally I'll keep it as a damn fine server and stick with Windows for my desktop.

      Well, I landed my current job in no small part because of the time I have spent learning things with Linux. So not only is Linux free, but also, it paid me back to use it. Now that I do know my way around, I can use it for EVERYTHING. Doing the same in windoze while possible, isn't practical. Windoze also requires far too much hardware for many simple tasks (like my libretto 20GB jukebox)

      And until windoze 2000 (and even then a little), windoze has *NEVER* been easy to install/configure/reconfigure at ALL. How much was your time worth to you again? In linux, if there is a problem, I can look at log files, see what is going on, look at the /proc filesystem, fix the problem, and move on. Windoze? Good luck fiddling with the installer and hoping it works.

      Oh, and you can't run windoze 2000 on older machines, or machines with weird unsupported hardware, so if you want windoze, you're stuck with screwing around with an older version (windos95/98) for a few days in the hopes that it will work

      Windoze hell scenario 1

      • Upgraded both sound card and video in my main computer. Went into linux. Changed 2 files. Everything works beautifully.
      • Under windows, auto-detect nightmare. The sound *still* doesn't work (but I never bothered finishing...like you, my time is worth something to me

      Windoze Hell scenario 2

      • Bought toshiba libretto. Came with windoze95, with the novell client installed. Have you ever tried to update your network config with that thing installed? Not fun. After a day of fighting with the stuff trying to get around the 'requirement' to run novell, I said fsck it and did a network install of Mandrake. Worked beautifully, including hibernation. Doing a win95 install over network would not be nearly as pleasant.
    24. Re:Time by Abreu · · Score: 2

      BZZTTT!! Wrong!

      Mandrake, in a regular default install, installs much faster than XP on a regular default install. I've done them both, believe me.

      Theres a difference when you want to heavily customize your install, but at least after youre done, you can save your install setting to a bootable floppy that will clone those settings on as many machines as you like.

      --
      No sig for the moment.
    25. Re:Time by Mr_Silver · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Dude you are a troll. If you weren't you'd be stupid because you're citing a 1998 rant from a guy that now FUCKING uses linux on his laptop and his PC.

      I think you're missing the point. The point was that any money you save from the click-and-run free software was currently lost in the hassles of getting it set up/sorted out. So in effect, the software is only free, if the time you have spare to configure it doesn't cost anything.

      Let me put it another way, I don't consider Mozilla (as a product) to be free if it takes me 6 hours to fiddle with it getting it working. It has, in effect, "cost" me six hours of productivity in which I could have been doing something else. It all depends on whether or not you can attach a monetary cost to every hour of your work. If that cost of fiddling outweight the cost of another product that doesn't incur this, then it would be more worth my while going for the other product.

      (before everyone bitches, mozilla downloads, installs and runs just fine - so in this case, the value of free software is fully realised)

      When click-and-run really does mean that (as it currently doesn't, more click-and-fiddle-and-hopefully-run) then the fact it's free can really make a difference.

      How many times have you heard people say "y is just as good as more costly x but it's a pain in the backside to configure/set-up so you might as well just go with x and save yourself the pain" or similar?

      *sigh* I can't believe I'm trying to make an AC see light. I must be bored or in need of a serious challenge.

      --
      Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
    26. Re:Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry - its the same for everyone out there. Linux isn't ready for the desktop market, server market, bookend market, or toilet paper market. :-(

    27. Re:Time by kz45 · · Score: 1

      I guess kde is progressing as slowly as windows was trying to catch up to mac. that means we have to wait 5 years.

      you mean a monopoly over the softwar AND hardware market?

    28. Re:Time by kz45 · · Score: 1

      Oh, and you can't run windoze 2000 on older machines, or machines with weird unsupported hardware, so if you want windoze, you're stuck with screwing around with an older version (windos95/98) for a few days in the hopes that it will work

      and linux has a larger variety of hardware support? I think not.

      it is about 1/100 of any microsoft OS.

    29. Re:Time by $rtbl_this · · Score: 1

      Apart from being better than, for example, NT 4. On more than one occasion in my old job I ended up replacing NT servers with Linux boxes running Samba for the improved SCSI adaptor support.

      --
      "Are you being weird, or sarcastic?" said Emma. I said I didn't know because I get the two feelings mixed up.
    30. Re:Time by evilpenguin · · Score: 2

      This is absurd. Suppose you have a collection of web pages, all of which contain a link to some site, say, http://slashdot.org/, and then let's say they change their url to say, http://colonslash.org. You've got 150 links in 110 pages to change.

      Which is faster:

      Double click on each file to open it in notepad or Netscape editor or, heaven forfend, Frontpage, where you do a find-and-replace on each URL.

      Type:

      perl -e 's,http://slashdot,http://colonslash,gi' -p -i.bak *.html

      Obviously, the second one requires a bit more knowledge, but how many such tasks does it take to pay back the knowledge investment? "Do it faster in Windows," my ass. Why do you think *nix hangs on? It hasn't been because of its intuitiveness. It's been because of its utility.

      Make an OS so simple that idiots can use it, and it will be an OS for idiots. If you want to write e-mail and play games, Windows is an OK OS. If you want to get some work done, it lacks some important features.

    31. Re:Time by bnenning · · Score: 2
      Make an OS so simple that idiots can use it, and it will be an OS for idiots.

      Counterexample: Mac OS X.

      --
      How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
    32. Re:Time by JPriest · · Score: 1

      The command line functionality in Linux smokes windows. Sometimes its difficult using windows and not having a console to work it (dos does not count), and other times it's difficult using Linux because lack of GUI applications that are available. I will say this though; some of the major Linux vendors have installers that rival windows. THE major thing holding Linux back right now is the dependency problems and lack of an easy method to distribute and install software. Many people just don't have the time to make separate packages for every version of every distro, and even then, if the user has updated various libraries it may not run anyway. Most major distros have the installer down, Gentoo's portage system has the dependency problem down, when someone gets crafty enough to combine the 2 features Linux may see actual desktop market share.

      --
      Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
    33. Re:Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So using Linux got you hired. It's cheaper for you.

      But it's not cheaper for the guy who had to hire you!

    34. Re:Time by marick · · Score: 2

      That reminds me of someone who said (JWZ?) " Linux is only free if your time is worth nothing ".

      This is so untrue. I work at a software company, and I spend SO LITTLE time actually making my linux-based laptop work in day-to-day use and installation compared with my co-workers who use windows.

      Add to that the fact that my little machine basically never crashes (although sometimes RealPlayer does), never gets viruses, never needs reinstalling, auto-updates through Ximian Gnome, and I'd say that I'm saving BOTH MY TIME AND MY COMPANY'S MONEY using Linux.

      Hey, nobody said Linux may not be gratis, just libre and "cheaper than windows".

    35. Re:Time by mindstrm · · Score: 2

      Well.. sorry to really disappoint...
      but that same command line works just fine in windows, if you have perl installed.

      Or I could do it easily in one of my favorite text editors, which I would probably be using anyway.
      Codewright, or UltraEdit32.

      Codewright specifically has a perl interpreter built in...

      Yes, these are commercial, okay. But the lack of ability to do something is related to poor tool selection, not the OS itself. It just ahppens that most linx distributions come with perl as an integral part, and windows does not.

    36. Re:Time by autechre · · Score: 1


      If you like your Mac because of usability, but you don't like the fact that it crashes, why don't you just get a new Mac with OS X? Sure, it will cost a bit more than a PC, but you'll get to keep it longer, and you can ease yourself into the world of the command line while still being able to fall back to a friendly Apple GUI world. Plus, with XonX, you can run many of those Free *nix applications.

      Personally, Debian is the right choice for my desktop, but I'm a sysadmin; the right choice for your desktop might be different.

      --
      WMBC freeform/independent online radio.
    37. Re:Time by Fjord · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Remember, though, that Windows is only $200 if your time is worth nothing.

      --
      -no broken link
    38. Re:Time by evilpenguin · · Score: 2

      My point is these tools grew out of the *nix world and its overall design philosphopy. You would not have them at all without *nix. Linux, per se, doesn't enter into it, since these tools all antedate Linux.

      Your Windows box makes a pretty good *nix box if you install cygwin. My point was talking about "out-of-the-box" functionality. These are computers. You can make them do anything if you learn how to program (and if Palladium doesn't prevent you from wiring software for your own computer, don't get me started), but what your system does out of the box does matter. Why else would MS have bundled IE?

    39. Re:Time by Archie+Steel · · Score: 2

      Actually the hardware gap is closing very fast - like the rest of the Linux world, which evolves at about twice the speed as Windows. And then there's the fact that Linux works on a lot more platforms than any MS OS.

      In any case this point is moot if you can sell PCs with Linux pre-installed (something which would be much more common if MS hadn't strong-armed OEMs about installing only Windows).

      --

      Reminder: find a new sig
    40. Re:Time by momobaxter · · Score: 1

      That is why Perl can be run on windows. It's there so that you do NOT have to change operating systems. I kind of like the idea that a windows install can be tuned down to nothing, then built up, much like linux. If you set up your system, you chose the OS for a reason and if any person bugs you and tries to force their favorite OS down your throat, tell them to fuck off. It's not difficult, choose what you want. Not what's best for the situation. It's your choice, not anyone elses. People realize that this is the thought process and thus port software like PERL, PHP, Mozilla, etc...

      --
      "Full sources for linux currently runs to about 200kB compressed" --Linus Torvalds 31-Jan-1992
    41. Re:Time by Johnny+Mnemonic · · Score: 2

      Or even try OS X on the iMac that you have now. It won't be fast--not by half--but it should give you some sense of what UNIX with a GUI interface looks like; and what it's like to run a Unix with commercial software apps looks like.

      Then, provided it floats your boat, take a look at a new Mac. But there's no reason to live without Unix now simply becasue you don't like the way that Linux runs on your iMac. That's available now, and it's called OS X.

      --

      --
      $tar -xvf .sig.tar
    42. Re:Time by antirename · · Score: 1

      How in the hell did it take six hours to get Mozilla working? Either you have a really oddball setup, or were missing something, or were hammered at the time.

    43. Re:Time by rgbrenner · · Score: 0, Troll

      I disagree. From my own experiences, Windows takes longer than *nix. Having to click through multiple levels of menus just to change one settings is not quicker than editing a text file.

      Consider the simple task of browsing through your file system. Lets say you want get to C:\Windows\System\DirectX. In Windows I can:

      Click on My Computer
      Click on C
      Find and Click on Windows
      Find and Click on System
      Find and Click on DirectX

      Or (if *nix had these directories) I could:

      Type cd /Windows/System/DirectX

      Doing that simple task in Windows is going to require many times the amount of time it takes in *nix.

    44. Re:Time by Mr_Silver · · Score: 2
      How in the hell did it take six hours to get Mozilla working? Either you have a really oddball setup, or were missing something, or were hammered at the time.

      *sigh* I hope this was a joke otherwise the IQ level on Slashdot has hit an all time low.

      To quote (again):

      (before everyone bitches, mozilla downloads, installs and runs just fine - so in this case, the value of free software is fully realised)

      It's called using a product as an example . Next time I'll remember such concepts are lost on some people.

      --
      Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
    45. Re:Time by Pramode · · Score: 1

      Please, let's not immediately associate the shortcomings of LindowsOS with all of Linux. I've used a pre-release version of LindowsOS, and it was pretty bad. Just a very tame (weak) version of Linux with a pretty poor Wine interface that did not work when I tried installing several software packages. Though while I believe that it's a great step forward that PCs with Linux preinstalled are being sold in Walmart, which can tap into a very broad and fresh market, Linux I was hoping for a much stronger showing from LinudowsOS.

      Time? Recall the years of your life you spent coping with Windows' quirks, bugs, and pitfalls. Now, many people complain that they don't want to bother with Linux because it takes too long to become a proficient user. Why so scared of a new frontier? The ratio of utility to difficulty is much higher with Linux, and with a marginally more difficult UI, you get a suprising amount and range of robust programs.

    46. Re:Time by resin8 · · Score: 1

      How about typing C:/Windows/System/DirectX in Explorer's address bar? No one said you have to point and click your way through Windows.

  8. Obscure Unix commands...!? by aallan · · Score: 3, Funny

    I was a bit shocked by...

    It took several phone calls -- escalating to the point of calling a Lindows.com executive, an option not available to non-journalists -- before I discovered LindowsOS doesn't yet have a feature for setting the refresh rate. Instead, the company sent me complicated and potentially risky instructions for changing the refresh rate by entering obscure Unix commands such as "xf86cfg."

    I did finally manage to set a high refresh rate, but only after taking a technical step that's equivalent to jumping off a cliff without knowing for sure if there's a safety net below.

    I mean come on guys xf86cfg isn't exactly rocket science, it no harder to use than playing with the control panel in Windows.

    Al.
    --
    The Daily ACK - Eclectic posts by yet another hacker
    1. Re:Obscure Unix commands...!? by SpatchMonkey · · Score: 1

      The difference is, Control Panel -> Display -> Settings is a lot more obvious than running a program called 'xf86cfg'.

    2. Re:Obscure Unix commands...!? by MikeOttawa · · Score: 2, Informative

      But if its so simple, why would they not have just incorporated it into their version of the Control Panel... I wish I could see a working version of Lindows and see what they're talking about!

    3. Re:Obscure Unix commands...!? by rsidd · · Score: 1
      I mean come on guys xf86cfg isn't exactly rocket science, it no harder to use than playing with the control panel in Windows.

      Now, depending on one's point of view, that comment could be modded flamebait, troll, funny, interesting, informative, or insightful. Which did you mean it to be?

    4. Re:Obscure Unix commands...!? by Shisha · · Score: 1
      I did finally manage to set a high refresh rate, but only after taking a technical step that's equivalent to jumping off a cliff without knowing for sure if there's a safety net below.
      All they wanted me to use was this obscure sequence of menu commands and dialog boxes, going something like "Configure Desktop->Settings>Graphics System->Monitor". I was really scared and that is exactly how I feel when using the Control Panel in Windows. God and Bill only know what's going on down below, not to mention the safety net that might not have ever been there.
      No really, I feel much safer using xf86cfg, than control panel. Luckily I parted with Control Panel some years ago. Then again Control Panel might be easy to use nowdays.
    5. Re:Obscure Unix commands...!? by rmgrotkierii · · Score: 1
      I mean come on guys xf86cfg isn't exactly rocket science, it no harder to use than playing with the control panel in Windows.
      This was the first time he ever had access to anything mechcanical. Usually he wrote his stories with a pen and paper and had someone type them up for him. I'm amazed they allowed him to actually touch a working computer, alone.

      --
      Reality is for those who can't face Science Fiction.
    6. Re:Obscure Unix commands...!? by Soko · · Score: 2

      I mean come on guys xf86cfg isn't exactly rocket science, it no harder to use than playing with the control panel in Windows.
      Al.


      No, it's not difficult for you. However, most people don't have a clue as to what a refresh rate is, let alone how to set it by hacking at various commands.

      You can rant all you want about "people who don't want to learn the tools" and the other various regular geek arguments, but it boils down to this:

      Until a parrot can install and configure a Linux installation, it will not pose a true threat to the Windows desktop OS monopoly.

      Yeah, yeah, who wants that, blah blah, whatever. That's what Linux needs to succeed - simple, point and click and it just works installation and configuration (Mandrake is close and Suse [from the account of others] is perhaps closer, but both are not quite there, BTW) that is common to all distros. A tool for the drooling, unwashed masses, while we keep our "sup4r 1337 c0mm4nd l1n3 sk111z".

      </rant>

      Soko

      --
      "Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
    7. Re:Obscure Unix commands...!? by DrVxD · · Score: 1

      > Usually he wrote his stories with a pen and paper
      No, he's not allowed sharp implements like pens. He writes them in crayon.

      --
      Not everything that can be measured matters; Not everything that matters can be measured.
    8. Re:Obscure Unix commands...!? by TummyX · · Score: 1

      Ofcourse, Windows XP will ask you, and then automatically set your display resolution and refresh rate to the optimal for your monitor when you first bootup.

    9. Re:Obscure Unix commands...!? by rmgrotkierii · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The difference is, Control Panel -> Display -> Settings is a lot more obvious than running a program called 'xf86cfg'


      Tell that to a complete newbie, and they will have a lot of trouble even doing that. :)

      --
      Reality is for those who can't face Science Fiction.
    10. Re:Obscure Unix commands...!? by bigbadwlf · · Score: 1

      I don't consider 800x600 on a 17" monitor to be "optimal" regardless of the refresh rate.

    11. Re:Obscure Unix commands...!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you guys for real?...."as easy as the windows control panel"...buddy, don't ever claim to be a usability expert...wow...

    12. Re:Obscure Unix commands...!? by droolfool · · Score: 1

      Just think about it. You don`t even know what the heck is "Control Panel", how would you know how to change the refresh rate? I tried to run Windows in an old 14' monitor, and guess what? I had a bad time doing it, because Windows thought my monitor supported 1024x768. It just REFUSED to let me change the resolution. So, I had to plug another monitor, change the resolution, and plug my old one back.

      BTW, I just can't play most of the games in Windows XP, because my Savage4 video isn't very good. Fortunately, I don't buy games I'm not COMPLETELY sure I can run. And, unfortunately, many times, when you can't run something in Windows, you JUST CAN'T, period.

    13. Re:Obscure Unix commands...!? by mpe · · Score: 2

      The difference is, Control Panel -> Display -> Settings is a lot more obvious than running a program called 'xf86cfg'.

      Only if they are already used to Windows. Indeed a complete novice probably would have less of a problem with having to put the box into a special mode to set it up. Because that's the case with their television, video, etc.

    14. Re:Obscure Unix commands...!? by mpe · · Score: 2

      Ofcourse, Windows XP will ask you, and then automatically set your display resolution and refresh rate to the optimal for your monitor when you first bootup.

      Or it may set things to be sub optimal. The basic problem with "plug and play" is that it dosn't always work and if it can't easily be disabled it becomes "plug and pray".

    15. Re:Obscure Unix commands...!? by SpatchMonkey · · Score: 1

      I was referring to the relative merits of the Control Panel method as compared to typing 'xf86cfg'. Of course if they know either operating system well then the point is moot, but a newcomer to PCs would have a much better guess as to what 'Control Panel' and 'Display' means than 'xf86cfg'.

    16. Re:Obscure Unix commands...!? by alexmogil · · Score: 2

      Or they could go to Start - Help and then type 'monitor'. That way they can learn where it is.

      --
      A winner is you!
    17. Re:Obscure Unix commands...!? by rmgrotkierii · · Score: 1

      I replying to this post and the other posts under my comment. My point, is that Windows isn't any "friendlier" then Linux. I've had to explain how to unzip a file in Windows step by step to some of my friends, and well I can see them getting lost with all of this too. I mean I have even had friends getting lost with upgrading IE after they downloaded the setup exe! Just my $0.03. :)

      --
      Reality is for those who can't face Science Fiction.
    18. Re:Obscure Unix commands...!? by Zorikin · · Score: 1

      > most people don't have a clue as to what a refresh rate is

      That's a good point. If they don't know what it is, it will probably not occur to them to try to change it, and they won't be disappointed that they can't dig it up out of the lindows-kde configuration gui.

    19. Re:Obscure Unix commands...!? by antirename · · Score: 1

      He should have done what most of my friends would do in this situation... call someone who runs linux and ask. Much faster than tech support. Of course, I wind up being tech support for my friends, which is another issue.

    20. Re:Obscure Unix commands...!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Obscure Unix commands"

      Isn't that phrase redundant? All Unix commands are obscure.

  9. Exciting news!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    "Lindows" is open source innovation at it's most pathetic. At least KOffice adds a letter to a useable product, but Lindows just swaps one. Lame.

    1. Re:Exciting news!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...or is it Wame?

    2. Re:Exciting news!!! by slonob · · Score: 0

      Funny?

      I call it stupid. Or typical would work too.

      --
      Strict obedience to the law is the key to liberty.
  10. Open Source? by MikeOttawa · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I thought that Lindows was based on a Linux operating system with a Wine type overlay for running Windows apps ... but did they develop everythingthing themselves?
    I thought that you had to allow the source code to be available when you used code from an open source source.
    It seems to me that they are charging for something that they didn't put the sweat into making.

    1. Re:Open Source? by raynet · · Score: 1

      And why shouldn't they make stupid people pay? If you can't download your GPL software for free, but instead want someone to configure, compile and install the software for you, then you should be charged for it.

      And also, they only have to give the source code for the apps you have downloaded and installed.

      --
      - Raynet --> .
    2. Re:Open Source? by alexmogil · · Score: 1

      Where exactly is the seperation here - Linux needs to be sold to the masses, the non-computer users, yet 'stupid people' need charged out the ass to get it to work like they want? Are your comments indicative of the Linux community? If so, welcome to obscurity, Linux.

      --
      A winner is you!
  11. Of course it's not positive by SpatchMonkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Because Lindows hardly measures up to Windows XP at all. It may be better than, say, Windows 95 or 98 due to stability and a decent GUI, but times have moved on since then.

    NT-based Windows systems are actually pretty good. The main benefit of a Linux based system, stability, has been negated as Windows caught up quite a while ago.

    Features like 'open source' and '$150 cheaper' aren't really bonuses to most PC users, when it doesn't have the feature 'runs all my Windows programs and games just fine' implemented correctly.

    1. Re:Of course it's not positive by brad-x · · Score: 1

      I'm afraid Windows hasn't gotten anywhere near catching up to the stability of Unix-like operating systems. As the adage goes, if you believe that you really don't have much experience putting Windows do the test.

      NT based systems are not 'good', just easy. And while easy is a selling point for new users, it doesn't mean they're getting what they want from their purchase. They're getting unfair licensing, unfair business practices, and no standard of excellence.

      Don't be defeatist.

      --
      // -- http://www.BRAD-X.com/ -- //
    2. Re:Of course it's not positive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      That's why RMS was right to stress the freedom aspect, and ESR was wrong to "brand" "open source" as a "business proposition".

    3. Re:Of course it's not positive by SpatchMonkey · · Score: 1

      I'm not being defeatist - this isn't a battle.

      It's just a case of using the most appropriate technology for the task at hand. Windows is the most appropriate for most desktop users, and recently has the added benefit that it is pretty damn stable too.

      I use Windows XP at home, and since installing it four months ago, have only rebooted three times - twice for Windows Update (comparable to the reboot required when doing a kernel update in Linux) and once because of a power cut.

      I've had some stability issues in individual applications, some from Microsoft but most not. But it didn't bring the rest of the OS down, I just killed the process and started again.

    4. Re:Of course it's not positive by DrVxD · · Score: 1

      > The main benefit of a Linux based system, stability, has been negated as Windows caught up quite a while ago.
      You're funny, but I doubt anybody is going to mod you up for it...

      --
      Not everything that can be measured matters; Not everything that matters can be measured.
    5. Re:Of course it's not positive by SpatchMonkey · · Score: 1

      Thanks, it took ages to bump up the uids high enough to get that one :-)

      My only qualm with the multi-user stuff is that if you're logging in to a domain, you can't use the terminal services stuff like fast user switching. And being able to do a remote admin login like Windows 2000 Server would be pretty useful too.

      But for standalone home use, it's great.

    6. Re:Of course it's not positive by Shisha · · Score: 1

      Oh wow, so it is then just me who has not noticed and Nimbda and I Love you viruses for Linux.

      If Windows caught up some years ago what are the viruses still doing there lurking around?

      For me Linux (Mandrake, but I guess that's not that important) is about two things:

      1, Stability and that includes no viruses, thank you very much. And this also includes suspend / unsuspend feature on my laptop. I did not have to turn it off for more than two months, simply because I just suspend it or unsuspend it moving between home and university. That way I don't care about boot times. 3-5s is fine by me.

      2, Install and configure once, run forever. Even though some RPMS take a few dependencies to sort out I don't have to reinstall the system every other weekend. Besides "urpmi", the Mandrake update tool is fairly decent and if you stick to Mandrake RPMS you'll hardly get into any RPM dependency conflicts.

    7. Re:Of course it's not positive by SpatchMonkey · · Score: 1

      No .. I'm not trolling or trying to be funny, I'm completely serious.

    8. Re:Of course it's not positive by brad-x · · Score: 1

      Granted stability is much improved since the NT kernel came into the consumer versions. I think it is troubling though that the licensing changes under the consumers nose, and even automatically.

      If Windows were more stable than Unix/Linux I'd find myself hard pressed to recommend it to end users.

      But yes, in many cases it is the only way to go, for now.

      ...for now. :P

      --
      // -- http://www.BRAD-X.com/ -- //
    9. Re:Of course it's not positive by SpatchMonkey · · Score: 1
      The recent Windows email viruses have spread so rapidly for two main reasons:
      • Microsoft's Outlook products have bugs and design flaws that allow them to spread easily, with barely any human intervention.
      • Most people new to computers start off using Windows as it is the industry standard, and they don't know enough about the system to avoid doing things like, for example, opening and running executable attachments.
      I would guess that if Linux was as popular as Windows is, then many new users of computers would use that too and make similar mistakes.

      Outlook is an application that runs on the operating system, not part of the OS itself. This is a problem inherent in a particular piece of Microsoft software, and not Windows itself. I agree with you though, they were very careless in the creation of this product and most of the blame lies there.

      It'll be interesting to see what effects the 'sandboxing' features of .NET will have on such viruses, when its usage becomes widespread. Hopefully it will raise the bar somewhat to virus writers.

      As for your suspend/unsuspend feature on your laptop - this is also available in Windows. In Windows XP, there is also a similar feature that allows the computer to be completely switched off - it is called 'Hibernate' and is very useful when moving machines with no built in suspend functionality, such as desktops.
    10. Re:Of course it's not positive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fool.

      There are more virii for Windows because more people use it. if you are a virus writer you want to infect as many people as possible not just the 2 or 3 that use Linux. ... and remember that the worst virus attack of all time (technically a worm, so let's call it the worst malicious code attack) was the RTM88 Worm which attacked what? ... only *UNIX* systems. Viruses were born on the UNIX platform - it's only since they fell out of favour that people started writing for Windows.

    11. Re:Of course it's not positive by Zapdos · · Score: 2

      Windows has not yet caught up to Linux or UNIX in terms of stability. It may be a large leap from where it was a short time ago, it has by no means caught up. The thought that it has is no more then than a urban legend. Windows 2000 MTBF is 2,800 hours, Linux stable kernels on the other hand tend to have a average MTBF of around 15,000 hours.

    12. Re:Of course it's not positive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0



      Be fair, now. When Nimda was released, M$ had already released a patch for the vulnerability it exploited.

      That clueless admins did not update it is not the fault of M$, any more than clueless admins not updating, say, OpenSSH or Apache is the fault of the OpenSSH/Apache guys.

      I run both unix and Windows, and I've never had a virus on either system.

    13. Re:Of course it's not positive by zerocool^ · · Score: 2

      i consider the main feature of linux to be security, not stability. Both XP and linux are stable enough. Windows... not secure.

      However, taking into account the holes in a default install of, say, redhat 7.3, linux beats windows in security. But not by the huge margin people think. Both still require updates and patches, and some knowledge of the ways that are open that people could use to connect to your computer.

      ~Will

      --
      sig?
    14. Re:Of course it's not positive by Shisha · · Score: 1

      Your argument is fair enough, but it also lets me make a point. As a user I don't care why I don't have viruses on my system. If the way to go is using obscure OS, that I'm happy using, then that's fine. Second point is that if there was no monopoly in the first place, then virii writers will have a harder time. And the last point is that whils the first worm / virus might have been a UNIX one I believe that UNIX is not inherently prone to virii while Windows is. Btw. look at netcraft.com's statistics. If UNIX / Apache virii were easy enough to make there is a "market share" for them. Windows web servers are only second.

    15. Re:Of course it's not positive by mpe · · Score: 2

      When Nimda was released, M$ had already released a patch for the vulnerability it exploited.
      That clueless admins did not update it is not the fault of M$, any more than clueless admins not updating, say, OpenSSH or Apache is the fault of the OpenSSH/Apache guys.


      One of the things Microsoft sold Windows, to corporate users, was the idea of not needing well qualified admins. Thus it's hardly a suprise you end up with it being maintained by MSCEs and "power users".
      When did the Apache people say "You don't need a proper admin with our product"?

    16. Re:Of course it's not positive by jonnythan · · Score: 2

      Linux *Kernels*, yes. But throw a GUI on there and see if that 15,000 hour MTBF stays the same.

    17. Re:Of course it's not positive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Windows has not yet caught up to Linux or UNIX in terms of stability. It may be a large leap from where it was a short time ago, it has by no means caught up. The thought that it has is no more then than a urban legend. Windows 2000 MTBF is 2,800 hours, Linux stable kernels on the other hand tend to have a average MTBF of around 15,000 hours.
      I think the average user will have his home PC running at most ten hours per week. Until he buys the next PC two years later, the PC will have run just about 1000 hours. That's not much more than 1/3 of the 2800 hours MTBF you quote. So an average user should have good chances to never see his system ever crash until he buys a new one. Therefore he'll not care too much about that stability difference.

      The fact that an electric device stands 100 000 Volts is certainly important for some applications, but the average user is satisfied with devices which stand the normal 110 or 220 Volts. For those people the fact that a device would survive 100 000 Volts is just irrelevant. And it's just the same for Windows vs. Linux: The average home user doesn't need extreme stability, stable enough is all he wants. If the system doesn't crash at him, or maybe does just once without any data loss, it's OK. He doesn't care about if it would have crashed more often if he'd use it eight hours a day, or even have it running 24/7.

    18. Re:Of course it's not positive by Squarewav · · Score: 1

      if you rum

    19. Re:Of course it's not positive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      actually, my desktop linux machine stays up more then 4 times longer then the XP and 2K machines I use. These machines are all properly setup, just Windows seems to need a reboot every 20 to 30 days. I've figured out why so many patches have been coming out from MS lately. It's to force people to reboot before the 20 to 30 day marker, when things start to go to hell.

    20. Re:Of course it's not positive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wait another 4 months.. You'll be re-installing.

      At least they've made it last 8 months instead of 6 before a re-install. That I'll give them credit for.

    21. Re:Of course it's not positive by HorsePunchKid · · Score: 2
      I don't necessarily agree with your point about stability. My experience (I've used Win2kPro on my laptop for about two years now and used NT4 at work for about 1.5 years) has been that while I very rarely get out-right crashes (maybe 10 BSoDs in the time I've had the laptop), Win2kPro does tend to just gradually get to the point that it needs to be rebooted. Memory leaks, needing to install service packs, etc., etc., all add up to poor MTBF. But yeah, outright stability has improved drastically from the 95/98/ME days.

      I don't really think you have the right idea in your second point, though. My impression is that while the Lindows OS itself is aimed at eventually swaying over current Windows users, the Microtel / WalMart offering is really aimed at first-time users / buyers who don't aren't thinking "I need my win apps to run". They're thinking "My kids keep telling me I need to get the Internet". I don't think there are many people currently using desktop computers (home, work, whatever) who would take this machine seriously as a home system.

      --
      Steven N. Severinghaus
    22. Re:Of course it's not positive by Antity · · Score: 1

      When Nimda was released, M$ had already released a patch for the vulnerability it exploited.

      That clueless admins did not update it is not the fault of M$, any more than clueless admins not updating, say, OpenSSH or Apache is the fault of the OpenSSH/Apache guys.

      I think you're wrong here. Have a look at current Microsoft "security patch" EULAs.

      We've come to a point where you need to check any Microsoft patch very careful before applying it, especially on productivity servers. You had to check if it had

      • Dependencies on a special software version
      • Dependencies on other patches
      • Language dependencies
      • If there were any known incompatibilities with this patch yet (nobody likes to apply the newest patches just to fix hard to exploit vulnerabilities just to realize that the patch sent your perfectly working server to the Big Wahooni, caused downtime and had you fetch that backup tape - still not having fixed that hole because you have to rewind to the last working software version before the patch...)

      Now you have to add an additional and probably even more time-consuming step:

      • Check whether any legal changes will apply to your perfectly working system after you install a security patch that you really, really need. Check back with your legal department (especially in companies that run servers this might be unavoidable) if you are even allowed to install that bugfix.

      Perhaps those people who did not apply this or that fix to their systems had already other problems other than just being dumb. We'll see a lot more of this in the future with Microsoft software.

      Imagine the headlines: "$BIGCOMPANY's web servers rooted because the latest Microsoft "Service Pack" was still being checked by $BIGCOMPANY's legal dept".

      Scary.

      --
      42. Easy. What is 32 + 8 + 2?
    23. Re:Of course it's not positive by Squarewav · · Score: 1

      if you run nt like you run linux , as in not as "root" you'll have the same efect as getting a linux virus ,as in you'll only loose stuff in you "home" dir and the user part of the registry, The down side is that many old w95 apps that try to write to the windows dir will more then likly crap out as will many old games

    24. Re:Of course it's not positive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That Slashdot story you linked to was a total lie, the license on the patch wasn't any different than the one that shipped with the original WMP7.

    25. Re:Of course it's not positive by Capt.+DrunkenBum · · Score: 1

      Heres a question for you... WTF does a server need with a GUI?

      --

      Not everyone deserves a 320i

    26. Re:Of course it's not positive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's a question for you... WTF does a home user need with a server?

    27. Re:Of course it's not positive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't really, but the article in question is about desktop machines for general users. Those machines DO need a GUI. In this case the Windows GUI will probably be more stable than the Lindows for the general user.

    28. Re:Of course it's not positive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's a question -- WTF does the GUI even _matter_ when judging in terms of OS stability? If the kernel's stable, how would a GUI change that?

    29. Re:Of course it's not positive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ummmm. go read it ur self? i printed out the full EULA from the patch, not a site. u obviously dont know how to read that well.

    30. Re:Of course it's not positive by thedbp · · Score: 1

      I hate to be a negative nancy, but from personal experience as administrator of 12 Windows 2000 boxes, I have to say that Win2K is the best OS they ever released, but it is FAR from being as stable as Mac OS X or Linux. FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR. And don't get me started on XP. Its hard to crash XP when you can't get past the revenue-generating additions to actually do something that might crash the thing.

    31. Re:Of course it's not positive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      There are more virii for Windows

      There is no such word as "virii". Period.

    32. Re:Of course it's not positive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      virii writers will have a harder time.

      There is no such word as "virii". Period.

    33. Re:Of course it's not positive by antirename · · Score: 1

      And, isn't MS charging for patches these days?

  12. Click-n-Run? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lindows charges 100 bucks to run some hacked up and broken version of apt-get?

    I just don't trust that Lindows guy. Don't like the way he interacts with the Wine people either.

  13. No need for dumbed down Linux by Eythian · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Personally, I don't see the need for dumbed down versions of Linux such as Lindows. I have been using Mandrake since 7.2, and have found the latest version (8.2) more than sufficient for me, as a compulsive command-line user, and when I was last down home I installed it on my parents Celery 400, where it runs better than Win98 did (with the exception of longer startup time). To do this, and teach them how to use it, I had to learn the GUI tools for things. I then discovered that these were much more capable than they used to be. The only exposure my parents have ever had to have to the command line is that breif period after the graphic bootup screen goes away, before X has fully started. They are now happily using konqueror, kmail, and all the games that come with Linux, without problems. Every so often I sent them an email such as 'A new security release has come out. Use MandrakeUpdate.', and thats it.

    Its definatly time for Linux on the non-geek desktop, and real Linux at that (none of the logged in as root business). The only thing they didn't do was the actual installation, however I am going to be doing the same conversion to my g/fs computer soon, and will let her do the install so I can see how easy it is for someone not familar with anything beyond powerpoint.

    It is also important to keep in mind that there is software to do almost anything that you require avaliable for Linux if you are a casual user. It may yet be missing important applications, those that are more niche products, but all the things a typical user needs are there, such as many variations of solitaire :)

    1. Re:No need for dumbed down Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only thing they didn't do was the actual installation

      It's not like they would have installed Windows if they were using that, so that's a non-issue.

    2. Re:No need for dumbed down Linux by Chemicalscum · · Score: 1
      I fully agree with you - Mandrake Linux is suitable for the non-geek desktop.

      On my system I find that Mandrake 8.2 boots faster than win 98SE. The installation is slower but just as easy and the extra time is taken in installing about 2.5 Gig of programs compared to less than 1 Gig for win98.

      I gather Walmart is going to distribute Microtel PC's with Mandrake preloaded in the near future. That will offer a real alternative to windoze.

    3. Re:No need for dumbed down Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm yeah

      and the day mandrake is real linux is the day santa rides a snowplow to work...

      hint go and install Debian or even better Slackware and see how you get on (id love to see you install from source or handpatch make files.....)

      Mandrake is dumbed down linux for the luser and its still too complex for most home users... Go figure that one out (hint if you need a terminal or a command line then its too complex for mum and dad)

    4. Re:No need for dumbed down Linux by Robert+The+Coward · · Score: 1

      There is one Product that still isn't there and that is a decent check book program. I have been using quicken for close to 10 Years now and there is no way that I will stop. I my house I have 1 Windows Machine and 3 Linux Machines. I don't picture that 1 Windows machine going anywhere anytime as all the check book programs under linux that I have seen just are even close to being able to replace quicken granted Quicken has had 12+ Years to get were it is now.

    5. Re:No need for dumbed down Linux by Eythian · · Score: 1

      I was playing with gnucash recently, and while I can't compare it to Quicken, something it mentions in the docs is that Intuit were very responsive to customer demand, and so got a great product made.

    6. Re:No need for dumbed down Linux by Eythian · · Score: 1

      You missed my point.Mandrake allows usage from either the GUI end or the command line end. My parents haven't seen a command line. I never close mine down. I have used Debian, Slackware, and Redhat, also OSF/1 and the BSD bit of OSX, and like the polish of Mandrake. I build packages from source, and use checkinstall to install them. I do these things because I want to, but I don't have to.

    7. Re:No need for dumbed down Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well I've gone from Mandrake 8.2 to RH7.3 because I couldn't get MDK8.2 to work with my ISDN no matter what I did despite 8.0 working fine. The first thing that was massively obvious in RH7.3 was the LACK of GUI tools to configure hardware/environment and this is with a full install of all packages as a "look-see". I updated Geforce drivers and trashed X. Took me ages to sort it out and even that was by accident. I knew what was wrong but I couldn't find a way in to enable me to get to my XF86Config-4 file. I'm still having problems trying to get my well supported Printer installed so everything can use it. Mandrake definitely has it sorted out from a fairly inexperienced Linux user point of view EXCEPT for the Windows network insteraction...its there but takes a bit of doing.

    8. Re:No need for dumbed down Linux by Eythian · · Score: 1

      EXCEPT for the Windows network insteraction

      If using KDE check out the lisa program, it allows network discovery and browsing of windows shares. Annoyingly you have to manually activate it by editing an rc file, it doesn't do the SysV startup thing.

  14. $99 registration fee still in effect by AyeFly · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In order to download Lindows from their website and try it out, you STILL have to register to be an insider! They say that when the general release comes out, it will be downloadable for free. Now that THEY ARE SELLING LINDOWS TO THE PUBLIC, shouldn't the free downloadable open source version be public?

    --
    Sig- http://www.dreamhost.com/rewards.cgi?ayefly
    1. Re:$99 registration fee still in effect by GigsVT · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm not sure how they set it up, but they only have to release source to the people they distribute the binaries to, and they are allowed to charge a fee for either or both. The source fee must be reasonable to cover costs of distribution and not be for profit, however, and it sounds like this may not be the case.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    2. Re:$99 registration fee still in effect by devleopard · · Score: 1

      I haven't kept up with Lindows that much, but I thought their plan was to charge all along, with no free downloads. Open source is free as in speech, not beer. You only have to include the source code with what you ship. (ie, only those that pay for it in this instance) At the very least, there is NOTHING in the GPL that says that a product must be downloadable.

      --
      The best thing about a boolean is even if you are wrong, you are only off by a bit.
  15. And what about Wine by bareminimum · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It is sad to read two reviews of Lindoze and none of them addresses the alleged out of the box MS code compatibility. None of the reviewers even tried to install MsOffice.. In my mind that was the most spectacular claim we've been hearing about for months. A bit more research would be appreciated. Instead we get a guy whining about his out of a dumpster single frequency monitor (he was okay at least) and the other dude complains that his eyes hurt.

    I really wonder a) what refresh rate is OEM Windows set to out-of-the-box and b) what percentage of AOL users know how to change their refresh rate under Windows, let alone have a clue what a monitor refresh rate is.

    1. Re:And what about Wine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bought a Lindows 1.8 P4 with CD burner and 256 MB ram from Walmart. It was $599 and shipping was $15. It was delivered when they said it would be - about 10 days after I placed the order.

      It installed Office 2K, but it wouldn't run until I restarted X (no kidding). It ran Word pretty slowly.

      I was pretty disappointed in Lindows as an OS, but as close as I could tell the price was the same for the same machine w/o the OS.

      I am downloading the RedHat beta as I type this.

    2. Re:And what about Wine by CodeMonky · · Score: 3

      Usually 60hz and changing it is a dropdown listing only the modes your monitor can display.

      --
      --"Karma is justice without the satisfaction"
    3. Re:And what about Wine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I really wonder a) what refresh rate is OEM
      > Windows set to
      >
      If you install yourself, generally 60MHz. Which seriously hurts at least my eyes. Most people, however, won't notice or if they do think, it's supposed to be that way and never change it.
      You see, this is one of those funny things with Windows and Linux users. It's generally the geeks supporting (their parents/sisters/friends/etc.) Windows machines and making sure, it's at least semi-usable. If Linux users would finally stop doing that ("I don't know how to do that either!"), far more people would see Windows for what it is...just another OS with it's own many quirks and annoyances. While Linux too has those, I think, more people would consider it when they finally realize Windows ain't that "user-friendly" either now that they have to do stuff themselves!
      So Linux geeks: Forget about fixing Windows wherever you go! Don't run Scandisk/Defrag, clear out temp files, check for viruses or anything else! Just leave it alone, but offer ample and friendly support with Linux! That's the way to go.

  16. XFree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Come on, everyone know setting up monitors/ changing res etc ... in X handles like a piece of shit.

    Font's are equally as bad.

  17. LindowsOS wasn't the best thing for Wal-Mart by brad-x · · Score: 1

    Lindows is fun in concept but I think they fooled the marketeers into thinking it was viable.

    A UNIX operating system which is blatantly different from Windows, using KDE and a full compliment of free applications which are equivalent to their Windows counterparts has actually proved in my experience to be EASIER for new users to get used to and use productively.

    Unix and Linux can be quite productive without added fluff like WINE getting in the users way.

    --
    // -- http://www.BRAD-X.com/ -- //
    1. Re:LindowsOS wasn't the best thing for Wal-Mart by slonob · · Score: 0

      I think it's your coolness that is getting in the way. OBVIOUSLY Lindows is attempting to address the "but will my programs run on it" factor. OBVIOUSLY the idea is that Joe Blow (who is not as cool as you apparently are) goes down to Best Buy and picks up a Tax program for himself and a death and destruction game for his son, and hey freaking PRESTO it works!

      If this is not a factor for you, good for you. You're a special person and deserve credit. But, for a lot of people these issues will matter.

      --
      Strict obedience to the law is the key to liberty.
    2. Re:LindowsOS wasn't the best thing for Wal-Mart by brad-x · · Score: 1

      As mentioned there are open source equivalents to most any Windows specific program. They are easy to use. UNIX boots to a GUI if so configured and marketed.

      This is not difficult for the user. I have seniors using it after having migrated from Windows 98. Do you take the time to read comments before replying to them?

      Look into managing your aggression elsewhere please.

      --
      // -- http://www.BRAD-X.com/ -- //
    3. Re:LindowsOS wasn't the best thing for Wal-Mart by slonob · · Score: 0

      Most Windows programs? This is not true. Not even close. Windows programs are owned in quantity by many as well as on the shelves in astounding quantities. Lindows obviously is attempting to offer access to these while also offering access to the open source applications. This is a valid business plan. I think it's brilliant, actually. Not original, not perfect in execution, but good for them for going ahead with it.

      The fact that you do not agree does not make Lindows a bad idea. The fact that the appeal is not aimed at and does not reach you, does not mean it will be and should be lost on others.

      So the point of your post and this followup is that you are capable of dealing with Linux as a desktop machine. You can set it up all by yourself and you don't even want to use Windows apps. And again, good for you.

      Excuse, me if I get annoyed by meaningless posts such as yours that simply aim to advertise your apparent competence that apparently exceeds others. I'm glad you have confidence. Good for you. Great job!

      Also, Linux is not UNIX. It is a UNIX clone. And to be sure your rabid slashdot reinforced attitude does not mislead you, I am a UNIX admin and am familiar with the issues at hand in great detail.

      Way to go, Champ!

      --
      Strict obedience to the law is the key to liberty.
    4. Re:LindowsOS wasn't the best thing for Wal-Mart by brad-x · · Score: 1

      The fact that I do not agree makes Lindows a bad idea, yes. I'm realistic about the likelyhood of such an implementation succeeding.

      WINE, from a developers perspective, is not able to deliver a satisfying user experience yet.

      A more valid business plan is to take existing UNIX software and gear it toward the end user, if UNIX is to be geared toward the end user at all.

      We have OpenOffice. We have Mozilla 1. We have KDE 3. We have other equivalencies, and where we do not, we should not foolishly market compatibility engines as though they were the solution.

      I have said nothing in my posts to indicate anything other than the fact that it is easier for the end-user to acclimate to native UNIX software than it is to acclimate to hybrid environments like Lindows. Even from a teaching perspective one can't mix metaphors and expect success to come conceptually out of it.

      Can you point out to me where I've self-aggrandized and posted simply to show off my abilities? I sure don't see it.

      All I see is you attempting to correct me as to the usage of UNIX/Linux. We're dealing with UNIX software, not Linux software. The debate about portability aside, any software which is POSIX compliant and will compile and run on Linux, FreeBSD, AIX, Tru64, or any other variant out there is UNIX software. Understand?

      Why is it that I've been backing my statements up with anecdotal and experiential evidence, and you have not?

      --
      // -- http://www.BRAD-X.com/ -- //
    5. Re:LindowsOS wasn't the best thing for Wal-Mart by slonob · · Score: 0

      Lindows' premise:
      All the power (and hype) of Linux AND you can run all your Windows apps on it. People will choose Lindows if it offers just about all Windows can offer for less, while opening them up to even more apps.

      Your premise:
      You don't need Windows apps... therefore, WINE is fluff... therefore, Lindows is not viable.

      Real people just might buy their premise. Slashdot hot air couriers probably will not, but they'll buy yours.

      And since you like anecdotes:
      I was feeling rich for a couple of months so I set up my Mom with a computer. I built her a machine, installed Windows on it. I chose Windows because I live 300 miles away from her. I knew she would go down to Best Buy and buy stuff like a scanner and so on and would be surprised if nothing worked. Linux(or other) was not an option. BUT, I wanted her machine to be legit and did not want to buy MS Office, so I put Star Office on it since it was free at the time.

      Star Office is much closer to MS Office than anything I have seen. OpenOffice is not even close. I figured she would have no problems even if she had to open an Excel file or two. I figured she didn't even need that much power. Over a year, she began demanding more. Star Office began to be a real problem. It cost me my time. It caused frustration. It's just plain inferior to MS Office. So I finally switched her to MS Office.

      Since the purchase of the machine, without my consultation, she went out and bought a printer, scanner, a CDRW and a couple of applications. It is likely that none of this would have worked had I installed Linux (or other). And if it could work on Linux, it would cost ME my time to get it working.

      So the point of my little tale is that this particular average user, my Mom, could not have used Linux. In fact, she couldn't even use an open source program compiled for Windows.

      The ideals are good. But the product is inferior in a lot of cases in the eyes and experience of real users, the ones that make our world go 'round.

      Get more "real users" on Linux (or other) and the quality of end-user apps will increase steadily. I say, get there at any price even if it means accomodating these users on the way, as Lindows intends to do (they may have failed, I don't know).

      Now that WINE has matured, I might reconsider this. I might even choose Lindows for someone since an over-the-phone reinstall to factory default is VERY appealing when you're playing support for your less technical friends and family (yes I know you could use Ghost or equiv but I don't really have time to play OEM). (The point of a restore CD was lost on the questionable newsforge reviewer. Compaq innovated this concept and was rewarded for it, early on. Rewards in business are a good thing.)

      You seem like a reasonable enough person. Maybe you should move even further away from this Slashdot negation banter and conformity. It's useless. Slashdot is almost completely useless. What the hell am I even doing here? ugh.

      --
      Strict obedience to the law is the key to liberty.
  18. no-win by Jondor · · Score: 1, Interesting

    What I feel is unfortunate is that I see the whole userexperience thing in walmart as a no-win situation due to the simple fact that the use runs as root.
    If sales fail it's: Linux isn't ready for the desktop. See, see... I told ya..

    If it doesn't and it becomes an overnight success the world ends up with a whole lot of linux machines which are as unsafe as windows machines.
    Next step: a virus/trojan and woosh, there goes the public idea that unix is a more safe and virus resistent environment.

    Of course, the details as that unix is usualy per default a lot more secure than a comparible windows machine get lost.

    Oh well, let's hope I'm just in a dark mood..

    --
    Nobody expects the spanish inquisition!
    1. Re:no-win by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unix historically has had a dismal security record. That changed somewhat in the 1990s. If you're going to 'herald' a 30 year heritage, you'd better be willing to accept what the situation was for those whole 30 years.

    2. Re:no-win by Jondor · · Score: 1

      probably.. a quieter and innocent time. At least in those 30 years unix grew up and became what it is to day. Not perfect by any means but nicely on it's way as security and stability goes.

      Windows on the other hand makes the same mistakes over and over, creates new holes for every fix and overall doesn't realy show any progress.
      Microsoft's priorities are simply not on security imho. Whatever they write in their press-releases.

      --
      Nobody expects the spanish inquisition!
    3. Re:no-win by NumberSyx · · Score: 2

      The sad part of users "running as root" is it is easily dealt with by a proper installion and configuration of sudo. How hard would it be to write an X front end for sudo. When the system is first booted up it asks for a root password and a normal user name and password. After that it boots into the normal user account and when the user needs to be root, such as installing software, Linux simply invokes XSudo, asks for the root password, if it correct, it does what it needs to. RedHat does this, so does Mac OS X. It would be simple to implement and solve 99% of the problems associated with running as root.

      --

      "Our products just aren't engineered for security,"
      -Brian Valentine,VP in charge of MS Windows Development

    4. Re:no-win by zzyzx · · Score: 2

      How would that really be more secure? Users would grow used to just typing in that password whenever it was needed, and would still wreck their boxes.

  19. It's obscure if you've never used Unix before by Platinum+Dragon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I mean come on guys xf86cfg isn't exactly rocket science, it no harder to use than playing with the control panel in Windows.

    It's easy to use, it's just there apparently isn't some kind of control panel item or icon to run it, and no indication that the program even exists. Most Windows programs I've run across also have short, barely-sensical names for their executables, but that's why icons with pretty, fuzzy names exist - so non-geeks who've never heard of man or seen a command line can figure out what to do without calling tech support.

    I can't say I'm surprised, but with some geeks installing the more user-friendly distros for their families, couldn't a few get together and figure out how to put together and sell/give away a really solid, usable Linux-based desktop computer? Maybe Wal-Mart's Mandrake PC will be this mythical machine?

    --

    Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
    1. Re:It's obscure if you've never used Unix before by shepd · · Score: 1

      >It's easy to use, it's just there apparently isn't some kind of control panel item or icon to run it, and no indication that the program even exists.

      This is why the web exists.

      --
      If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
    2. Re:It's obscure if you've never used Unix before by q-soe · · Score: 2

      Which is fine unless you bought this PC cause it was cheap and you don't have another and you need to get this working to get on the net.....

      This sort of stuff is something other distros can manage but Lindows cannot and yet people keep defending them. Perhaps they should have spent more time in the test lab and less in court.

      --
      I refuse to argue with Anonymous Cowards - if you want a discussion get an account....
  20. The gripe seems to be about Click-N-Run by Kjella · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...and I sure understand why. The entire point of linux is to cut costs, and 100$ to download free software is a huge showstopper. Other distros come with these included on cd (though optional), and with free update tools (up2date, apt-get). The game plan is good, but the implementation of the system didn't sound quite convincing, and with a huge (on a 299$ PC, 99$ is HUGE) price tag for the software system it isn't going to work out.

    Personally I'd rather think a well pre-configured standard installation of say Redhat, where it already has programs installed (which ones is bound to be a subject of many arguments, but still). Let them have a word processor/spreadsheet/email client/im client/ftp client/irc client right out of the box, and everything would be so much better. Choice is only good if there is an *informed* choice. The target marked here don't have a clue. Include OpenOffice not KOffice. Or opposite. But neither, or both isn't good. The user don't need to get flooded with choices, many of which (if Click-n-Run is anything like most open source repositories) SUCK. They don't have the time or the patience or the knowledge to find a product that works for them. You need to *show* these people what this machine can do, not wait around for "oh, sure you can install a word processor, any word processor, just pick one"

    Kjella

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    1. Re:The gripe seems to be about Click-N-Run by Mr_Silver · · Score: 2
      The entire point of linux is to cut costs, and 100$ to download free software is a huge showstopper.

      I'm not having a go at you, but there seems to be this misconception that they are charging money for old rope as the software is free.

      Maybe so, but bandwidth for you to download it isn't free, neither is hosting, testing that the products run fine, employing people to do all the tedious things that make sure the site stays running and 101 other things.

      They are not charging you for the products, they're merely charging you (if you like) a proportion of the maintenance free (plus profit) so that they can make downloading software for the users as simple as possible.

      There seems to be this strange idea in the Linux community that anyone who tries to make money is "selling out". Considering that unless the people who work on providing a service actually see some money to financially support them (and motivate them into not leaving) then you're never going to find people who work on open source stuff 100% of the time for free.

      And I agree with you. Most open source repositories do suck. Even with a specific application you get presented with about 50 different choices (i586, mdk etc. etc.) which is totally confusing for the novice. Someone has to sort that out and present everything nicely, and unless they get paid, it's not something they're going to do as a full time job.

      --
      Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
    2. Re:The gripe seems to be about Click-N-Run by vegetablespork · · Score: 1

      OK, the bandwidth isn't free, but try telling J.F. Consumer that when s/he's fully aware that his/her second cousin twice removed in Kokomo downloads a Linux distro for free whenever he wants and doesn't pay a cent.

      --

      Call (206) 338-5780 COLLECT for information about a genuine BA, BS, MA, MS, MBA, or Ph.D.

    3. Re:The gripe seems to be about Click-N-Run by vidarh · · Score: 2

      J.F.Consumer haven't even heard about Linux, much less that it's free. The amount of regular people that know about Linux is still low.

    4. Re:The gripe seems to be about Click-N-Run by SN74S181 · · Score: 1

      With all the expenses that you list, it's a wonder at all that CheapBytes can sell so many Linux/BSD Distro CDs for under $5 apiece.

    5. Re:The gripe seems to be about Click-N-Run by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well it IS definitely worse that they are charging for the software and yet they did a pretty poor job of making it friendly to a novice which is there target market.
      This could hurt linux for years

    6. Re:The gripe seems to be about Click-N-Run by ImaLamer · · Score: 2

      What about "Red Carpet"?

      I've yet to see anyone mention that. Just trying to point out this isn't the first time.

      Access to free software is out there... they are just trying to make it so that they can collect because it's easier. Like how KFC chicken is 10 times more expensive than cooking a whole one you bought yourself.

    7. Re:The gripe seems to be about Click-N-Run by momobaxter · · Score: 1

      if they are not hosting the binaries (it seems that they are using debian repositories) then they shouldn't be charging for it.

      --
      "Full sources for linux currently runs to about 200kB compressed" --Linus Torvalds 31-Jan-1992
  21. Does it really matter? by Lev13than · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I just assumed that the whole point of this "Lindows" deal was to get a computer in the hands of consumers as cheaply as possible, M$ be damned. Once the computer gets home, it's pretty clear that the purchaser is supposed to borrow a Windows XP disk from work/their buddy, re-format the hard drive and install a pirate copy of Windows.

    Thus, the main points of this exercise are to 1) give consumers really cheap computers, 2) be able to advertise that they have cheap merchandise, and 3) send a warning shot to M$ that they are too big to be bullied around.

    In this sense it really doesn't matter how well Lindows performs, which is a shame because working towards a consumer-grade Linux is worthwhile endeavour.

    --
    When you have nothing left to burn you must set yourself on fire
    1. Re:Does it really matter? by bev_tech_rob · · Score: 1

      That's what I plan to do if I get one. I would like to try Linux out, but to get quickly up and running, I have either Win95 or NT 4.0 Workstation that I can install quickly. Later on, when I have time, I will reinstall Lindows and start learning it. And the hardware is a BIG jump up from the computer I used to have (Pentium 166 w/32 megs of RAM). Money troubles have prevented me from upgrading.

      --
      You're messin' with my Zen Thing, man.....
  22. Yes, but... by CaptainPotato · · Score: 3, Informative

    Whilst I would like to call myself an experienced computer user (maybe I'm not...), I do understand the point of Lindows, regardless of whether it works or not.

    Aside from the usual M$-related monopoly arguments, there does seem to be a real hope to replace Win* on the desktop - whether it is a valid attempt or not is another matter though...

    About two years ago I installed Mandrake 7.0 on my then-new machine, with Win98 on a separate partition. After over a week of trying to make the two co-exist (well, Win98 didn't want to let Mandrake live), I succeeded. Linux was to be the main OS, and for a while, it was. I used StarOffice, Netscape 4.7*, and so on. Then something broke. Netscape started to fail, as did my email client. I suddenly found myself in the purgatory of root access without the faintest idea how to fix it. Given everything else that happened at the time in my life, I was forced to give up on Linux for Win98, which I knew how to fix.

    Since then, Linux has not been on my machine, but there is not a single day that goes by that I don't long for its return (and for the return of the Amiga ahead of Linux, but that's another story...), and to be able to dump Win* for good. So what, I lose a few games, but I cannot remember the last time I loaded one anyway. I see that Mandrake 8.2 is much improved, Open Office works great on Win98 and Opera is now on Linux to boot (you don't think I use IE, do you?)

    Despite all this, I don't dare risk Linux at the moment, given that I cannot afford the downtime on my machine. Lindows looks promising, and the idea of buying a machine with a pre-installed version of Linux that has at least *some* Win* compatibility is a start.

    Cut Lindows some slack. Sure, maybe there are a few GPL issues that need examining, and maybe it does not work perfectly yet. And the $99 download fee does not appeal either. Whether it is Lindows, Red Hat or Mandrake, surely the important issue is replacing Win* on pre-built systems, rather than the (whilst nice, ultimately technical) minor points of those outlined at the start of this paragraph?

    --
    I heard that your library burnt down and destroyed your only two books - and one was not even coloured in yet.
    1. Re:Yes, but... by Chemicalscum · · Score: 1

      I have had Caldera 2.1, Red Hat 6.1 and Mandrake 8.2 happily co-existing with win 98 on various machines I have had over the past couple of years. Maybe its time for you to give Linux another try.

    2. Re:Yes, but... by SpiffyMarc · · Score: 1

      The concept is nothing new, to be honest... other systems that come with Linux preloaded exist, and they come with much more appealing distributions then Lindows...

      Try this, and get yourself a nice Red Hat workstation for only $799.

      It's a far cry from retail distribution, but really, do you want one of the most powerful and versatile creations of mankind in the hands of the average, everyday citizen? ;-)

  23. Konqueror and kmail. by Moritz+Moeller+-+Her · · Score: 2

    Well at least the SJM author had no problems with the KDE applications konqueror and kmail. Obviously these components are already at a point where a windows user can use them without any problem.

    Curiously missing: Attempts to install MS Office or games or any other win32 program on this wine derived Lindows.

    --
    Moritz
    1. Re:Konqueror and kmail. by pvera · · Score: 1

      I decided to bite the bullet two weeks ago and got rid of XP on my main home pc to install Suse 8.0. All my office needs so far can be fulfilled with Star Office 5.2, The Gimp and Ximian Evolution. Kopete takes care of my AOL/MSN instant messaging. Mozilla 1.0 for web surfing and newsgroups. Everything else is done with KDE and X apps I either got from the SuSE CDs or I downloaded, 99% of those I got as RPMs that installed without a problem. Even Ogle played encrypted DVDs without much heartburn. And my TV card (Hauppauge WinTV) works better in Linux than it ever did in WinXP.

      And I am a card-carrying Windows whore.

      About 3 days ago I converted my wife's Dell to Suse also. Her only complaint: I forgot to set it back to 800x600 (damn her!) after I was done setting it up. She does not really like Kopete but she tolerates it. She even likes Patience more than her solitary game in XP Pro.

      Yesterday I managed to install the Linux binaries for Unreal Tournament, Quake III Arena and Team Arena so I could re-use my Windows versions of these games. It took a few hours of research but by God it was awesome, the games run the same or maybe better than in XP Pro.

      I have been trying Linux on and off since 1995 and I never lasted more than a day or two before going back to Windows. The install procedure for Suse 8.0 (and Mandrake 8.2, which I did at the office) are sooo dumbed down that they match the ease of the installer for WinME and almost XP. I paid $40 for the boxed media set, but I was already aware I could have gotten it for free if I downloaded the ISOs (just to make that point to a coworker I downloaded a freeBSD mini-iso and had a machine setup within half an hour). Mandrake came in a $12 Linux magazine imported from England.

      I always used to say that old b/s mantra that yeah, Linux rocks on the server but it is 2 years behind on the desktop. Well, the two years are up. If they Linux folks can keep up the good work then it is only a matter of consumer education.

      --
      Pedro
      ----
      The Insomniac Coder
    2. Re:Konqueror and kmail. by pvera · · Score: 1

      Funny, I just had that argument with my wife. I was telling her that SuSe has its own little annoying traits, but a free operating system can get away with things a $200 OS update can't. Sure, the sound of DVDs is sometimes a split second off-sync, but I got the player for free. Sure, Quake 3 sometimes hoses the sound upon exiting the game, but it is fixed by killing the hosed process left behind. When Quake 3 gets hosed on XP or 2000 that is an automatic reboot to fix it.

      I stil think the current installers for Mandrake and SuSE are no harder than installing WinME or XP. I don't even want to dream up of what is going to happen a year from now.

      --
      Pedro
      ----
      The Insomniac Coder
  24. OS X by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Buy a Mac, get OS X. You'll be happy.

  25. Two points I don't understand by ishark · · Score: 3, Insightful

    1- why use Lindows. I understand that it sounds like windows, but they are quite new to the "desktop" arena compared to people like Mandrake. And by paying Mandrake you get CDs/DVD full of precompiled stuff, without the need for huge downloads.

    2- The Lindows business model is flawed. If they think that AFTER buying the PC users are ready to shell out the cash for the applications they are dreaming (it may work for games - good ones - or some advanced app, like openoffice, but all the "useful" things must be in from the start). Giving out for a price the CDs full of stuff may work, but people from the Windows world just assume that as soon as windows is in place all the applications can be obtained for free from the neighbour (before flaming compute the ratio of windows users you know and windows users who bought Office for home use - for me it's beyond 50). The "free" point of linux is much less strong than people think, at least until Palladium or some other random heavy element forces users to pay for what they use.

    Overall, if this takes off I'll be surprised.

    1. Re:Two points I don't understand by jilles · · Score: 2

      The likely scenario Walmart is counting on is that users buy the machine, even though both are aware that lindows is crap. Once home, the user pops in one of those windows setup cds (e.g. borrowed from neighbour).

      What won't happen is that linux users will buy this machine and pop in a mandrake or debian cd. The reason is that linux users generally spend more money on their hardware and are unlikely to want a low budget PC.

      In any case, Lindows is indeed likely to fail unless they add loads of value to their product. Right now any user friendly linux distribution beats them easily (Mandrake, Suse, ...) and if there's only a slight sign of pre-installed linux working, they'll jump on it.

      --

      Jilles
    2. Re:Two points I don't understand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they think that AFTER buying the PC users are ready to shell out the cash for the applications they are dreaming

      Amazingly, such a strategy has worked with computers and computer software for some time now.

    3. Re:Two points I don't understand by Maditude · · Score: 1

      What won't happen is that linux users will buy this machine and pop in a mandrake or debian cd. The reason is that linux users generally spend more money on their hardware and are unlikely to want a low budget PC.

      Actually, I don't think the MicroTel boxes are that bad. My $399 box that I just bought 3 weeks ago came with decent enough parts (Duron 1.3GHz cpu, MicroStar mobo, 40 gb disk...), and it's been running as my FreeBSD server. I wouldn't want to try and play Quake on it, but it makes a VERY nice replacement for my old celeron 333 box.

  26. The Masses Have Spoken by turgid · · Score: 1

    You're right, there's nothing "obscure" about having to type in commands, however this prejudice against UNIX and it's clones is deeply ingrained in the mainstream IT community and one of the reasons for the prevalence of Windows. There are two ways in which this biggotry will be overcome. Firstly, "friendly" graphical tools have been developed to hide this apparent complexity and provide a familiar interface to the majority. As more of these people adopt such systems because of these friendly front-ends, some will dip under the hood and try some command line work and find out that it's not that bad after all. So the second and most important thing, education through word of mouth amongst former anti-UNIX people will help to convert the majority of those remaining. There will only be a few hard-core UNIX-haters left in years to come.

  27. Let's just look at the pros and cons by Neil+Watson · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Lindows

    Cons

    • Steep initial learning curve
    • Not as pretty
    • Not as much mainstream game support
    Pros
    • Cheap price for support, software and upgrades
    • You get a full office suite
    • Less instability
    • More secure (less virii)
    • Fewer crashes
    • Good crash recover
    • Better performance

    Windows (XP)

    Cons

    • High Price
    • No office suite
    • Poor security (many virii)
    • More instability
    • Poor crash recovery (registry becomes more unstable over time)
    • Requires more RAM.
    Pros
    • Familiar UI
    • Easy to configure
    • Mainstream games supported

    There it is. Tell your friends and let them decide.

    1. Re:Let's just look at the pros and cons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Lindows lost most people at "Steep Learning Curve" ...

    2. Re:Let's just look at the pros and cons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You listed "No office suite" as a con under Windows XP. I would have thought Windows XP has /the/ premier office suite (Office2002).

    3. Re:Let's just look at the pros and cons by rmgrotkierii · · Score: 1

      And how much will this premier office suite set you back? At compusa.com , it'll only cost $479.99 for the full Standard edition. And it doesn't come included with Windows XP. If you want to do the legal route, which is what everyone does in a business, right? On the other hand, KOffice and OpenOffice, are 1) free, 2) many times comes with the Linux flavor of your choice. And it's completely legal. And even if you wanted to use StarOffice 6, it's only $79.95 MSRP. :) You tell me which is the better offer. :)

      --
      Reality is for those who can't face Science Fiction.
    4. Re:Let's just look at the pros and cons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why don't you just download it from P2P and get on with it?

    5. Re:Let's just look at the pros and cons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's not like you can't use open office on windows...

    6. Re:Let's just look at the pros and cons by kz45 · · Score: 1

      There it is. Tell your friends and let them decide

      how about the the most important con of lindows:

      the fact that the majority of the mainstream applications that johnny enduser decieds to install will most likely be incomopatible. (aside from office).

    7. Re:Let's just look at the pros and cons by rmgrotkierii · · Score: 1

      I think the original poster was talking about Office 2002 and not Open Office, and still, neither comes with Windows anyway. :)

      --
      Reality is for those who can't face Science Fiction.
    8. Re:Let's just look at the pros and cons by Phibian · · Score: 1

      As someone who doesn't care what the OS *is*, as long as it runs my programs and doesn't crash, I find the above list of cons somewhat odd. I've never had a BoS since upgrading to W2K. My computer has frozen exactly once in the last two years. I've turned off the machine three times (other than rebooting for installation of things like service packs) - once when going on vacation, twice when moving the machine. I've never had my registry become "unstable".

      My XP machines are at least as stable, although as development machines they take considerably more abuse and thus do have the odd program crash. The OS itself, however, does not.

      On the other hand, our linux box used to freeze all the time. We finally converted it to WinXP, and since then (3 months) it's been fine. Trying to find documentation to figure out what the heck was wrong with the Linux configuration took substantial amounts of time. It was a painful and annoying experience. No, we haven't given up on Linux altogether, but we did make sure that Linux only runs on our non-essential computers.

      Perhaps the problem is merely that our expertise is on the Windows, rather than Linux side. And that's fair enough. But if that's the case, getting up to speed on Linux has so far taken us much more effort for much less result than we ever expended on Windows.

      Obviously my list of pros and cons would look somewhat different:

      Win 2k+
      Pros
      -Very stable
      -All my applications work
      -No learning curve (I'm already familiar with it)
      -UI is much more refined
      -Response time is faster (this really surprises me, because I was always under the impression that Linux was supposed to be way faster and have much lower hardware requirements as a result - but whenever I've used a Linux machine - it chugs regardless of the hardware)

      Cons
      -Produced by Microsoft
      -Market leader - thus target for script kiddies

      Frankly, I can live with the cons, much more easily than the cons for Linux so far. That said, don't mark me down as a pro-Windows anti-Linux type.

      Because intellectually, I think Linux sounds way better. And all things being equal, I would use Linux. The problem is - no matter how loudly you tell me Linux is not only comparable to Windows but better - that doesn't make it true.

      Yet, anyway.

    9. Re:Let's just look at the pros and cons by DaEvOsH · · Score: 1

      gree with this 100%, I am a linux user and programmer and have found XP to be very usable and stable, given good hardware and drivers.

    10. Re:Let's just look at the pros and cons by q-soe · · Score: 2

      Jus a point

      unless you install the likes of lycoris or mandrake no office comes bundled with Linux either and from memory open office is not bundled with any. If you use debian for example you apt-get what you want.

      Most people buying a windows PC bundle (mums and dads) get Works included which is as good for home users as open office or k office (yes i run both under debian and they're ok - not great and not 100% stable but what is)

      lets compare apples with apples - the choices are there, you can get freeware office suites for windows as you can for linux, so making this comparison is somewhat invalid unless you want to use Office and then you have to pay for it. Thats choice - you can choose another office suite if you want to.

      --
      I refuse to argue with Anonymous Cowards - if you want a discussion get an account....
    11. Re:Let's just look at the pros and cons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      More secure (less virii)

      There is no such word as "virii". Period.

      You may think that using a pseudo-Latin plural makes you look all educated and shit, but really it just makes you look ignorant and pretentious.

  28. Next year... Wha? by Tune · · Score: 1

    > Next year though ... things might be very different ...

    I'm not sure what you are implying:

    1) Next year Lindows will trash Windows' desktop dominance
    2) Next year Microsoft will suddenly have a stable server that happily cuddles with my ELF binaries ;-)

    1. Re:Next year... Wha? by Mr_Silver · · Score: 2
      I'm not sure what you are implying:

      I'm implying that next year Microsoft may have shot itself in the foot (over DRM, privacy and viruses) so much that they'll be forcibly pushing people away.

      Before people start claiming that Microsoft are doing that, I mean forcing people who live outside the Slashdot-World away.

      Like it or not, it's only the few that are currently moving, not the majority. Maybe when virus writers get to the point where they are spreading IIS/Outlook viruses that totally trash your OS and files, then people will start to think about moving.

      --
      Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
  29. Lindows?? by Botchka · · Score: 1

    This is a great time for me to mention this. Linux will NEVER make the inroads it wants to user desktops until it becomes more like Windows. That's right! I said it! I've been in computer tech support for the last 5 years at an advanced level and learned to program on a TRS-80 pc and Alpha Micro Midframe almost 20 years ago, so I feel qualified in saying this. The masses of end-users are experienced in the way that Windows functions. It's gui as become synonymous with "ease of use" and is as ubiquitous as Coke, Fisher Price, and AOL. In otherwords, Windows is the standard people. Most everyone can buy a television and turn it on with the remote and maybe even change the channels and volume without resorting to reading a huge technical manual to figure it out. This is 'good enough' for most people because there is a standard set that the market bears in design on tv's. Now....this is not to say that a gadget freak or someone who cares would like said, basic tv. These are the people who would dive headfirst into HDTV, Dolby 5.1 surround with 150 watts to each channel, etc., etc., etc, without breaking a sweat. All I'm saying is that an os will have a greater market share if it's 'dumbed down'. If you don't believe me, look at AOL. Most of us on the inside of the computer field, don't consider AOL to be a 'real' isp, but they have something on the order of 30 gazillion users. A blind monkey with no arms and a stick stuck to his forehead could use it. Does it make it right? NO! I'm not a real fan of dumbing anything down for the sake of money but it's a fact of life. Unless you care about the inner workings of a pc, Linux doesn't matter to you...unless they can dumb it down for the masses. Lindows sounds like it's making some sort of attempt at doing this by making the icons 'double clickable' and "There is even an icon labelled "C:", which is actually equivalent to the /home directory in a normal Linux installation." I'm sure I've offended all of you Linux users. Hey, I even dual boot between Windows XP and Linux. I happen to LOVE Linux, but then again, I'm a self confessed computer nerd. Just my 2cents.....

    --
    Money not found! A)bort, R)etry, D)eclare Bankruptcy
    1. Re:Lindows?? by aallan · · Score: 2

      Okay, I've got karma to burn, may as well use it...

      This is a great time for me to mention this. Linux will NEVER make the inroads it wants to user desktops until it becomes more like Windows. That's right! I said it! I've been in computer tech support for the last 5 years at an advanced level...

      Frankly, who cares? Why should I care if Linux never makes major inroads into the user desktop? Why does this affect me? I'm still going to be writing software for UNIX, and probably whatever replaces UNIX on the academic desktop, which definately won't be Windows for a whole bunch of reasons, mostly money... I'm currently nudging my boss to buy me a MacOS X box to see how easy our legacy software is going to port to that, although my guess our current Linux port won't need that much tweaking to run on MacOS X. On the flip side most of our next generation of software is in cross platform languages (Perl and Java) so its a declining problem.

      Why should I care if some random joe off the street can run the stuff I crank out? What is this obsession everyone seems to have these days about getting Linux adopted by the mass market?

      Al.
      --
      The Daily ACK - Eclectic posts by yet another hacker
    2. Re:Lindows?? by slonob · · Score: 0

      That's it! You are no longer a member of our club. You apparently just don't get it. Conform or be gone!

      --
      Strict obedience to the law is the key to liberty.
    3. Re:Lindows?? by Botchka · · Score: 1

      If you don't think that Red Hat, Mandrake or any other distro of Linux doesn't want to take a share of Microsoft's domination, then perhaps we are kidding ourselves when we say who cares. My opinion is that I DON'T want to live in a M$ dominated world anymore than I would want to live in a Linux dominated world. Choices are key to a healthy economy, however, and you may not want to hear this, the M$ gui works. Now, whether this was because of strong arm tactics on Microsoft's behalf or because it intuitively makes sense, is anyones guess. This could turn into a whole which came first argument. I certainly understand the point you make about you not thinking it's going to affect you and that you'll always have a job writing code for unix boxes, but, what happens if Red Hat dominates 45% of the end user desktops and your company is running Suse? Each flavor of Linux is just that...another flavor. Or because of some business agreement that you can't fathom and have NO control over, your company switches to all Windows platforms? What then? Burying your head in the sand and keeping the 'who cares' attitude only makes things worse for everybody. Spend some time taking support calls and this quote "why should I care if some random joe off the street can run the stuff I crank out?" will take on a whole new meaning......

      --
      Money not found! A)bort, R)etry, D)eclare Bankruptcy
    4. Re:Lindows?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I want some form of linux to make inroads to the comsumer desktop just so I can continue using RH / MDK in its cuurent form AND be able to buy all of the newest and / or cheapest hardware and be reasonably certain that it will work because the manufacturers officially support it. Its like ... having your beowulf and eating it too.

  30. Hey, Wait one damn Minute! by 3seas · · Score: 1

    This is actually great and wonderful if you just think about it.

    This is like what, version 1 of Lindows? Aren't Windows users used to the first version being crap?

    And about the need to log on, pay for, and download what is otherwise free software....

    Doesn't the Windows user expect this, I mean with the comming of .net and all in the plans of MS.
    Except for here the user gets to discover that there are other options, unlike the MS plan, and such
    other options that they might find very interesting and pleasant.

    There is the trick of the dishonest to present truth to lure in and trap people.
    But here, if you think about it, it's the opposite.

    The only thing that needs to happen here is that for people to find out they can get a linux box for
    about $300 plus monitor and find a local Linux user groups for the rest, which includes software and
    some degree of support and training.

    And then there is Version 2 of Lindows......

    And by the time there is a version three....well, that won't happen as Lindows will have enlightened
    many to the falacy of there can only be 3 versions before everything begins again.

    1. Re:Hey, Wait one damn Minute! by PaperTie · · Score: 1

      Right...

      So it's perfectly fine for a Lindows product to be less-than-good in the first release, but if it was a Microsoft product you'd be demanding heads roll...

    2. Re:Hey, Wait one damn Minute! by devleopard · · Score: 1

      You're right, everyone should wait for Version 2 before they waste their money.

      --
      The best thing about a boolean is even if you are wrong, you are only off by a bit.
  31. i wanna puke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    As a linux user, at work and at home, i am ashamed to see such a disgraceful product being put out. Who in their right mind would run as root to do daily tasks? If the producers of Lindows cant deal with creating normal user accounts and presenting it to the users in an easy to use way, then maybe they shouldn't be putting out such products.

    Lindows has a potential of harming the Linux Desktop OS market. The people who buy this PC are going to hate it, and they are going to tell everyone they know what a crapped out OS linux is (it isn't ofcourse). If I weren't any smarter I would say that Lindows is backed by Microsoft in order to convince poeple that their products are superior.

    Linux is not Windows and vice versa, and so any transition from one OS to the other is bound to include a learning and adaptation period. And that is why there are things such as support, books, and web pages. If the user is not willing to put any effort into the transition then they should stick to what they know.

    Creating a dangerous linux distro just to convert Windows users is not going to work. And what's this stuff about the C:> drive icon....I wanna puke!!!

    1. Re:i wanna puke by Chris+Johnson · · Score: 2
      Now you Linux guys know what we musicians were talking about when we warned you about Michael Robertson :D

      I love the removing lots of useful programs and trying to charge $99 for them. So cute. What a slime :D he's not changed a bit! I wonder if Wal-Mart will figure out they're being conned. Imagine the word on the street being 'oh, you should try Linux- wait, but for God's sake not Wal-Mart Linux! Don't do that, do this instead...'

  32. A well-deserved misconception in that case... by Kjella · · Score: 2
    I'm not having a go at you, but there seems to be this misconception that they are charging money for old rope as the software is free.

    Maybe so, but bandwidth for you to download it isn't free, neither is hosting, testing that the products run fine, employing people to do all the tedious things that make sure the site stays running and 101 other things.


    Pretty much all GPL'd software I know of is hosted without having to pay for it, and mostly they're stable and running fine. Where they really could provide value, particularly for these users, is to make things install and work smoothly. But:
    I try to download Evolution, the Gnome email client. Unfortunately, it gives a complex error, beginning with "Couldn't stat source package list." This is not good. So I try the "AOL Instant Messenger" client. That turns out to be Kinkatta, one of the KDE-based IM clients. Then I try Xine, the multimedia player. Like Evolution, this fails as well.
    Xine doesn't work, Evolution doesn't work. These are supposed to be some of linux's mainstream applications, and they don't seem to be tested at all, nevermind the slightly obscure. So what value does this service provide? Very very little. I'm not opposed to it on a principal basis, but 100$ for a download mirror of free software that may or may not work on your machine?

    Kjella
    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  33. Sadly by Rogerborg · · Score: 4, Insightful

    These reviews both strike me as fair. And they both highlight the big flaw in Linux on the desktop: support.

    Microsoft offers you one way of doing things. If you don't know how to perform an operation, one of your friends and relatives will. I suspect that most of us will have given free Windows 'phone support at one time or another. And if you do have to 'phone the manufacturer, they can usually follow a script, because there's only so many ways you can break a Windows setup.

    But Lindows... oh dear. If my mother bought one of these, she'd be on her own. The chances of me - familiar with Red Hat, SuSE and Solaris - being able to figure out and explain how to fix anything over the 'phone is next to null. And it seems that Lindows doesn't really have much of an idea either. The second article mentions that Lindows tech support eventually acknowleged that the only way to change the refresh was to fiddle with the xfree configuration. I actually think that's fair enough. What surprises and worries me is that Lindows tech support didn't know how to do it, and had to escalate it to an "executive" (and only because it was a journalist calling) before they found an answer.

    If these things start selling in bulk, I suspect that Lindows might be looking for more front line tech support. A lot more front line tech support. That costs real money, and their strategy of flat rate licensing isn't going to look so clever when they find that they're paying per installation to provide support.

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    1. Re:Sadly by GigsVT · · Score: 0, Troll

      Microsoft offers you one way of doing things

      Sure. Like if I want to run a program, there is only one way, oh wait, I can open up "My computer" find the EXE and run it, I can open up IE, and browse my local drives that way, I can run the two pane explorer.exe and get a different interface to run things from, I can make a short cut on my desktop to run it, I can make a shortcut in the taskbar to run it, I could select it from the "Start" menu, or even pop up cmd.exe and run it there.

      Face it, MS is just as complex as something like Linux, without the freedom that you get with Linux along with complexity.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    2. Re:Sadly by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      Since when is the truth trolling?

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    3. Re:Sadly by Zorikin · · Score: 1

      The articles suggest that ppp and X are configured already, so wouldn't the best way of supporting such a system would be by way of ssh and some instant-messaging software?

    4. Re:Sadly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no more windows phone support. Now there is remote desktop. No more 30 minute phone calls with your mother reading dialogs. Log in, take control, fix problem in 30 seconds.

  34. Re:$299 + $99 = Reasonable by Te1waz · · Score: 1

    You'd still be getting a good deal here in the U.K if you got a machine with a years supply (albeit dodgy) software for the sterling equivalent of $399.

    If this deal was available over here, it'd be £299 + £100 (which is twice the price).

    --
    From my Autobiography - "Lifestyles of the Sad and Desperate"...
  35. Come on, people!! by byran+lei · · Score: 0


    It's pretty clear that these "Reviewers" are nothing more than MicroSoft Astroturfers. Think about it. Who else would actually sit down and create such absurd conditions for "reviewing" something like this? I don't care for the idea of Lindows,but these "Reviews" read just like the BULLSHIT the Xbox churned out about how the PS2 was Soooo lacking in comparsion to the Xbox before the PS2 blew away the Xbox in the real world.

  36. I Miss BeOs by uncoveror · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's a shame Palm won't do anything with BeOs. It was easy to use, and fast, even on slow machines. Linux is too complicated for casual users, and slow as a slug if you don't have a buttload of ram. BeOs was also stable and reliabe, unlike windows. It did not crash. It was created from scratch. No legacy code to drag around like a ball and chain. To date, there are no BeOs viruses. Not one. Linux may rule on servers, but in the desktop environment, it is still a pain. Windows just sucks in any environment. I miss Beos.

    --
    The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
    1. Re:I Miss BeOs by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      To date, there are no BeOs viruses

      Heh, There are like 10 BeOS users left and a very limited selection of applications. Why would a virus writer aim at an OS with such a small following? The virus would never propagate very well with such limited numbers of potential targets.

      This same effect protected Linux and MacOS for a long time. I'm not trying to bash BeOS, but claiming it has no viruses as a selling point is pretty weak.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    2. Re:I Miss BeOs by asteinberg · · Score: 1
      It's a shame Palm won't do anything with BeOs.

      Actually, that is not necessarily true. Check out this article at The Register, about how Palm's new OS division is dominated by ex-Be employees.

      --
      The first ever Ultimate Frisbee video game: here (now
  37. Even that's More complicated than it actually is by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    Right click on the desktop and choose properties...Click on settings...Huh.. there isn't a Refresh setting on my computer here.

  38. Deep down its based on debian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If any of you have bothered to try it before you start knocking it. You would know it's based on debian deep down. So, you don't like Click-n-Run, use 'apt-get'. You don't like the fact that it runs as root be default? Use 'add-user'. I got one of $299 specials for my mom, she picked up using it faster than she did with windows. I think its great Wally-World is selling a windows alternitive.

  39. Click and Run by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...The download & install mechanism thats also a laxative

    (apologies to Dr Nick)

  40. No Israeli terrorism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not fair comments. There is no Israeli terrorism. The idea of it is a fabrication by quasi-Nazi holy warriors in the middle east and their antisemitic allies in the Western media.

    1. Re:No Israeli terrorism by redtuxxx · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      you should look up the definition of Terror

    2. Re:No Israeli terrorism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The same source also reported that the moon is a giant onion.

  41. wow, you are so fucking clever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    no, seriously. You've got a gift.

  42. where can i download lindows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i want to download lindows but i cant find a link on lindows.com it seems they want me to sign up. i must try this lindows trash but im not paying for it. i only pay for quality software like windows.

  43. BeOS useless. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "No legacy code to drag around like a ball and chain"

    No legacy code means no legacy apps; nothing will run on it. Might as well call it Be(tamax)OS, as it was like a Sony betamax video deck: a technically superior platform that you really can't find anything to run on.

    "To date, there are no BeOs viruses."

    Just like there are no traffic jams on Antarctica. Beos is blessedly free of the problems that happen with OS's once people actually start to use and program them. The "no viruses" situation has nothing to do with technical superiority of Beos. Virii are just one of many kinds of apps that no one bothers to write for an OS no one cares about.

    I don't think there are any computer virii for ENIAC either, or TRS-80 Model 1.

    1. Re:BeOS useless. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think there are any computer virii for ENIAC either, or TRS-80 Model 1

      There is no such word as "virii". Period.

  44. You can set it to rates your monitor "cannot" by DinZy · · Score: 1

    You can set it to rates your monitor "cannot" display. I have mine set to 1920X1440 and my monitor can only "do" 16*12

  45. SPEELIG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    learn to spell definitely before posting again, numb nuts

  46. Re:thank you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Your post shows a sense of intelligence and reason that is not seen on slashdot very often.

    Why thank you. And your post shows a use of grammar and reasonableness that is not seen in your other slashdot postings very often.

    Meanwhile, the stats on your journal page ... are they for real?

  47. Re:Even that's More complicated than it actually i by Maddog_Delphi97 · · Score: 1

    Yeah, apparently he forgot a step... is there a button called "Advanced" on the settings tab. If so, click on it.

    Now, is there a bunch of tabs, with one called "Monitor".. click on the monitor tab if there is one. Now you should see a drop box called "Refresh Frequency".

  48. Reviews by Restil · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Ok, we have a few people that have looked beyond the simple hype and pointed out some of the shortcomings of Walmart's new experiement into Microsoft free computers. This is not all a bad thing. But don't be too hasty to count them out as a viable alternative.

    Walmart has shown on at least one occasion that they listen to their primary consumer base, when they replaced the modems in their OS-free machine with a linux compatible one. They realize this is at best a nitch market, and they have to be sure to appeal that market as best they can. So they've made a few snafu's with this latest experiment, but at least they're trying. Tell them what's wrong. They'll probably make the effort to fix it.

    At least now, there's an alternative. It might not be the greatest thing since sliced bread, but its something. And the company that's promoting it doesn't rely on a monthly infusion of venture capital to keep running and will surive if the stock market does another massive downturn. They will sell these products as long as people buy them. Sure, at first it'll be the geek crowd that doesn't really NEED them, but at some point, there will be someone that looks at the price and realizes that its worth the learning curve to save a few bucks. And they may very well be disappointed.

    But they might not.

    -Restil

    --
    Play with my webcams and lights here
    1. Re:Reviews by scottseagroves · · Score: 1
      You said: "Walmart has shown on at least one occasion that they listen to their primary consumer base, when they replaced the modems in their OS-free machine with a linux compatible one."

      just wanted to point out that Walmart likely had nothing to do with this, it was Microtel that promptly responded to the linux community. People argue about just how evil Walmart and Lindows are, but at least Microtel seems like an OK company with an OK product.

  49. No... by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    No, not on my machine. The Monitor tab is there, but there is no Refresh frequency... maybe because it's a laptop... or because the driver says "Standard Monitor"

  50. Recovery by The+Monster · · Score: 2
    To me, it was a recoverability test,
    The 'recoverablilty' that bothered me, if it's true, was this:
    A plague from the Windows world has now apparently made its way into Lindows: a rescue CD. If you have a problem, pop in the disk and return your machine to fresh-from-the-factory perfection. And, by the way, all your data will be gone
    If the filesystems are set up so that /home is a separate partition, then there's no reason why the rescue disk should kill your data (at least without asking you if you want to do that). And it's not really difficult to do
    ln -s /home/programs /usr/local/bin
    or whatever (although it would probably be better to have an entirely different partition for that, too) to make reformatting the root partition reasonably kind to installed packages.
    --

    [100% ISO 646 Compliant]
    SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.

    1. Re:Recovery by alexmogil · · Score: 2
      WAL*MART CONSUMERS. Many of which who have ne'er owned a PC before. Your example above would be askng too much for gramma to type in so she can save her recipies she typed in.

      And asking tech support to create the script to save those files on a seperate partition is asking too much as well - what if someone saves their files someplace else, reformats their PC with the rescue disk, and *SURPRISE* it didn't copy the files you saved becuse they weren't where the rescue disk expected to see them!

      --
      A winner is you!
    2. Re:Recovery by MaxVlast · · Score: 2

      That's why the system should come with a /home partition by default. And the user shouldn't be root, so he can only save in his home partition. Some preparation before the fact is all that's necessary to avoid some of the problems and your observed issues with the solutions.

      --
      There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
      Max V.
      NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
    3. Re:Recovery by alexmogil · · Score: 1

      Completely agreed - now will they have a second chance to correct this, or will this first batch of PC's be the last batch?

      --
      A winner is you!
  51. when are the /. crowd going to learn? by hype7 · · Score: 1

    that the non-MS everyman OS already exists - MacOS X. Running *nix, runs Office, easy to use, and MS free.

    Apple GUI on BSD really, really rocks

    -- james

    1. Re:when are the /. crowd going to learn? by Erwos · · Score: 1

      I would _really_ consider jumping ship to MacOS X if they came out with an x86 version. But I see no point in jumping to a proprietary hardware platform with a somewhat proprietary OS in exchange for my free OS and free (as in relatively open) hardware platform right now.

      I am a student. I don't have lots of money. I can buy an x86 for half the price of a comparable Mac.

      -Erwos

      --
      Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
    2. Re:when are the /. crowd going to learn? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ummm..... how is running Office MS free? I find this argument a bit ironic comign from mac fanatics. They are MS free but continue to run internet explorer and office. Yeah MS free, you keep believing that.

    3. Re:when are the /. crowd going to learn? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > the non-MS everyman OS already exists - MacOS X
      >
      That's nice, but has absolutely no relevance for 96% of people out there because it involves a hardware purchase..."unknown" hardware at that (talk about inertia!). No, until MacOS X comes out for x86, it will not see widespread adoption except the already existing "Mac-forever" crowd.
      I am not bashing OS X in any way here, in fact, as a Linux user I am extremely happy for the competition and also, since it's BSD based, will cross-fertilize (applications) with Linux. That's a good thing. But Linux, even if at this point still inferior in terms of usability and friendliness, has far more potential simply because it can fall back on almost 1 billion existing (x86) computers! Further, the load is spread among several big companies and even more distributions. Even if a few fail economically, so what? If Apple fails...well, they get bailed/bought out by Microsoft. That is not the "non-MS everyman" alternative in my eyes!

    4. Re:when are the /. crowd going to learn? by presearch · · Score: 1
      I can buy an x86 for half the price of a comparable Mac.

      ..and do half as much in twice the time. Life's too short and time's too precious not to use a Mac.

      (though i do find it amusing, per the poster's subject line, that /. is perceived as always pushing the Mac. What a diff a year makes.)

  52. Caught up? Not in my eXPerience by div_2n · · Score: 2, Informative

    At work, we have about 13 Windows 2000 servers. We have 4 Linux servers (En Garde). Here are some fun statistics for you to ponder:

    W2K

    -Every single one of the W2K boxes have had to been rebuilt at least once in the last 2 years
    -Three of the boxes have had been rebuilt 3 or more times in this same time period
    -The record uptime for our W2K servers is 3 months
    -Four of the servers have outright locked up and stopped responding even to ping packets

    Reasons for rebuilds: Nimda, Driver corruptions, DLL corruptions, Unexplained software instability

    En Garde Linux

    -The only time these servers have EVER gone down was once because lightning melted down a power substation that feeds our building and our battery backups didn't last long enough. Now that we have a diesel generator that can power us for days, we don't anticipate these servers to ever go down again

    Currently our Fileserver is W2K but we are seriously considering moving it to Linux because we can't afford any downtime on that.

  53. fear not! open source to the rescue! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    www.openbeos.org

  54. What he means to say is. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Windows XP is much better.

  55. Malk?? by p3d0 · · Score: 2

    I can see it now...

    "Why is this computer so lousy? It has been running plenty of... 'Lindows'??"

    Now with vitamin R.

    --
    Patrick Doyle
    I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
  56. Lindows didn't last long by certsoft · · Score: 1
    on the AMD XP 1800 Microtel system I bought. I played around with it for a while, running into the same low refresh rate problem one of the reviewers did. Since my intention was to run Mandrake 8.2 and Win2K, I didn't much care.

    The only major problem I had was trying to install Win2K on the hard drive, seems that the installer couldn't deal with whatever Lindows does to the partitioning. I eventually had to repartition the drive using a Win95 boot disk and then install Win2K. Once that was done, installation of both Win2K and Mandrake went fairly smoothly. I also replaced the Samsung 52X CDROM drive with an ASUS CDRW drive.

    I originally ordered the box without any operating system, but Walmart cancelled the order for no apparent reason. When I saw the announcement here I checked back into it and found the new boxes had 2 serial ports (although COM2 is just a header on the MOBO, with a pinout that doesn't work with a standard header -> DB9 setup, so get out the soldering iron) and built in ethernet. Even though I had to add a $80 CDRW drive, the $100 lower price of the new box was still a good tradeoff.

  57. Re:Caught up? Not in my eXPerience by SpatchMonkey · · Score: 1

    Those are interesting statistics. What do you use each type of server for?

  58. Reviews? Those weren't reviews! by Viewsonic · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Where was all the text about how well Lindows ran WINDOWS applications. ALL I saw were complaints about refresh rates.. And how to download LINUX software. Guys? The LINDOWS OS was created to run WINDOWS apps first and foremost without having to send money to MICROSOFT. ---- How well does LINDOWS do this? THAT is what the entire review should have been about!

  59. The problem is FIXABLE! by Erwos · · Score: 1

    I can never understand: why has X11 not progressed in configuration tools? The desktop environments are pretty good about configuration. You can find what you need with a minimum of hassle. It's not as easy as perhaps it could be, but an experienced Windows user is not going to have serious problems, and even a newbie will eventually figure it out in roughly the same time as they would in Windows. Applications are, by and large, pretty good. A few (xawtv comes to mind) need to progress a little more, but generally, I don't need to drop to a command line for anything anymore. But, _X11_, what the hell has been going on? I have to memorize weird key presses to switch resolution? I can't configure my mouse to 3 button-emulate without the command line? WE CAN FIX THIS! A single package of utils, maybe called "XChange" which includes stuff that'll let you change GUI config options with the ease you can in Windows (one of the few places I give MS serious props - they make changing resolution pretty fast!) would go a huge ways into making Linux (or X11 if you prefer) into a far more usable system for newbies. I can't even see this as being terribly difficult to write, either. -Erwos

    --
    Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
    1. Re:The problem is FIXABLE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      suse does this as far as screen resolutions are concerned.

      control center -> YaST2 modules -> Graphics Card an Monitor

      unfortunaly it would take a while for a noob to find out that its under YaST2 modules.
      but that is what you get when kde doesnt have this by default.

  60. EXACTLY. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With Lindows, Wal Mart can plausibly claim that they are delivering a "functional" machine that they know will be reformatted the second it is out of the box. In essence they are doing an end-run around the Microsoft tax.

  61. Re:thank you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    wow I didnt know you need to be nazi to be intelligent or to be a right wing islamic fanatic

  62. Re:Caught up? Not in my eXPerience by Osty · · Score: 1

    -Every single one of the W2K boxes have had to been rebuilt at least once in the last 2 years
    -Three of the boxes have had been rebuilt 3 or more times in this same time period
    -The record uptime for our W2K servers is 3 months
    -Four of the servers have outright locked up and stopped responding even to ping packets

    In short, you don't have a qualified Windows administrator on your staff. Yes, there is a difference. A Unix admin does not necessarily make a good Windows admin, and vice versa.

    -The only time these servers have EVER gone down was once because lightning melted down a power substation that feeds our building and our battery backups didn't last long enough. Now that we have a diesel generator that can power us for days, we don't anticipate these servers to ever go down again

    So, what's your URL again? Your system is most likely quite vulnerable, security-wise. No, rebooting does not equal security, nor is it necessary to reboot for many security fixes. However, there have been a number of holes fixed in the kernel itself over the past year or two, and you do have to reboot for that. And if you're not staying on top of your kernel security updates, are you sure you're staying on top of your other security updates as well ... ?

  63. how may frikin times do i have to say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is that walmart sell OS-less PC's?

    why would they buy a lindows box to put windows on if they can buy the Non-OS pc?

  64. My room-mate bought one. Computer died! by Mustang+Matt · · Score: 2

    Lindows was kind of boring and very limited. Looks like it's built off of some of the debian stuff as it used apt-get.

    There were a lot of simple things that happened that quickly made me realize that this configuration of Linux was not ready for the average user such as my room-mate.

    1. Everytime he popped in a CD, the CD player software would start twice and both start playing. If you shut one down it would crash.
    2. Certain CDs would cause it to crash completely.
    3. The add 'n run feature was kind of a joke. They should have included all that software on a CD or DVD instead of trying to make a buck off of it. What good is a huge tree of categories when it's a pain in the butt to quickly try software in each category?
    4. Konquerer was crashing surprisingly often.

    So we booted up WinXP, and it would install fine, but for some reason it seemed not to touch the master boot record. So I booted into recovery and did fixboot and fixmbr with no effect.

    We then tried to get Win2k going but after one or two reboots, the computer suddenly has lost video and gives a bunch of beep diagnostic codes.

    So back to Wal-mart.com it goes. I recommended to him that if he wants to try Linux on the desktop to try SuSE 7.3 or 8.0. I think they would be much more userfriendly than Lindows.

    The funny thing is, we didn't actually try to run any Windows software. We were too fed up with all the other problems!

    --
    The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
  65. Re:Caught up? Not in my eXPerience by div_2n · · Score: 1

    Linux Server 1 = DNS
    Linux Server 2 = Secondary DNS
    Linux Server 3 = Snort
    Linux Server 4 = MTA

    Windows Server 1 = Lotus Notes
    Windows Server 2 = Lotus Notes
    Windows Server 3 = Lotus Notes
    Windows Server 4 = File Server
    Windows Server 5 = RIS Server/Backup Server
    Windows Server 6 = Domain Controller
    Windows Server 7 = Domain Controller
    Windows Server 8 = Metaframe Server
    Windows Server 9 = SQL Server
    Windows Server 10 = SQL Server
    Windows Server 11 = SQL Server
    Windows Server 12 = Web Server
    Windows Server 13 = Multipurpose Development Server

  66. huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Umm... Mandrake IS a dumbed down linux.

  67. Re:Caught up? Not in my eXPerience by div_2n · · Score: 1

    I am unfortunately only now gaining some administrative duties. I see SO many problems with the current configurations. The current Admin isn't really incompentent. He is quite intelligent, it is jus that the client we work for doesn't want to pay for extra people so that we can all do our jobs effectively. Most of the time our work is reactionary with little chance to properly maintain.

    Hopefully between the two of us, we can get things working well and keep them working well.

    As for our URL, there is no way in HELL I am giving that out. I can assure you our network isn't secure. At least the boxes on our DMZ isn't so bad. Our firewall is decent but runs on Windows so you know how that goes.

    We are staying on security patches for the most part. But every minute of unapplied patches equals security risk. Sometimes it is an entire week before we get to apply the patches. Working in a 24/7 shop that doesn't tolerate downtime even if it is planned is VERY interesting.

  68. Re:Caught up? Not in my eXPerience by div_2n · · Score: 1

    That SHOULD read "At least the boxes not on our DMZ aren't so bad."

  69. Re:Caught up? Not in my eXPerience by div_2n · · Score: 1

    I about forgot our Firewall. Windows 2000 box running Raptor. Not a terrible product.

  70. Re:Caught up? Not in my eXPerience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    well your windows machines are doing alot more with sql server as compared to the linux boxes.

    nevertheless, ive have production oracle/linux box that hasnt been rebooted in 2 years. and that was caused by hardware failure.

  71. She Sells C: Shells by DannyO152 · · Score: 1

    I understand your point, but I also give credence to those who argue that "me-too" is not a compelling brand differentiation.

    No one else at my office (small business) knows that Alt-F4 quits applications and, inconsistently, IMHO, closes a window. Is it really so important that this Windows behavior be cloned among serious competitors? Then again, I don't know if I'd say these desktops "fail" if don't achieve 30% market share. They only fail if no one finds them useful.

    Regarding Lindows choices, as described in the NewsForge review, it seems to me that the machine is configured for (effectively) a single user (or single desktop) -- in a multi-user environment labelling the /home icon with c: seems to be fraught with potential misunderstandings. "But I put that file in c:\^H/dannyo152 -- can't you find it?" "I click the dannyo152 folder and nothing happens. Do we have a virus?"

    Or, is everyone in Lindows running as root? This doesn't seem good. What about families with children?

  72. Walmart Buyers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Folks that visit walmart.com are not going to be the same sort that visits the local Walmart.
    They'll be attracted to the low price, about one-half what an XP machine with a monitor would cost in the store. Just because a site calls itself "walmart" does not mean the visitors/buyers will be typical Walmart customers. No, they will not know how to handle Xconfigurator, or whatever Lindows provides to get X Windows going. For too many years, we have been used to going to the store and buying multimedia machines that were fairly easy to get some use out of. Remember Packard Bell's Navigator on win31?
    Not much to that once you got the box home.
    All about making money, regardless of who, and what their qualifications are to deal with a pc. When Walmart brings the Microtel/Lindows machines into the store, then the setup will have to fly on it's own for typical walk-in Walmart customers. They won't do that, because they (walmart) know there is a difference between the customers that visit walmart.com, and those that walk into their stores. Walmart needs to roll their collective sleeves up, and get to work getting these Microtel machines ready for the store. A Microtel pc with a nice Linux setup on it might just give buyers their $299.00 worth,and be less of a problem to keep running as XP may be.

  73. Hate to say it but here it goes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you're not willing to "pick up a 1000 page tome" and learn Linux then don't bother at all. Since when did you learn something by not researching? Let me guess, if it's not in the control panel it's not worth using. I'm not sure what you develop but it's unlikely that it is development as you say. More likely to be an "HTML Coder". Lol, that kills me everytime someone says they are an "HTML Coder".

    1. Re:Hate to say it but here it goes. by Tablizer · · Score: 2

      (* If you're not willing to "pick up a 1000 page tome" and learn Linux then don't bother at all. Since when did you learn something by not researching? Let me guess, if it's not in the control panel it's not worth using. *)

      So we should all be mechanics before we drive cars?

      (* I'm not sure what you develop but it's unlikely that it is development as you say. More likely to be an "HTML Coder". *)

      I can't speak for that person, but as a developer I don't want to give a fudge about the operating system if I don't have to. If the GUI's and a few other protocols were standardized across OS's, then it would matter even less.

      If you want to see MS dwindle, then make the OS *not matter*. When that happens, then OSS and Linux will look more appealing.

      BTW, why not have a web-based interface to Linux settings? That way it can be configured without having to pick KDE or GNOME or whatever.

    2. Re:Hate to say it but here it goes. by Archie+Steel · · Score: 3, Informative

      BTW, why not have a web-based interface to Linux settings? That way it can be configured without having to pick KDE or GNOME or whatever.

      It exists, it's called Webmin and if it had cooler graphics and icons it would be the Best. Configuration. Program. Ever. As it is, it's kind of ugly and too advanced for newbies, but it seriously rocks. (And since it's a web interface, it also lets you administer things remotely.)

      --

      Reminder: find a new sig
    3. Re:Hate to say it but here it goes. by Archie+Steel · · Score: 2

      Okay, it seems you can theme Webmin to make it look better. It's still not going to win any design awards, but it's a start! Oh, and it lets you do a remote SSH login through http (with the help of a java applet)...which can be fun if you're trying to log from work and you're behind a firewall.

      --

      Reminder: find a new sig
  74. San Jose Mercury Slouches Toward Microsoft by Patrick13 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    One downside is that users must pay $99 a year for unlimited access to the warehouse, wiping out the roughly $100 savings from buying a PC without a Microsoft operating system.

    (from the San Jose Mercury News review)

    What made me laugh at this, not even entering the debate whether or not Lindows is any good, is that he is saying that you can download and automatically install any Linux program for $100 per year, yet compares this to paying the extra $100 for microsoft OS.

    Excuse me, but the only way you can download free windows applications and install them on your computer is if they are pirated. I hardly think that paying $100 per year to be able to download the Linux equivalent of photoshop, excel, word, etc equates to getting the base install of windows in your machine.

    --
    ::.. check out some Cell Phone Reviews
  75. Appliance PC by randmairs · · Score: 1

    While we talk of root, /etc, priviledges, patches and so forth, but what does the Harry Homeowner of the Wal-Mart genre really need? It's basically a PC set up as an appliance. One that he doesn't have to worry about a CLI, commands and arguement lists, viruses, trojan horses, where he can let the wife write a few emails, let the kids surf the net, IM a few friends. Harry may be computer phobic, he may not care, he may not comprehend or he has so many hassles at work that just doesn't want to get into the underpinnings of the OS, refresh rates, etc. He just wants to click on something and have it run his email, browser, IM, game, kid's web site, or whatever. He wants or needs a machine that is as easy to operate as his car or microwave. Yeah, it may cost him a few six packs a year, but if it make mama and the kids happy, he's a hero!!

    Maybe what he needs is a Linux-based X-box with the equivalent of Works, a browser, IM, a way to save pictures, emails, and music, etc., a hard drive thats as easy to remove/replace as a game cartridge, (C++ on a game cartridge?), a CD-burner that's optional, and an OS that's in firmware. Something thats impervious to viruses, trojan horses, DOS's, and BSOD's. An AOL-like PC. Something with an OS that's solid for "Works" type applications. The old Apple ][+ comes to mind with its built in BASIC and OS on firmware but still with enough flexibility to "hack the system" without distroying it.

    I think WalMart needs to withdraw this machine, regroup, and offer a console-like PC hooked to the internet with a real monitor. There should be NO WAY of updating the machine just like there is no way of updating an Nintendo.

    Anyone game for this?

    1. Re:Appliance PC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      C++ on a game cartridge?

      It's not that bizzare. My first computer was a TRS-80 CoCo, which came standard with a game cartridge slot... When I got an assembler for it, it came bundled on a game cartridge :-/

  76. Unfair? by ImaLamer · · Score: 2

    Now, I don't want to get off on a rant here but personally I haven't read a review of these machines by anyone with a sixth grade education.

    It seems people already have written Lindows off no matter which camp they are from.

    The Linux people go "blah! it's not _real_ linux blah! Linux should never be on the desktop, GO SLACKWARE!"

    The Windows people go "blah! it's linux too hard no matter what they do... It will never beat XP"

    Well. They are both wrong. I've had my fair share of problems with both XP (9x, NT) and a few linux distros. But! I think it is time for linux on the 'top and I think Lindows can grab some of that mindshare. Of course, Suse, Mandrake and Redhat are easy enough for most people to install (debian was easy on my first try which was a long time ago).

    Of course - anyone who bitches about having to download apps off the internet (for free might I add) is a moron.

    Do you know how many PC downloads there were at download.com alone last year? Most of them shareware at that.

    Where can we get a real review. None of this 'I tested it with my 10 year old monitor and not the one which goes with the machine... all computer users MUST have monitors lying around!' crap.

    (btw, Wal-Mart carries multisync monitors... even a flat panel KDS for around $300)

    1. Re:Unfair? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Linux should never be on the desktop,
      > GO SLACKWARE!
      >
      While I understand the point you're trying to make, your example is not the greatest. Slackware is just fine as a desktop and not any more complicated than any other distro for the most part. In fact, a case could be made that because of it's simplicity it could for certai people even be easier than bloated and confusing "newbie" distro's.

  77. processes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    --how do I running as a user in redhat kill a running process that is owned by root? I use system monitor to (rarely but it happens) kill xmms for instance then re start it. Sometimes it just quits working/responding necessitating this. But I don't know how to do this when anything is root without logging out, logging back in as root, and doing that basically "kills" everything when I don't have to. In particular there's this x-remote control dealie (tech speak this is not) running according to nmapfe that I know I don't want, as this is a stand alone box, and I know it's a security risk.

    newbie mucho help thanks in advance

    1. Re:processes by NumberSyx · · Score: 2

      But I don't know how to do this when anything is root without logging out,

      If you are in X Windows, open a terminal and type "su -", once you type in the root password, you will be root, when you are done type "exit" to drop back to your regular user account. You can do the same thing if you are not in X Windows or you can press "Ctrl-Alt-F2", which will take you to another login screen, once you are done, type "exit" and press "ctrl-alt-F1" to get back to you original screen.

      --

      "Our products just aren't engineered for security,"
      -Brian Valentine,VP in charge of MS Windows Development

  78. Lindows Vs. GPL & LGPL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Under their licensing information they claim that they have made the source code that they are required to available. So, how is it that they are redistributing Glibc, Qt and a large portition of KDE and still manage to get the source code down to 31MB? They also claim the several GPL'd applications from Click-N-Run Warehouse are now under the more restrictive "Family Licensing."

  79. Re:Caught up? Not in my eXPerience by sinnergy · · Score: 2

    I don't like Microsoft operating systems, but jeebus, come on and get real. Anyone with any experience can keep a Windows machine patched and well protected with a little effort. Nimda could have been prevented with patching and virus detection, "unexplained software instability" usually results from shitty third-party software.

    You say that you've never taken your linux servers down for any reason except by acts of God. Come on, give me a break. You're telling me you've never updated your kernel? Why not? That's a security issue in and of itself. Machines not responding to pings? I have had the same problems... turns out it was hardware and not software.

    Any system can be properly administered. Uptime is not a guarantee of quality by any means. Attention paid to patching often and patching quickly is the mark of a good system administrator. Quickly released patches by vendors is a hallmark of a good product. Having a product that has few patches because it's done right in the first place is the hallmark of a great product.

    Now, obviuosly Microsoft does not fit into this final rubrick very well. Hence, their product isn't very good.

    Your comparisons are flawed. Your overall gut feelings may be right, but your anecdotal evidence isn't very convincing.

  80. The Truth is... by newestbob · · Score: 1
    ...that nobody really likes Linux for the right reason.

    Zealots use Linux because they hate microsoft, not because it's better.

    I'm prefectly happy with Windows XP, which for $200 has a great on-line update mechanism included in the purchase prices.

    And for the occasional project where I need Unix, I use a real Unix distribution: FreeBSD. (For some reason, FreeBSD hasn't attracted the Zealots and elite-hacker wannabees that Linux has.

    1. Re:The Truth is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FreeBSD is the Linux of the BSD world.

      You Want NetBSD.

    2. Re:The Truth is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's a comment that'll probably get me flamed, but what the heeck.

      I ran FreeBSD on the urging of a friend for a year and a half, and enjoyed it. It's a great OS, and it's CVS capabilities were a breeze to install.
      So this past year, on a whim, I bought Mandrake 8.1 to see exactly what the differences were.
      I'm no power user, mind, but I'm accomplishing the same tasks I used FreeBSD for with Mandrake, and I just haven't gotten around to going back. So here's the comment.

      What difference does it make? As long as you're running *nix of any kind, why are some frowned on by what seems to me as nothing more than just another elitist group of folks?

      I'm sure I'll be getting lots of responses, so I wait with great enthusiasm.

  81. Re:Yes, but... try VMWare by Insightfill · · Score: 1
    Might I suggest VMWare?

    I use it all the time to do software testing at work, and it allows you to run multiple OSes at the same time on a single machine.

    CPU power is shared among the main OS, and all of the "VM" OSes. Works great for checking something out. CPU speed is fine, although networking and screen aren't the best.

    If you're looking to "check out" an OS or something, try VMWare. It's beat Ghost and partitioning completely at work.

    www.vmware.com

  82. if walmart... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    --I only have my one sort of local walmart to compare with. they sell neither the 299 nor the 399 versions. The only OS they have on the shelf is XP. This is spensive obviously. They do have (I think) some sort of hewlett/packard/bell what ever it is now machine for 600$ that has winderz something on it.

    IF walmart was to put the No included OS 299$ machine (should be a 399$ bundle with monitor) on the floor WITH a blend of flavors of OS disks on the shelf, like a consumer low budget internet surfer version of redhat or mandrake, etc that ONLY costed like 25$ , then IT WOULD SELL. The walmart 299$ model requires you to already BE on the internet with a computer, catch 22 for "entry level".

    Lindows in general is a really bad idea, it even sounds like windows to anyone looking at it, so duh, that's what they are gonna think it is, and when it ain't windows, they are then gonna think lindows and by default linux sucks rubber donkey dong and never try it again. They may have heard bad things about windows, but they'll put up with it, which has been microsofts key to success, people will put up with it because it's functional *enough* to use and they have name brand recognition.

    I mean, I know quite a few people who are completely unaware that "windows" is even an OS, they think ALL computers are 'windows", they think microsoft sells computers in fact, and that macintoshes are just very expensive windows computers. I am NOT joking either, I have two neighbors (elderly) I help out with their antique peecees they were given by their kids, neither of them were aware that anything but windows even existed. they don't know what an operating system is. this is like telling someone who buys a car that the engine is optional, it's that stoopid to most people. they will use what comes pre installed, OR, if they are cheap enough and there's a choice on the shelf, maybe at least the sales person can say "here's ya'alls linux stuff, and that there is windows, take yer pick". And no, I ain't turned them onto linux because I can barely sorta run it myself, let alone getting called on the phone every other night and telling them to ./()do_something-"weird" !function_strange 8.99_whatever!! I don't know howto !!

    command line jazz. And ya, they got satellite tv, too, so "media exposure"might be the problem there. I like computers enough to own them and use them, but I honestly don't want to be forced into learning really a lot of command line. I stopped using DOS because of command line hell. GUI for the masses is where it's at, else no one would have gone to GUI, would they? GUI has OVERWHELMINGLY taken over because most humans think in pictures first, and it's MUCH easier to remember, it just is. Denying reality on command line versus GUI will not work except for serious geeks whom are not the majority of the market and are cheapskates and mostly trade software, pirate it, download it, etc. Most linux geeks ( I am betting now) never even support any of the distro companies, just leech leech leech all the time.

    You can buy a car and drive it without being a trained mechanic, this is reality. You can buy an expensive TV and have a lot of programs without being an electronic engineer. Requiring people to be a trained sys admin PLUS being a security guru to run a home computer is stoopid beyond belief, it just ain't gonna happen. It's almost within one or two more attemtps at "new and improved distros" turned me off linux, and I am pretty patient. I'll go back to mac eventually unless this command line jazz is minimalised completely into almost non existence. This is the 21st century, it isn't needed, my time is worth more than the 10 cents an hour savings on "free" command line requires to learn, and surprise, people mostly think they should purchase products, and if they are cheap ewnough, they will.

    For another example, pirating MP3's only exists to the extent it does because the CD manufacturers don't put 3$ disks on the shelf when they can, ditto video tapes, which should never be more than around ten bucks tops.The concept of volume sales has been lost on the yuppie generation of sales weasels. Completely, totally lost. It's called killing the golden goose. Can't make any money? Sell it more expensively, that'll work! or, make it crappier, that'll work! Nyetski, people want quality, it MUST work as advertised, and they will part the bucks for it within reason. Microsoft has lost this concept as well, too expensive, too stoopid, people are leaving them to..nothing! NONE of the OS's out there for simple home use is worth more than around 30$, especially if it needs to be upgraded every year. /rant

    Maybe some walmart's have the mandrake version pooter for sale on the showfloor, but at my local (ruralesque) walmart the people at the electronics counter have never even HEARD of linux, because I made a point of asking them, all three of them in fact. This is TRUE FACTS here. And all the printers on the shelf are USB connect, bet dollars to drachmas none of them run on linux, but I'd have to check that one, just murphy's law sez they won't most likely.

  83. Wal-mart PCs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whar is you wantin' to git to today?

  84. Not the only benefit by autechre · · Score: 2


    Sorry, but I really do like the interface of Enlightenment much better than that of Win2k. Even if Windows were equal to Linux in stability, I still wouldn't want it. Others have brought up viruses, and I'll add to that a distrust of Microsoft ("What are you doing, Dave?").

    The things that were problems a few years ago (watching movies, listening to music, having a really good Web browser, reading Office documents) are gone now. I never really played PC games; we've got a PS2, Dreamcast, and Saturn downstairs, and if I get bored of those, I can fire up an emulator. So Windows doesn't really have any benefits for me.

    --
    WMBC freeform/independent online radio.
  85. Hehe by Jennifer+Ever · · Score: 1
    It took several phone calls -- escalating to the point of calling a Lindows.com executive, an option not available to non-journalists -- before I discovered LindowsOS doesn't yet have a feature for setting the refresh rate. Instead, the company sent me complicated and potentially risky instructions for changing the refresh rate by entering obscure Unix commands such as "xf86cfg."

    Lordy, it practically reads like satire.

  86. Don't forget by cpeterso · · Score: 2


    Lindows Con: Not a single game or application that you buy at your local CompUSA, borrow from the neighbor's kids, or bring home from the office will work on your family's new computer. Try explaining that to your kids. They'll feel like their family is on welfare and be ridiculed at school.

    1. Re:Don't forget by ReTay · · Score: 1

      Really how about Unreal? It works just fine on my box. Office 2000 as has been mentioned even some of my older dos games will work. Next time try the software before you say it won't work. No it is not the end all of the attempts to crack M$ market hold. But it is closer then anything else I have seen. BTW It also detected and configured my sound card. Somthing no distro has yet done.
      So at least for my self I say good start.

  87. No israeli terrorism at all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "you should look up the definition of Terror"

    I did. Might as well have a photo of Arafat next to the definition. It has nothing to do with Israel's measured response to entirely unprovoked terrorist attacks from Arafat's army.

    1. Re:No israeli terrorism at all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hahahah, how do you manage to survive. Can you even open a door by yourself?

  88. LINDOWS ISN'T MEANT FOR YOU LINUX-HEADS!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0



    You people just don't get it. You shouldn't be reviewing Lindows. It isn't meant for you geeks. It is meant for normal people who don't know anything about their computers. You don't know anything about marketing and I do. Not only am I incredibly good looking and rich (after walking away from MP3.com with $250M leaving all the other folks who worked very hard to make that company a success with ZILCH after I fed their dreams of becoming millionaires) I am also a business genious! Don't waste your time giving my product negative reviews.

    If I gave you a million dollars (but I'm not gonna) could you write a decent review of Lindows from a total idiots point of view? That is, afterall, the demographic we are aiming for.

    </Michael-Robertson>

  89. Linux system suitable for newbies by Micah · · Score: 2

    Just last night I was inspired to write an article describing what I think would be a great Linux system for newbies. It's not low end, nor is it intended to be, but it's designed to get users excited about their computer and teach them things that a Windows computer wouldn't normally teach them.

    Check it out if you want! Note: it's on a site that I have no yet announced. Probably will in the next few days though. :)

    1. Re:Linux system suitable for newbies by micq · · Score: 1

      I read your article, and your missing a *HUGE* issue... Average people want the 'puter to work. That's it... They don't want to learn Python in order to make it work. They don't want "lot's of documentation". Bring it home, plug it in, turn it on, accomplish some computing tasks... done.

      It's a good concept for the "geek in training", but not for the Average Joe.

      As anti-MS that I am, and as much as I like Linux, when it came time to purchase a new 'puter, I went with a new iBook from Apple. There's a machine and OS with simplicity and intuitivness in mind. So easy to use I overcomplicate it. Practically zero degrees of seperation between me and the work that needs to get done.

      Mike

    2. Re:Linux system suitable for newbies by Micah · · Score: 2

      Average people want the 'puter to work. That's it...

      And this one will. That's a huge part of the whole plan! They don't have to read the books if they don't want. Even if the average Joe doesn't want to learn this stuff, they may have other family members that would love to try. The idea is to make it available to them at no extra cost. Let them dig in if they want!

      They don't want to learn Python in order to make it work.

      Nor will they have to. My documentation ideas are to open up peoples' immaginations. Not required reading.

      Thanks for the feedback though!

  90. Re:Caught up? Not in my eXPerience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >> A Unix admin does not necessarily make a good Windows admin, and vice versa.

    Interesting claim. Why do you say this? Are concepts of system security, system availability, and admin responsiveness not universal?

    Or is it because of differing personalities?

    I could claim that many MS admins are by-the-books type people, whereas many Unix admins are fly-by-seat-of-pants type individuals. But does this mean that they can't reverse the roles if necessary?

    I claim that a good admin is a good admin, period. If the admin is dependent on the system he administers and incapable of adjusting to new/different circumstances, then the admin is faulty and should be replaced.

  91. putting one's worst foot forward by g4dget · · Score: 2
    I think LindowsOS is not good for Linux. Windows emulation under Linux is limited, and getting Windows emulation onto people's desks does nothing to encourage developers to develop Linux applications. Click-and-run seems particularly bad: a Linux installation could dazzle people with all the great software that is available, for free. Instead, customers are treated to downloading huge amounts of software.

    I don't know whether Microsoft should win the trademark infringement case against LindowsOS, but someone should take them to court over Linux tradmark infringement. This distribution claims to be Linux, but it delivers little of what Linux is so great for: tons of software, complete installations of everything from a single source, and robust and simple application installation.

    WalMart should ship a good Linux installation--RedHat, SuSE, Mandrake, whatever, with a full complement of word processing, games, and Internet access. They probably also need to offer something like Kapital. If they still want Windows compatibility, that should be a minor feature, kind of like VirtualPC for Macintosh, but it should be kept clearly separate from Linux.

  92. What about running win apps? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I had misgivings about the Walmart/Lindows thing because of Lindow's promise to run win apps. It does that via Wine, which has traditionally been something of an error prone dark art. I was expecting reviews critical of performance in this area, but not even mentioned. Perhaps there are so many other serious problems that they didn't even get to that.

    I thought the first review was the better one, a reviewer who wanted to like the product he was reviewing, but honestly couldn't. The second reviewer seemed relieved to be able to easily discredit a potential threat to his favourite OS. I also agree with the conclusion of the first reviewer -- wait for Walmart/Mandrake. Don't push Wine hell, let the user go there themselves if they want to, AFTER they've got some proper linux experience under their belts.

  93. Your grandma can't symlink by The+Monster · · Score: 2
    Your example above would be askng too much for gramma to type in so she can save her recipies she typed in.
    Of course it is. That's why I'm suggesting that the install script do it. I thought that was so
    obvious I didn't need to spell it out the first time 'round.

    The review says that there's an icon labelled "C:" that actually opens up /home. So there's
    a more than decent chance that it is already a separate partition. Whether /usr/local should
    be a filesystem of its own (eliminating the need for such a command in the script), or sym-
    linked to a subdirectory of /home, isn't nearly asimportant as the idea that there are direct-
    ories that belong to the distro, others that don't. The default behavior of an install/restore
    script should be to leave those other directories alone; putting them on a filesystem separate
    from / makes it very easy to do that.

    --

    [100% ISO 646 Compliant]
    SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.

  94. Re:Caught up? Not in my eXPerience by NineNine · · Score: 1

    -Every single one of the W2K boxes have had to been rebuilt at least once in the last 2 years
    -Three of the boxes have had been rebuilt 3 or more times in this same time period
    -The record uptime for our W2K servers is 3 months
    -Four of the servers have outright locked up and stopped responding even to ping packets


    Jesus christ... sounds like you work in one of the worst IT departments I've ever heard of. Can't make a W2K box stable? Jesus... it's a matter of installing, then going to Windows Update. I need a job. Where do you work?

  95. Re:Caught up? Not in my eXPerience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Im sorry but if my environment and desktop builds were this fucked i would not be posting on slashdot sbout it - lest someone find out who i am.

    Buidling a stable windows 2000 SOE is not hard - its easy in fact and theres no excuse for what you have mentioned.

    Thats before we get to the fact that no company with competent admin staff should have ever got nimda'd.....

    I have 1500 systems running windows 2000 SOE and of those less than 5% have ever needed rebuilds and 80% of those were harwdare failures (machines at end of life with failed HDD etc -)(i track ALL stats) so its not braing surgery. I have 1 NT serevr here with 4 years stable operation only ever down for planned updates (bios and service packs) never for more than 5 mins and our 2K AD servers just stay up - no issues.

    You have not mentioned linux desktops so you have a linux server and i BET (id put cash on it) that its a web and proxy server which is a FUCKLOAD different from those windows servers running file and domain and print serving etc.. What about apps sharing ????

    Im not saying windows is better or worse than linux i am saying that this sort or shit is beyond a joke - if you cannot maintain systems better than this then get a job at fucking pizza hut.

    buy a book on 2000 Workstation and learn something - people like you are common - linux rocks but windows sucks (not that you know anything about windows anyway....) - another amatuer with a business card... pfft

  96. Double standards by rseuhs · · Score: 2
    Microsoft ships an OS with a browser, an email-client and not much else.

    Lindows ships an OS with a browser, an email-client and not much else.

    Both reviewer find the former OK, but the latter terrible and unacceptable.

    Microsoft charges over 300$ for MS Office and nothing else.

    Lindows charges 100$ for OpenOffice plus thousands of programs.

    Again, both reviewers find the former OK, but the latter terrible and unacceptable.

    Now, I don't think that Lindows gives enough value compared to SuSE or Mandrake, but Lindows still gives more value compared to Windows, even if you put up with their click-and-run scheme.

    Lindows just copied Windows:

    - Joe buys computer
    - Joe gets base OS (Windows or Lindows) but not much else
    - Joe knows/finds out that he would have to pay 300$ for MS Office or 100$ for hundreds/thousands of apps, including OpenOffice.
    - If Joe is naive he will pay 300$ (on Windows) or 100$ (on Lindows) to get some useful work done.
    - Otherwise Joe will use a warez-version of MS Office or check out the legal possibilites of getting Linux-software (or look at another distribution)

    If you come from the Windows-world, Lindows doesn't look that bad, IMO.

  97. so... by Max+the+Merciless · · Score: 1

    ...what part of Microsoft do you work for?

    --
    * * Always question "the National Interest" - 9 times out of 10 it is a cover for evil
    1. Re:so... by Phibian · · Score: 1

      Given that I listed the fact that Micro$oft makes windows as a con...

      Personally, I think that Microsoft's business tactics stink. Or, put another way, their corporate values don't mesh with my personal values. Ergo, I don't and would likely never work for Microsoft. But I still use their software, because the alternatives are not yet good enough substitutes.

  98. But for 25 dollars more I can get... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://compustore.com/linux%20pc.htm

    this computer from compustore.com

    Also this one is 1Ghz instead of 850mhz. I am getting one for my family to use when I go off to college. Since all they do is send email, surf the web, write letters and etc. it will be more than enough.

    --Joey

  99. 499$? sounds good to me! by johnnnyboy · · Score: 1

    Who cares about the lindows?

    I think a pentium 4 1.7 ghz machine for just 500 bucks sounds like a good deal to me.

    Its nice to see linux machines being sold out at major store outlets.

    --
    "If a show of teeth is not enough, bite ... but bite hard!"
  100. What learning Curve by Eric+Damron · · Score: 2

    "But Linux isn't simple to install or operate. Despite several years of work on extensions that give Linux the look and feel of Windows, the learning curve is still too steep for non-technical users."

    If you are running KDE or Gnome the "learning curve" consists of "point and click."

    Maybe it's the single click in KDE rather than the double click of Windows that's throwing him off.

    --
    The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
  101. Hmm. Linux problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, the reason Microsoft did so well was because every release of MS operating systems were perfect right out of the box.
    First point, the OS is free on the machine as is so what is to complain about when a bare PC is the same? It is time Linux was put out on the market and now it will make some mistakes that will be fixed...like maybe Mandrake. Just stop whinning, Linux is comming along.

  102. Destroy Lindows! The OS you save may be your own. by Dan+Crash · · Score: 2

    Lindows is such a terrible idea I wouldn't be surprised to hear it was really a secret Microsoft plot to discredit and destroy Linux.

    One can almost imagine Gates, Balmer and Co., huddled in a secret midnight meeting, determining that the best way to undermine the Linux juggernaut is to create a monstrously terrible version of Linux itself. A version which brags of Windows compatibility while crashing any Windows app the user tries to run. A version which touts the laurels of Linux's open source history, but rejects them in favor of a cash-for-code scenario. Better yet, Gates might say, we'll make the code not even work! Muhahaha!

    Lindows isn't Windows; Lindows IS terrible Linux. It looks backward, not forward; it is a black eye to all the golden work accomplished by Red Hat, Mandrake, Gentoo, and the million unpaid coders who helped make Linux so much easier to use in the past few years, a platform that stands on its own, a platform that Doesn't Need Microsoft For Anything. Lindows is the Benedict Arnold of Linux.

    Of course, I think we have a duty to help support those whose first foray into the Linux world is Lindows -- but I think the best support we can give is to hand over a CD with the distro of our choice on it and tell them, "Forget about Lindows... THIS is Linux."

    --
    He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
  103. All programs work correctly in Windows? by Snover · · Score: 1
    Features like 'open source' and '$150 cheaper' aren't really bonuses to most PC users, when it doesn't have the feature 'runs all my Windows programs and games just fine' implemented correctly.
    Yeah, AAAALLL programs and games work just fine. That's why there aren't ANY programs like this or this or this or forums like this. Yep. Uh-huh.
    --

    [insert witty comment here]
  104. Re:Caught up? Not in my eXPerience by div_2n · · Score: 1

    For the record, the box that got Nimda got it right after installation and right before we could apply the security patches. A third party consultant brought in a laptop that was infected and voila.

  105. Not likely to happen... by Tune · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ... This year or next year.

    - First, most people do not but Microsofware, they buy computers with Microsoftware preinstalled. Even for geeks it's getting harder to buy a PC without all that junk.
    - Second, Microsoft has improved the stability of its product, over the last years. Although at much slower than I'd consider acceptible, they are getting there. Therefore I think it's unlikely anything internet related is going to bring their market share down.

    IMHO two other things can: computer sales and stock markets. Roughly speaking Microsoft gains a percentage of the global PC sales market and is thus almost directly linked to the number of computers sold. Note however, that this number doesn't influence market share, so Linux doesn't gain anything from economic slowdown.

    Stock markets are always unpredictible as proven recently by Enron, Worldcom and the likes. Microsoft has quite succesfully denied abusing their monopoly until now, and will probably be as succesful in misleading the SEC when they have to.

    But what I'm getting at is that M$ can only be hit where it hurts. As long as their $40 billion stays with marketing they remain virtually untouchable - and so is their market share. Until that changes, we can do little more than duck-and-cover. And I'm not at all optimistic about Microsoft's plans on "security".

    Tune
    --
    The most likely way for the world to be destroyed, most experts agree, is by accident.
    That's where we come in: we're computer professionals, we cause accidents. -- Nathaniel Borenstein

    1. Re:Not likely to happen... by Inoshiro · · Score: 2

      "- First, most people do not but Microsofware, they buy computers with Microsoftware preinstalled. Even for geeks it's getting harder to buy a PC without all that junk."

      Until OEMs sign contracts that require bare HDs to be sold with software bundles, getting a naked PC is as easy as buying parts and putting them together. This is the way 99.999 percent of all computer inclined poeple go -- unless they just go to a local computer retailer and buy a bunch of whiteboxes which they'll make & test for a small fee.

      In other words, this only affects people who buy brand-name computers. Such people are unlikely to care if there is no software anyways.

      --
      --
      Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
    2. Re:Not likely to happen... by Tune · · Score: 2

      > [...]getting a naked PC is as easy as buying parts and putting them together.

      True, but don't forget the OEM's commercials might have been modestly subsidized by M$ if only they'd agreed to ship all their hardware with Windows. Buying your hardware naked means having to pay that hole. Still, I'd have to agree that -1 + 1 = 0, so no real harm done here except for the abscence of commercials, thus sales volume, thus production volume, thus economy of scale. But I'd have to admit, it's not to strong an argument.

      > In other words, this only affects people who buy brand-name computers. Such people are unlikely to care if there is no software anyways.

      ...But they are a lot. In fact, they are the majority. This group includes companies that buy internet servers running Linux + Apache. Don't ask me why, but Dell, Siemens, IBM, HP, ... seem to have an added value of trustworthiness or hardware quality that appeals to managers. Oh, and don't forget that many whitebox retailers sell theirs with Windows.

      Before the majority - or at least a large part of them - starts buying whiteboxes or Macs Microsoft's market share will remain - even though Linux is a free as beer.

  106. Yeah sure... by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 2

    That is why I have to reboot my office's Windows NT4.0 workstation once or twice a week (uncontrolled memory leakage) while at home similar applications keep running in Linux for months.

    Company has not moved to W2K (but they are beginning migration, objective: by W2K shop by end of *next* year) and they don't even see in their radar WXP, the drawbacks of both solutions are too many.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  107. Re:$299 + $99 = Reasonable by ctimes2 · · Score: 1

    The problem seems to be that you don't find out about that last $99 until after you get the box home. Which, honestly, if I found out after the fact that I had to shell out an additional 1/3rd of the original cost for software that would make my cool new PC useful, would piss me off.

    They should include the $99 in the cost of the PC and allow you one year of free software from the start.

    --
    My cube. My friend. My solace. My prison.
  108. Re:Caught up? Not in my eXPerience by EastCoastSurfer · · Score: 2

    In general linux is better than windows, but saying things like "The record uptime for our W2K servers is 3 months" makes you just look like an incompetent admin. Any system on good hardware and properly configured can be stable. Truthfully, the advantage that linux has over windows in not stability anymore. The main things that I like about linux that windows doesn't have are:
    1) Unless you are changing the kernel you don't have to reboot. I really despise updating MSSQL and then having to reboot the system. Why not just restart the MSSQL service?
    2) Security. Windows has more virii floating around for it. As an admin I don't really care why MS has virii(more popular system, etc...), but I do care that I constantly have to patch and reboot!!! again.
    3) Hardware requirements. Why oh why does a DNS, dhcp, firewall, etc... server need as much hardware as win2k requires? With these types of servers being the main entry points of linux into data centers I am surprised MS hasn't release a NT server lite version. This lite version would only allow a few connections possibly just have a command line interface.

    BTW, our main W2k/MSSQL server here is a quad dell box with an external fibre channel disk array and has currently been up for nearly a year. Usage stays above 50% for nearly 24 hours a day, the only times it has ever come down was to update/patch software. It has actually never "crashed"(knock on wood :)

  109. Is it that hard? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It can't be _that_ hard to create a decent box
    for the average joe.

    My proposal:

    Via EPIA (CPU, LAN, S3 video, sound) $110
    128 MB RAM $20
    cheap-ass 20 GB harddrive $60
    cheap cd-reader $23
    mouse $2
    keyboard $5
    chassis $30

    sum $250

    Install Linux with desktop environment, MP3-
    player, video-player, OpenOffice, Mozilla,
    mail-client and an icq/aol/whatever-client.

    Configure it nice, no more icons then
    necessary, no technical console messages or
    such, integrate stuff, might need some minor
    custom config apps (ISP and such) include lots
    of wallpapers (flowers, nascar etc, etc) nice
    clipart for OpenOffice and finally some Mozilla
    bookmarks. Chances are customers won't ever
    need to install additional applications.

    Sent with a ~100 pages manual which explains
    the most common tasks and pitfalls. (This'll
    save alot on the support)

    Also make sure to pre-install drivers for
    Walmart's best selling Inkjet and Laserjet.

    The prices I've listed for the components of
    this Celeron-level system are peice-wise when
    buying from a smallish Swedish store. So
    whatever margins this store got will be more
    than enough for Walmart (which must have some
    100(0) times bigger volumes).

    Ohh, and for the MB, check it out at:
    http://www.viavpsd.com/product/epia_mini_itx_ spec. jsp?motherboardId=21
    (the one with a C3 800 Mhz)

    Makes sense?
    / Jakob

    (Mind the formatting, the lameness-filter was hard on me)

  110. Re:Caught up? Not in my eXPerience by Osty · · Score: 2

    Interesting claim. Why do you say this? Are concepts of system security, system availability, and admin responsiveness not universal?

    Of course the concepts and theory that make a good admin are universal. However, 90% of running a system is hands-on work (quick fixes, kludges, and hacks to keep the system up and running without munging it up too much, and then doing things the "Right Way" (tm) when you finally get the time). That's where the difference comes in. Just to illustrate the difference, let's examine how you'd push a security patch to 100 nodes in a network. With Unix, that's easy -- just write a script that goes through each host, making an ssh connection that runs another script to load the patch. Now, how do you do this on Windows? Your typical Unix admin will do one of two things when presented with this problem on a Windows-based network.

    1. The admin will go to each and every computer and run the patch there. This is highly inefficient, and prone to error (you're sure you got all the machines?).
    2. Start turning Windows into Unix. The admin will install bash, perl, ssh, etc until he can use the same method as above -- write a shell script that runs through each machine making an ssh connection that calls a script to load the patch. Of course, now you've got a whole lot of non-essential software on (possibly) production servers. That software could have security holes (ssh), or be untested on your certain configuration of hardware, or introduce software conflicts, or cause any one of several hundred different problems.
    The thing is, there is a solution to this problem that combines the elegance of the Unix-style solution with the stability (ie, not screwing around with your software configuration) of the first option. Simply write a vbscript or jscript that uses WMI (Windows Management Interface) to connect to each remote machine, copy over the patch, and run it. WMI is native to Windows, so you're not adding extra software, and it was designed specificially for these types of administrative tasks.

    The above example may be contrived, but the point is that the Unix admin wouldn't know the tricks of the trade for administering a Windows server. Conversely, your average Windows admin will be lost when delving into bash, perl, sed, awk, and the myriad of other small scriptable apps. (Not saying that most Windows admins are not good at scripting, just that vbscript/jscript/command script are different from bash/perl/sed/awk/tcl)

    I claim that a good admin is a good admin, period. If the admin is dependent on the system he administers and incapable of adjusting to new/different circumstances, then the admin is faulty and should be replaced.

    If you're able to afford an admin that is proficient with any system you give him, then more power to you. Those types are worth their weight in gold. For the rest of the world that either can't afford such talent or came late to the party and can't find such talent, you take what you can get. And I find it pretty short-sighted to say that an admin is faulty if he's targetted a certain platform. He may have all the theory behind proper administration down just fine, but when it comes to putting food on the table you have to make a decision and pick a platform (or two, or five, but rarely will you be able to be instantly proficient with everything).