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."
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
...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
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.
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- 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.
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!!!
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.
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.
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!
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.
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
Remember, though, that Windows is only $200 if your time is worth nothing.
-no broken link
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.