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
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.
I was a bit shocked by...
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
"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.
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.
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 :)
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
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
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.
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- 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.
Cons
- Steep initial learning curve
- Not as pretty
- Not as much mainstream game support
ProsWindows (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.
ProsThere it is. Tell your friends and let them decide.
UNIX/Linux Consulting
And your point would be...?
.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.
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
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
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!!!
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: 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
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 is it in Lindows.com? How else might we request the source code if we want it?
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.
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
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
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
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.
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.
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....
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!
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
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
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)
Get your Unix fortune now!
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.
(* 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.
Table-ized A.I.
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.
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.
cpeterso
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.
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.
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
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 /usr/local should /home, isn't nearly asimportant as the idea that there are direct-
a more than decent chance that it is already a separate partition. Whether
be a filesystem of its own (eliminating the need for such a command in the script), or sym-
linked to a subdirectory of
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.
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.
"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!
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.
... 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
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.
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
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.
- 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?).
- 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)
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).
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
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