Slashdot Mirror


Lycoris Desktop/LX update 2 Released

David writes "Redmond Linux Corp has just released Lycoris Desktop/LX Update 2 (build 46 final). Relatively user-friendly, loads of goodies and nice features. Should give Lindows a run for its money. Who says Linux is dead on the desktop? ;-)"

377 comments

  1. Bloody hell by j0hn · · Score: 0

    I looked at those screenshots and it looks just like that OS/environment I'm trying so hard to get away from!

    1. Re:Bloody hell by smellmyfart · · Score: 1

      Is there enough ground here for M$ to through a lawsuit at them?
      When i was looking at some the screenshots i have to admit i thought i was looking at XP.

      --
      First, you have to know, not fear, know that someday you are going to die
  2. Is it just me, or are the fonts really big on Slas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it just me, or are the fonts really big on Slashdot? I don't see large font sizes on any other site I visit, except /.

  3. I know who! by NDPTAL85 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I believe its the overwhelming hordes of continuing Windows and Mac users who say with every daily use of a proprietary operating system that desktop Linux is dead.

    --
    Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
    1. Re:I know who! by mark_lybarger · · Score: 3, Interesting
      troll, troll, troll.

      the everyday win/mac users don't really know what options are available. the big things keeping linux off the desktop are:

      drivers: people are using new hardware all the time and have a perceived image that linux doesn't have drivers for their hardware (wireless network, usb mouse, video, sound, etc).

      installation: the install programs NEED to be able to identify hardware on a users system and configure drivers w/o user intervention. being asked what type of network card i have on my box isn't something i should know much about, let alone what integrated sound chip i have, or what kind of mouse i have. to sum it up, linux will find more spaces on the desktop when the installers and drivers are as upto date as possible.

    2. Re:I know who! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is just patently not true. SuSE installs great and identifies properly 95% of my hardware. The problem is that KDE, the default on most distributions, is absolute crap. It is a poor man's Windows which is not saying a whole lot.

    3. Re:I know who! by NeoNormal · · Score: 1

      I believe he was referring to installing NEW hardware and not doing a scratch install on a box.

      KDE, Gnome, etc. could use a better "control panel" type tool to configure/troubleshoot new hardware additions.

      I don't have experience with SuSE, but the last several RedHat distros I've used have installed much easier from scratch than windows does.

    4. Re:I know who! by N3WBI3 · · Score: 1
      I would say faster and cleaner not easier. Keep in mind that most of us know to use a /boot when using disk druid (im a newb), Most ppl dont know that.

      I can hand my mother a copy of windows and a PC and she could probably install it, she cant do RH7.3. Linux is getting there but its not for the average user yet.

      --
    5. Re:I know who! by Betcour · · Score: 1

      The problem is that the 5% that is not identified cannot be installed or configured easely later on. Installing most distros is very easy as long as nothing goes wrong. As soon as something unexpected show up (or something expected doesn't show up) it's back to text files, howtos and command line again...

    6. Re:I know who! by Rooktoven · · Score: 1

      No, It's a smart man's windows. Besides, if you hate KDE so much, why are you running Suse?

      (Happily running KDE on Slack...)

      --

      Acquiescence leads to obliteration
    7. Re:I know who! by FatherOfONe · · Score: 1

      While I agree with what you say in spirit, don't believe that Windows users have it all that easy. Lets say that you bought a machine a few months ago with Windows XP loaded on it. A BUNCH of hardware vendors didn't have drivers out yet for it. You would have had the same complaints.

      My point is that everyone has this problem. Yes Linux has it more than the Macintosh and Windows, but for a FREE OS the developers do a great job.

      --
      The more I learn about science, the more my faith in God increases.
    8. Re:I know who! by 13Echo · · Score: 2

      Even the less auto-configured Slackware detects your network card nowadays.

      Video cards are a bit different beast. Any video card that supports VESA will work in Linux (X Window system) with a framebuffer mode (That's like 99% of cards). If you want 3d graphics, then you can get drivers from most manufacturers that really actually matter. nVidia, ATi, PowerVR... Etc. If the rest don't work, then that is the manufacturer's problem. The Linux OpenGL implementations are *awesome*, and very fast. nVidia uses the exact same driver model for Linux that they use in Windows, so the drivers are always up to date. PowerVR will be doing this soon also.

      USB mice (and other devices) work fine. USB mice use generic drivers, and are detected by the installers. USB 2.0 has been implemented into the kernel.

      I don't know of any major sound chip that does not work in Linux. There are at least three types of sound drivers available. Kernel drivers, ALSA, and Commercial OSS. If someone doesn't like the kernel or ALSA implementations, they can always swing $15-$30 to opensound.com, and get EXCELLENT drivers that completely make use of the best features of a soundcard, including rear speaker support and a real-time software multi-channel mixer (like DirectX uses).

      Linux distributions like Suse, Lycoris, Mandrake, and Red Hat do all of the guesswork for you.

      Frankly, if you have to pick out your network card manually, then you have one jankie peice of hardware.

      Nothing personal, but I attribute the "lack of driver" claims to people's continuing ignorance of the Linux OS.

    9. Re:I know who! by 13Echo · · Score: 2

      Yes, but can she install all of the proper drivers without your help?

      Video?
      Sound?
      VIA 4-in-1 drivers?
      Patches and hotfixes (for Windows)?

      Frankly, if she cannot, then she shouldn't be installing *ANY* OS. Without the right drivers, it won't be reliable, and will be more prone to problems.

      Linux has these problems too, but generally the distributions ship with the best drivers available at the time, and with many of them, most of the installation is fairly automated.

    10. Re:I know who! by Betcour · · Score: 1

      True but I'm not really bitching about lack of hardware support (I can live with that), what bother's me is that all the attempt at "easy Linux" (easy installation and GUI) have all the same pitfalls : they are really nice looking front ends but don't go much further. Installation is easy AS LONG AS you install it on an "ordinary" PC with ordinary needs. KDE and Gnome are ok AS LONG AS you don't need to change anything that is hardware or system related.

      In shorts, "easy Linux" distro are fine to make dumb terminals (a PC in a library you use to surf only) but all administration/maintenance tasks, even the most common ones, require you to leave the friendly GUI and venture into the darkest recesses of the OS. The problem is that any regular PC user, even my grandmother, needs sometimes to install a scanner or change her desktop screen refresh or resultion. And when that times comes, she discovers that Linux is not as user friendly as advertised. For comparison, I was amazed that installing a scanner on XP required me to plug the USB port and... that's all no drivers required, not even a single click necessary and it was available in Photoshop straight away.

    11. Re:I know who! by Com2Kid · · Score: 1

      For comparison, I was amazed that installing a scanner on XP required me to plug the USB port and... that's all no drivers required, not even a single click necessary and it was available in Photoshop straight away.


      Mind you installing a SCSI scanner (or card for that matter) is not nearly so easy. . . .

      Nor is installing a TV tuner card (which can take well over 5 "new hardware device detected" cycles in WinXP), which while not difficult, is not exactly something that somebody who has never done it before would have any clue as on how to do. (right click on INF file, select install, notice that that does not work, add device manualy, select different INF file depending on which part of the TV Tuner card is being installed at the moment, and so forth)

    12. Re:I know who! by Sj0 · · Score: 2

      Have to agree on this one. I've never had a piece of hardware which I needed to install drivers for under Linux which worked flawlessly under Windows. There WAS a few times where I installed a piece of hardware, and while linux just said "yeah. I've got that now. Press enter to continue.", Windows asked for driver disks(or, in more painful cases, didn't.)

      --
      It's been a long time.
    13. Re:I know who! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What, are you on drugs? What kind of a point is that? Installing a SCSI drive is hard. No kidding. How many normal people are going to walk into Wal-Mart and pick up a SCSI controller, and drives. No, Joe Average is going to go into the store and buy a printer, or scanner, or a cradle for his palm-pilot. His new hardware will come with a quick install foldout, and a cd with drivers. He'll plug his hardware into a USB port, Windows will detect the new hardware, and install it for him. His fold out will tell him whether or not to let windows install the drivers itself, or if he should tell windows to search the cd. Either way, he's done....no muss, no fuss.

      Linux on the other hand, he's going to come home with his new hardware, plug it in and.........nothing. He doesn't have the drivers. He's got to go out and search the web for drivers, then he may have to recompile his kernel just to install his new piece of hardware.

      Phauk that Chit!! That's too much work to hook up something new.

      When you people get standardized and make it easy to do things, then developers will introduce commercial software applications, then people will begin to use Linux.

      Until then, you're nothing

    14. Re:I know who! by NDPTAL85 · · Score: 1

      So things like common applications that exist on Windows would NOT be in your list of "big things keeping linux off the desktop"? Or how about a large installed base of people/neighbors/co-workers knowledgeable in Linux systems so you don't have to hire a consultant to install/uninstall your own software?
      Then there's the whole ease of use thing, as in Linux is easy to use for geeks, and people with geeks in their families have a somewhat easier time with it, but what about everyone else?

      --
      Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
  4. We Hate Microsoft!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So how come everything they do is worthy of being copied

    1. Re:We Hate Microsoft!!! by kylus · · Score: 3, Interesting

      So how come everything they do is worthy of being copied

      I don't think the interface to the Windows OS was ever something people complained about (minus that damned Paper Clip..). The more ghastly problems are not in the UI, but the underside that the user doesn't see (VM subsystem, TCP stack, etc), and the coding methodology used to develop it. So not 'everything' is worth being copied...however a GUI that people are familiar with might not need too much improvement, and may make people more willing to try something new, and more comfortable in general.

      --
      --Kylus
      Idiot-proof something, and Life will build a better Idiot.
    2. Re:We Hate Microsoft!!! by jwilhelm · · Score: 2

      In order to get people to switch from Microsoft products they need to feel familiar and comfortable with the environment. Do you think anyone would willingly switch if they had to look at something they didn't recognize or couldn't easily figure out how to use? If you don't like the way it looks don't use it, but don't know the fact that it might actually get some people to switch.

    3. Re:We Hate Microsoft!!! by iamwhatiseem · · Score: 1

      Look, this thing pretty much copies the looks of XP period. I agree, that to get folks to switch it needs to have the general flow of windows i.e. - a "start" button, similar task bars, search disk contents, etc. But NOT try to LOOK exactly like it.

    4. Re:We Hate Microsoft!!! by earthpig · · Score: 1

      I don't think the interface to the Windows OS was ever something people complained about

      wrong!

      i for one have been complaining about it since 95. and i think it just keeps getting worse. i actually liked 3.1 better as the desk top. i know kinda sick.
      but i favorite desk top of all time is still os/2 warp.

    5. Re:We Hate Microsoft!!! by N3WBI3 · · Score: 1
      To answer your question because its easier to migrate, Gnome got me off of windows, and FVWM got me off of Gnome.

      A question to you, how the hell can any M$ person complain about taking the look and feel of another OS, they ripped so much off of apple its sick.

      --
    6. Re:We Hate Microsoft!!! by jwilhelm · · Score: 2

      But what's wrong with looking exactly like it? I don't see anything wrong with that, especially if it gets people to switch and slowly gets them acclimated to the Linux. So it looks the same, big deal! People who like that will use it, others will go with RH or Debian or something else that they'd rather use! I really don't think the look matters that much, it's the underlying pieces that matter.

    7. Re:We Hate Microsoft!!! by DerKlempner · · Score: 1

      A question to you, how the hell can any M$ person complain about taking the look and feel of another OS, they ripped so much off of apple its sick.

      So, what you're telling me that - because it's Linux-oriented - two wrongs DO make a right? Or are you just being as narrow-minded and two-faced as any MS zealot would be?

      --
      UNIX: Find it, fsck it, forget it.
    8. Re:We Hate Microsoft!!! by iamwhatiseem · · Score: 1

      What's wrong... Confusion
      WE know what Linux is. The average user has NO idea. By looking exactly alike, I believe it creates confusion between the two. The only thing then that they will see, is "gee-this new computer doesn't do as much as my old one". The reason they will think that is because all of the software they have doesn't work anymore. And since no one will be there to explain things to them, they will NOT assimilate to Linux, and be ready to go back to Windows.
      Therefore I believe the most inportant thing in "the switch" is a good Linux OS version, NOT some cheesy Windows wannabe like this or Lindows.

    9. Re:We Hate Microsoft!!! by N3WBI3 · · Score: 1
      I have no problem with M$ using a gui which was to designed to feel alot like a Mac (I believe it was MacOS7 in 95), Because to me the look and feel of a desktop os is like the color of a car. It something really unimportant, you may want a black rice rocket, I want a black mustang..

      My problem with the post was the slamming of an X interface tweeked to look like M$ as being proof that windows is somehow superior to Linux, its the color of the car. For a someone to say "hey you guys are copying us so much we must rule", where *US* is an OS the themselves have copied not only the look and feel but the underlying code (tcp/ip stack) of others work is moronic on its face.

      so before you try to attack me as being a foaming at the mouth anti-windows person use a neuron or two and think about what I wrote.

      --
    10. Re:We Hate Microsoft!!! by jwilhelm · · Score: 2

      OK, well we can disagree; either way, I personally don't care what it looks like as long as people aren't forced into Microsoft products.

  5. I do! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Linux is dead until they get rid of X. What regular user is going to use X, even with KDE and/or Gnome? What are apps going to standardize on, KDE or Gnome? How can you even go about changing the darn resolution in X without going to the command line?

    X is a great engineer/admin tool, but it is horrible for regular users who just want to get work done.

    1. Re:I do! by NitsujTPU · · Score: 1

      *Cough* X is good because it's built based on a client-server model and is network transparent. It's awesome for home users because multiple users to one terminal/access points to one terminal are good around the home too.

    2. Re:I do! by N3WBI3 · · Score: 1
      Whats funny is that X got more and more useful with the expansion of the Internet, the fact its built for use over networks makes it an awesome tool.

      Example, I can sit on my PC at home and with nothing but VPN connection and a base Linux/X installation and have everything available to me that I do at work. Beyond that I can have a 486/32mb Ram/1gb HD do it. If I really need to access the windows side of our network I can use rdesktop to interface with a win2k terminal server.

      On a windows box I would need either VNC (kind of nice for the price, but very limited in it use) or Hummingbird ($expensive$ and memory hog). Or I could use the terminal server client to access the windows side (which of course I have to pay for).

      Is X perfect? no, I have had more trouble learning it than anything else on the Unix side (I am a n3wb) but I am sure some really smart guys somewhere built a gui for that.

      --
  6. Well.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who says Linux is dead on the desktop? ;-)

    The fact that it is trying to emulate Win9x might have something to do with that.

    1. Re:Well.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't Win9x an emulation in itself of the Mac OS?

    2. Re:Well.. by Marc2k · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'd say that the most intelligent people trying to get away from Windows aren't doing it to get away from the kludge-y look-and-feel. I don't run Windows because I don't agree with their business tactics and their "get it out the door before we're sure it works" development model, not because I abhor the start menu. If emulating the look and feel of Windows over a free and open operating system draws more home users, then more power too them. Linux users have always had a love/hate relationship with it becoming a prominent desktop OS, and that's sad. If the community wants Linux to be a desktop force, then we're going to have to unify on how that is possible. To be possible, yes, we're going to have to swallow a little pride and make it more user friendly.

      --
      --- What
    3. Re:Well.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would say that KDE is 95% emulation of Windows 9X while Windows 9X is 40% emulation of Mac OS 7/8. I would then say that Mac OS X is 50% emulation of Windows 2000.

    4. Re:Well.. by N3WBI3 · · Score: 1

      Baseless, what I have seen of OSX (aqua is the interface I believe) reminds me nothing of windows.

      --
    5. Re:Well.. by Rooktoven · · Score: 1

      Does Windows support multiple desktops? Does windows allow for embedding and creating new menus in taskbar? Does windows have a Kasbar that shows thumbnails of all running apps? Does windows allow for the collapsing the taskbar with a single click like KDE (or Gnome)? Does windows allow for shading an app like KDE (or most modern *nix window managers? Who had thumbnail support for images first? Windows or KDE/Gnome?

      Your assessment is baseless and foolish, but not unexpected from an A/C...

      --

      Acquiescence leads to obliteration
    6. Re:Well.. by MWelchUK · · Score: 1

      Just for reference Windows XP does have a utility to show you thumbnails (as part of the power pack) of running apps that can pop-up on tabbing AFAIK. I was told this only a few days ago and since I refuse to load that rubbish I will never find out myself. I myself find KDE far nicer looking that the glimpses I have seen of Windows XP (I think XP looks like it was designed for 5 year-olds) but thats my preference.

    7. Re:Well.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm, Windows 2000 is intentionally designed to mimic the interface in Windows 98. Here's a quote:

      "The familiar user interface of Windows 98 combined with all the capabilities of Internet Explorer 5, makes using the Internet and your local desktop a unified user experience, as described by PC Magazine."

      So you've got kind of a circular argument if OS X emulates Windows and Windows emulates Mac.

  7. Why I dropped Lycoris by kaustik · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I went with an earlier version of Lycoris as my first distro, and dropped it after about three days. One of my favorite things about other popular distros is the shear amount of apps you have to choose from. The Lycoris install, while allowing you to play Solitare while it chugs away (very cool), leaves you with ONE word processor, ONE web browser, etc. While this may be nice for newer users, it just doesn't quite appeal to me...

    1. Re:Why I dropped Lycoris by stromthurman · · Score: 1

      It is rather "slender" as far as distros go,
      but that was its intent, I think. This is not
      the distro for people who want to dive head first
      into OSS and GNU/Linux, this is the distro for
      people who want something familiar, yet don't want
      to get locked into a proprietary platform that
      may or may not be getting ready to unleash wicked
      licensing terms and unfair DRM tools.

      --
      I have discovered a truly remarkable sig which this margin is too small to contain.
    2. Re:Why I dropped Lycoris by mauryisland · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I installed Redmond Linux for some neighbors who have never owned a computer before, and they're doing just fine with it. It does everything they need it to do. It's a very usable distribution for new users, though for experianced users, I've recommended (and installed) Mandrake. There are plenty of appropriate choices in the Linux world, and one size doesn't have to fit all.

    3. Re:Why I dropped Lycoris by Plug · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't know about you, but Mum wants to write letters and she wants to see one word processor, not vim, emacs, AbiWord, OpenOffice Write, Kate, [...]

      Remember that Lycoris is a desktop distribution. As far as things go it seems that is the best there is right now. The fact you KNOW that there are multiple word processors (or that Letters To Nana != Microsoft Word) instantly says to me you know enough to install whatever your preference is.

      I can't wait till either Gnome/GTK or KDE/Qt are at a stage where either apps from one look completely in place under the other, or one of them is so good that it provides exactly one good everything, and I don't need to use the other one. I think it's important to have both, but I only want to use one at a time.

    4. Re:Why I dropped Lycoris by Darth+Yoshi · · Score: 3, Interesting
      The Lycoris install, while allowing you to play Solitare while it chugs away (very cool), leaves you with ONE word processor, ONE web browser, etc. While this may be nice for newer users, it just doesn't quite appeal to me...

      That's funny, one of the things that bothers me about most of the popular distros is they insist on installing too many word processors, web browsers, etc. What the hell am I going to do with 4 word processors, 3 spread sheets, 6 web browsers, 12 email programs, etc. Just give me one of each and if I don't like it, I can install my own choice, thank you very much.

      --
      // TODO: fix sig
    5. Re:Why I dropped Lycoris by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      leaves you with ONE word processor, ONE web browser

      You're used to work on TWO word processors and TWO browsers?
      oppenoffice and mozilla are just fine for me

    6. Re:Why I dropped Lycoris by kaustik · · Score: 1

      See, my complaint is not for a lack of quantity, but a lack of choice. Just because a distro's install CDs contain 6 web browsers does not mean you have to install them all. Maybe Lycoris could configure a user-friendly tour of various apps during the install and let you decide at that time which one to go with. Or, you could opt out in the beginning of the install and choose to go with the reccomended versions... That way, grammy doesn't have to learn all about rpms and dependencies to install that cool Mozilla (just an example) program that the kiddies are talking about...

    7. Re:Why I dropped Lycoris by Darth+Yoshi · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, I would prefer to pop in the install CD, answer a couple of questions, then go and get a cup of coffee while the installation proceeds and come back 20 minutes later to a complete install (well, ideally anyway). Instead of having to stay there and babysit the installation (i.e., which word processor, which web browser, which email program, etc).

      I think the issue is, Lycoris choose one-of-each application that is "good enough" to start with. Then included a Software Installer to let the user customize their installation.

      But I know what you're saying, it's really just a matter of preference. Fortunately for you, most distros still take the swiss army knife approach.

      I haven't tried the Lycoris distro yet, but I think I'll give it a try.

      --
      // TODO: fix sig
    8. Re:Why I dropped Lycoris by Jucius+Maximus · · Score: 2
      "It's a very usable distribution for new users, though for experianced users, I've recommended (and installed) Mandrake. "

      Last weekend I installed Mandrake 8.2 7-CD boxed version on my machine alongside win2k, replacing the mandrake 8.0 download version. I agree that there is great merit going with a distro that is heavy on apps. Staroffice 6.0 is a great improvement AND THE FONTS LOOK GOOD ON LINUX EVEN WITHOUT xfstt!!! I love those games and tuxracer finally runs straight out of the install.(*) I can experiment with opera 6 for linux without waiting for my 28.8 to download it and a VMWare trial is included.

      Yes, an application-heavy linux install is highly helpful when trying to get experienced windows users to switch to linux.

      (*) Please reply with obligatory trying-to-get-tuxracer-to-run joke.

    9. Re:Why I dropped Lycoris by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed, I installed the new Lycoris the other night just to play, and the most irritating thing about it is that it doesn't have gtk+ on the CD, or on the ftp sites, etc, etc. No Evolution, no Pan, no gtk apps at all. Too bad, since those are some of the better options available. It's a shame that in the process of choosing their 1 size to fit all they didn't at least use the best programs available.

    10. Re:Why I dropped Lycoris by CrazyDuke · · Score: 1

      Actually it has 2 web browsers. Konqueror is set up to handle the file browsing and Mozilla is set up to handle the internet activity. I have also checked the rpms compiled for other linux flavors have not run into one yet that barfs under Lycoris. So, getting a different app is just a matter of downloading the appropriate rpms.

      My complaints with it:
      1. The software to compile source is on a completely different iso image.
      2. Driver install support is iffy at best for the person comming over from windows.
      3. RPMs bitch and complain over lib versions to no end.
      4. Installing winmodems (~99% of the new modems today in PC's today) is a royal pain in the ass.
      5. Sometimes the sound drivers mysteriously do not work on some systems.
      6. Lizard(the Lycoris ISO installer) likes to hang when it does not like a piece of hardware (Especially on AMD systems).

      And to the people screeming "Oh, God no! Not a Windows XP clone!" Fuckin a, its just KDE with a background and some icons. If you don't like it its easy enough to change'em. And if you don't like KDE you can always put in another X window manager.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
    11. Re:Why I dropped Lycoris by Arandir · · Score: 2

      While this may be nice for newer users, it just doesn't quite appeal to me...

      Gee, it seems to work for Microsoft :-)

      Seriously, the lack of ten thousand packages is a Good Thing(tm). The trouble with too many Linux distros is that they feel obligated to indundate the first time user with truckloads of cruft.

      Plop a first time Linux user in front of your typical "EZLinux" and watch what happens. They'll either choose "default" somewhere along the line and end up with five gigabytes of stuff they will never use and a nightmare dependency graph, or they'll spend five hours wading through poorly described packages. This is not good for a new user.

      Instead, the OS installation should install just the bare necessities for an OS and desktop. Put all the other packages on CDs number two through four, and put an "extra software" icon on the desktop. This will prevent the newbie from experiencing sensory overload, while allowing the experienced user to install whatever he wants.

      --
      A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
    12. Re:Why I dropped Lycoris by kaustik · · Score: 1

      (Whoring for help)

      Tux Racer opened for me on my fresh install of RedHat 7.3, but runs like some weird nightmare... frame [pause] frame [pause] frame [pause].
      Horribly annoying. I have an 8-meg on-board video card shadowed to 16 megs in the BIOS. Granted, that's not much, but come on - it's Tux Racer we're talking about. Hate asking for help here, but saw the opportunity and I'm taking it! Any ideas?

    13. Re:Why I dropped Lycoris by Jucius+Maximus · · Score: 1

      I have had problems with that program that went away when I closed xmms.

    14. Re:Why I dropped Lycoris by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      Tux racer requires a hardware accelerated Opengl driver to run at a decent speed. My 900 runs at about 5 seconds per frame -- until I install the drivers for my video card, then it runs fine. Unfortunately, the card in your computer likely doesn't have such drivers. There are only a handful of cards which do, including recent ATI and Nvidia cards.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    15. Re:Why I dropped Lycoris by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      about winmodems, it really depends who makes it. With rockwell/connexant winmodems, all you need to do is install the RPM. You can be up and running on the internet without a reboot.

      I never got the PCTEL one to work though, but I blame that on PCTEL, considering the number of companies which showed some degree of actual COMPETENCE with their bloody driver installations!

      Source only? What does this look like? Linux circa 1995?

      --
      It's been a long time.
    16. Re:Why I dropped Lycoris by kaustik · · Score: 1

      That's what I figured. I'm using an embedded s3 Savage 4 AGP on a Soyo Mobo... Can't find opengl linux drivers anywhere... Is that game worth looking further?

    17. Re:Why I dropped Lycoris by dopeghost · · Score: 1

      I don't know about you, but Mum wants to write letters and she wants to see one word processor, not vim, emacs, AbiWord, OpenOffice Write, Kate, [...]

      while there may be many different versions of wordprocessors (office suites, and even desktops) from open source developers there also used to be many different commercial wordprocessor packages before a defacto standard (word) emerged.
      Over time defacto (ie: stndard bundled versions) of open source software will also appear

      --
      This UID is 7651 digits too high to subjectively infer IQ from.
    18. Re:Why I dropped Lycoris by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      I used to have a savage4, but I never got the 3d to work under Linux. I think the only 3d driver I found was commercial(ie. you pay for it, might as well just get an nvidia if you're going to dish out some cash). There were rumors of an open source driver in development, but I never got an address, and my source (s3planet.demon.co.uk) died a terrible death(of dead links and eventual closure).

      the link to the commercial drivers

      You can also download a demo above, but I'm not sure how long it lasts or what problems with it could be.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    19. Re:Why I dropped Lycoris by kaustik · · Score: 1

      thanks

  8. Umm by tmark · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Q: Who says Linux is dead on the desktop? ;-)"

    A: Everyone who isn't a Linux chauvinist, OR who doesn't believe that before Linux can be dead on the desktop, it has to first be "alive" on the desktop first. I don't think that Linux even registers as being on the desktop in the orthodox sense.

    N.B. I believe this even though I am writing this from Linux.

    1. Re:Umm by warmcat · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I disagree... my wife was in here at the weekend and she saw that I was in Mozilla on a site categorizing the food by country (http://www.recipesource.com/), took over the keyboard, found some Thai recipes she had been looking for and printed them off.

      I pointed out to her that she had been using Linux (the rest of the machines in the house are currently 98 or XP), and she agreed that it had been no effort.

      So this 'Linux on the Desktop' thing is less about Linux and more about having screen furniture, File menus, browsers, printing, etc, working in a consistent and normal way. I am using KDE3 and it really isn't far away from where it needs to be.

      Sure there are games and specific apps that won't come over from Windows despite Wine and Crossover Office (which fixed the problems with Quickbooks 6 in wine for printing), but I was very pleasantly surprised with how far everything had come since I last looked a year or so ago.

    2. Re:Umm by zangdesign · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I would hardly call that "using Linux" - I would call it using a browser. Kudos to your wife for not even pausing to take a breath, but really - the mozilla UI is pretty much standardized on all platforms.

      --
      To celebrate the occasion of my 1000th post, I will post no more forever on Slashdot. Goodbye.
    3. Re:Umm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have to be kidding me? You think that your wife using a web browser qualifies her to say anything about Linux? I think it is pretty obvious that the basic use of Mozilla is the same as any other browser. As for printing, I assume you set that up ahead of time and she didn't attempt to install the printer herself. She just chose File > Print. Wow. Your wife must be a rocket scientist or something.

    4. Re:Umm by Ami+Ganguli · · Score: 5, Insightful
      N.B. I believe this even though I am writing this from Linux.

      Funny, so am I. So there are at least two users who have to switch to away from Linux before it dies on the desktop. I have reason to believe there are a few million more out there like us, so Linux isn't even close to dead on the desktop.

      Linux is making steady, but slow progress. As long as it isn't going backwards (which certainly is not the case) then I don't see anything to worry about. There are enough developers today to keep my Gnome desktop looking cool, and that's all I need.

      Now when will Linux go mainstream on the desktop as it has on the server? Dunno. The conditions keep getting better, but the inertia in the Windows market is incredible.

      What's the rush anyway?

      --
      It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail. - Abraham Maslow
    5. Re:Umm by cmorriss · · Score: 1
      As long as it isn't going backwards (which certainly is not the case)...

      Let me be the first to tell you it is. While it is true that Linux is not getting worse, for it to move forward, it needs to move at at least the same speed as Windows. Frankly, I think Linux was closer to windows five years ago than it is now. Thus, in that sense it is moving backwards.

      While I used to want to see Linux on the desktop do more than just play follow the leader with Windows, the fact is that with the current amount of effort being put into desktop Linux, it doesn't now nor ever will stand a chance against Windows.

      --
      10 minutes working on a sig. What a waste.
    6. Re:Umm by Ami+Ganguli · · Score: 2

      In what sense? The only progress I've noticed on the Windows desktop in the last five years is that it doesn't crash as much. Linux, on the other hand, finally has:

      • A polished desktop environment (two, actually)
      • Solid productivity apps
      • Good support for multimedia
      • An amazing Web browser (or several, depending on taste and definition)
      • Easy point-and-click installation
      • GUI admin tools

      None of these existed five years ago. Some were shaky even a year ago.

      --
      It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail. - Abraham Maslow
    7. Re:Umm by warmcat · · Score: 2

      >the mozilla UI is pretty much standardized on all platforms

      That was my point. She uses a very limited number of apps, eg, the browser, Word. Even her email is done via the browser. So long as the OS does not actively get in her way, she would be quite happy with KDE3, Mozilla, and Open Office. The fact that its Linux running it all underneath is not relevant to her.

      I think a lot of users are in this situation, all day they interact with web pages and for them the browser is ''the computer'', plus they know a handful of apps. They have someone else to set up networking, printers, where there are more obvious differences. They are quite ready to run a modern Linux distro, will not care, and if they are pleased it will be because they find more free games under the 'Start' menu (or if they are coming from a 95/98/Me machine, because it will not crash any more).

    8. Re:Umm by Hard_Code · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "So this 'Linux on the Desktop' thing is less about Linux and more about having screen furniture. File menus, browsers, printing, etc, working in a consistent and normal way."

      For a coherent GUI to work in a "consistent and normal way" it is imperative that the operating system also work in a consistent normal way which hopefully reduces the impedence mismatch between the GUI and actual operating system abstractions. AFAICT, Linux, and Unix in general, is horribly horribly inadequate to match a decent GUI. Linux/Unix has no component model and everything feels like a one off - APIs are flat, configuration files get dumped into the /etc ghetto, and applications are broken up by content (binaries go here, man pages go there, configuration goes elsewhere), instead of staying atomic wholes. This is entirely different from how a GUI presents an application, as a whole, with help and configuration integrated. Mac OS X seems to have overcome this hurdle with a workaround called "bundles". The user experience is not provided solely by "screen furniture". This is an elitist idea. The OS has to have the desktop user in the picture from the start. Unfortunately since it is "good enough" for most Linux/Unix users, who have themselves already learned to work at the command line, and have spent a lot of time (often painful)accustoming themselves to Unix, there is little impetus to "fix" anything at the OS level. I certainly do not begrudge the KDE or Gnome projects, I think they are valiant. But grafting wings to a tank does not make it a fighter jet. I never understood why the open source crowd decided to hop on the Unix horse. Proprietary Unix is no better than proprietary Windows, or proprietary Mac OS. So why do we persist in insisting that Unix should be the basis for a desktop OS? Fortunately there are projects like Atheos, Open BeOS, Cosmoe, etc., which are trying to tackle these problems. Microsoft will keep laughing to the bank if we continue forcing Unix on users without trying to meet them half way (well, ok KDE/Gnome is probably half way, but if we really want to have an open source OS on the desktop, we will certainly have to go way further than that to displace Windows). That's the end of my rant, flame on. And send some flamage to that know-nothing Miguel de Icaza for writing "Let's Make Unix Not Suck" while you're at it.

      --

      It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
    9. Re:Umm by j1mmy · · Score: 1

      I would certainly call it "using a computer". Think about what the average user really does: checks e-mail, surfs web, instant messaging, listens to music, etc. These are all things that a user can now do as easily in linux as in windows.

    10. Re:Umm by ericman31 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Now when will Linux go mainstream on the desktop as it has on the server?

      Linux will go mainstream on the desktop when two things happen.

      First, the average consumer has to perceive Linux as being more than just a playground for computer nerds and an inexpensive server alternative. This will take some doing. Between MS FUD and the behavior of many people in the Linux community there is a lot to overcome.

      Second, Linux has to become easier to use for the average consumer. I'm in the industry and don't want ease of use, but rather power and stability, flexibility and reliability. The consumer market measures those things differently than IT professionals or developers or hardcore hobbyists do. Stability means no blue screens for the 2 hours of web surfing, it means their games run fine and they can send and receive email. Windows does that, by and large. And they don't have to know anything about the OS. They mostly don't even have to know how to install it. If they download something they still don't have to know anything about the OS or how to install things.

      This is bad you say? That's cause you either are a masochist, or you enjoy computing at a different level, or this is your profession. The consumer wants his computer to be an appliance, like his TV, VCR or toaster. If it's more complex than that, he has fits.

      --
      In my universe I'm perfectly normal, it's not my fault you don't live in my universe.
    11. Re:Umm by byran+lei · · Score: 0

      >does not make it a fighter jet. I never understood why the open source
      >crowd decided to hop on the Unix horse.
      >
      >
      1) We like Unix apps
      2) To get as far away as possible from people like you.

    12. Re:Umm by Smedrick · · Score: 1

      A polished desktop environment

      Sure, if by polished you mean "clunky and slow".

      Why can't we come up with a different desktop environment all together? Why does there have to be a "start menu" and an Explorer-type interface. I'm this is not the only way to give someone a usuable interface. What Linux needs to convince the average computer user (not Joe Moron...he'll buy whatever's on sale at Walmart that week) is a radical step in a different direction. Win XP/2000 gives me everything I need to do my coding/design/slacking off. What Linux needs to prove to me that it's not dying on the desktop is a bold new UI (and compatibility with Windows software wouldn't help either *nod to Lindows*).

      When I saw Lycoris, I said to myself sarcasticly, "wow, I haven't seen this before." I need something that reflects the creativity (wishful thinking?) of the open source community before I drop Windows from my desktop.

      --
      "I strongly urge both the faint of heart and the faint of butt to leave the room at this time."
      - Strong Bad
    13. Re:Umm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fortunately there are projects like Atheos, Open BeOS, Cosmoe

      Well hey, I may as well mention Syllable as well. AtheOS has been forked, and thats the fork.

      AtheOS development itself it pretty much dead, these days.

    14. Re:Umm by Ami+Ganguli · · Score: 2

      My desktop isn't clucky or slow. It also doesn't look all that much like Windows. I'm not sure what the default Gnome config is nowadays, but my setup has a Mac-like menu bar at the top and no panel at the bottom. I rather like it.

      As for bold, radical interfaces, sure that would be cool. In fact I noticed that some UI researcher did a presentation at the Gnome Summit. But the truth is that isn't going to attract mainstream users. They couldn't care less.

      --
      It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail. - Abraham Maslow
    15. Re:Umm by 13Echo · · Score: 2

      What's the problem here? There are MANY types of desktops for Linux machines.

      The most popular types tend to mimic that standard "button bar here - system tray here" idea because that is what people are used to. It wasn't even started on Windows, but has evolved to become the most common form of GUI. Some people just like it. If not, you can run FluxBox or something like that.

      Nothing personal, but perhaps you haven't really experienced the flexibility of the UNIX GUI? Lycoris opts to go the KDE route because that formula *works* for most people. It is tried and true, and is used by billions of Windows users. Why try to teach an old dog new tricks when a user can switch to an OS that has a familiar feel? That is the *whole idea of Lycoris*!

    16. Re:Umm by Hard_Code · · Score: 2
      byran lei sez:
      1) We like Unix apps
      2) To get as far away as possible from people like you.
      I rest my case.
      --

      It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
    17. Re:Umm by imr · · Score: 2

      "I would call it using a browser".
      But that's what being a viable desktop is: users don't need to know or use the underlying os low level in order to achieve the tasks they need.
      In that view, linux has been desktop ready for quite some time. (since kde2 i believe, but that's me).
      I've installed linux as the os of my parents, the day they needed internet. They never used a computer before and when i said "and then you press enter" to my father, he looked at me puzzled.
      After one hour of training, they know how to login whith kdm, how to connect to internet, how to fire and use konqueror and kmail, how to deal with the files they receive in their home directory.
      They just don't need anything else yet.
      Oh yes, one more thing, they were really happy to know that their os was free as in freedom and virus free as in sane.

    18. Re:Umm by spencerogden · · Score: 1

      The question to ask is weather she would have be able to set up the printer in windows? Maybe yes maybe no. It is important to remember that many task in windows, like installing a printer are made easier because of vendor support in the form of a quick start card and easy to install drivers. These are not parts of the OS and unfortunately there is not much that can be done, its just the usual chicken and egg problem.

    19. Re:Umm by Smedrick · · Score: 1

      It depends what you mean by "mainstream". A large portion of computer users is the /. type of crowd. And I'm sure we'd all be interested in a new interpretation of how a computer works.

      As for the other "mainstream", like I said, they'll most likely use whatever come pre-installed as long as it plays music and spider solitare.

      --
      "I strongly urge both the faint of heart and the faint of butt to leave the room at this time."
      - Strong Bad
    20. Re:Umm by cmorriss · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      Fuck Off.

      Spoken like a true troll. Go back to your Linux and play while I get some work done.

      --
      10 minutes working on a sig. What a waste.
    21. Re:Umm by Smedrick · · Score: 1

      I'll admit that I probably haven't seen all that's out there in terms of desktop environments, but I have yet to see something radically different from MacOS or Windows. (I'm definitely open for more suggestions!) And I understand that the purpose of Lycoris is to mimic the whole XP experience, but my point was that "isn't everyone doing that?" I think your average UNIX user would be able to handle a change in UI without much difficulty.

      You ask, "Why teach an old dog new tricks?"

      Why not?

      (Thanks for the FluxBox suggestion, btw. Looks like I'm going to have some fun playing with this.)

      --
      "I strongly urge both the faint of heart and the faint of butt to leave the room at this time."
      - Strong Bad
    22. Re:Umm by leviramsey · · Score: 1
      My desktop isn't clucky or slow. It also doesn't look all that much like Windows. I'm not sure what the default Gnome config is nowadays, but my setup has a Mac-like menu bar at the top and no panel at the bottom. I rather like it.

      GNOME2 (at least as packaged by Mandrake, though I think Fred Crozat has indicated that this is the preferred look by the GNOME people) features two panels (one top, with menus and applets and one bottom, with the tasklist, pager, and such). I fairly quickly made the lower one a floating panel, so it looks vaguely OS X-ish. It looks pretty good.

    23. Re:Umm by Dunkalis · · Score: 1

      ROX and work great. ROX is very file-oriented, like UNIX itself. I personally use GNOME 2 right now, but thats because I couldn't get ROX working perfectly in Debian.

      GNOME 2 is very nice, very sleek and streamlined. If I wanted, I could change the look so drastically, I'd scare myself.

      --
      Slashdot is a waste of time. I enjoy wasting time.
    24. Re:Umm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Linux will go mainstream on the desktop when two things happen.

      Linux won't go mainstream on the desktop until it has abundant games. Entertainment software is still the king. If you don't have games then the masses aren't interested.

    25. Re:Umm by alienw · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You do realize that everything you're talking about does not have anything to do with Linux? Linux is a kernel. It is also not characteristic of Unix - MacOS X (which you seem to love) is based on Unix. It's just the simple fact that KDE or Gnome should get off their ass, try to stop being everything to all people (platform-neutral - what's the damn point?) and try to integrate better with the underlying system. The situation you described is just as it should be. Config files are in /etc. Programs are in /bin, /usr/bin, /usr/local/bin, etc. Do you want everything dumped in one directory? Why the fuck do programs need to be atomic? WHO gives a FUCK how the GUI presents it? The main problem with Linux is that nobody wants to do the mundane tasks - write docs, write config applets, make tools easy to use. The projects you're talking about have no chance of success. With a couple of developers each and no users, they can not possibly become anything even remotely useful. The only reason Linux became a success is because it was built on an established foundation (GNU/Unix). If you would stop bitching and wasting your time with useless projects and actually do something useful (like write a KDE config applet) the Linux desktop could actually become better. And don't give me the bullshit about Miguel de Icaza. Just because he is a GNOME developer does not make him a GUI expert. Given that Gnome is far worse than KDE or anything else from an end-user perspective, I wouldn't listen to him too much.

    26. Re:Umm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you want everything dumped in one directory? Why the fuck do programs need to be atomic? WHO gives a FUCK how the GUI presents it?

      Who gives a fuck about how people 30 years ago did shit either? Maybe, just maybe, keeping all aspects of an application together makes sense. You're too much of an 'old school' bigot to think that perhaps doing something 'new' (within the past 10-15 years) is selling out to the "M$ Wind0z3" crowd, don't you?

      Your mention of 'configuration applets' shows where your head is at - wouldn't it be better if there was a standard way of configuring most apps, instead of 'having' to write separate config tools for everything?

    27. Re:Umm by mbspweb · · Score: 1

      First, the average consumer has to perceive Linux as being more than just a playground for computer nerds....[snip]

      The average consumer has to perceive Linux, period. And I just don't think that's happening, yet (at least outside the IT industry).

    28. Re:Umm by 13Echo · · Score: 2

      Windowmaker is also pretty cool if you are looking for something lean and radically different than KDE.

      I like it, but the true-type font rasterization and stuff in KDE is pretty nice. So I stick with the typical glitzy, resource crunching, KDE 3 interface (heavily modified). Mostly, this is because most of the programs that I use are KDE/QT programs, and I like everything to look uniform (I am too lazy to make GTK skins just to have everything uniform).

    29. Re:Umm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Your mention of 'configuration applets' shows where your head is at - wouldn't it be better if there was a standard way of configuring most apps, instead of 'having' to write separate config tools for everything?

      You idiot. That is what he meant.

    30. Re:Umm by ericman31 · · Score: 1

      I think it's happening outside the IT industry, but it's like UNIX, perceived as something used in the IT industry and by computer nerds/geeks. My wife, who used to work for one of the Fortune 100 IT companies (one with a 3 letter abbreviation) frequently describes text based applications in MVS and UNIX as "DOS based" and when I try to tell her they aren't "DOS based" she says "They all came from DOS". DOS is seen as difficult and not user friendly. If people think Linux/UNIX is DOS based (which apparently even people who should know better do) you can see a glimmer of the problem in the consumer market to be overcome.

      Bottom line, consumers want to worry about how to use their apps, whether browser, or email or games or multimedia. They don't want to have to deal with installing libraries and dependencies and how to restart X and so forth. They would rather power the PC off and back on than learn how to restart X.

      The consumer won't care what OS they use as long as: 1. It is perceived as stable and useful. 2. The apps they want to use run on it (they don't want "file compatability, they want to use Word). 3. It is not expensive (thus the bundling of MS works, they don't know how much it costs) 4. They don't have to learn how to use the OS beyond file system navigation and simple to use installation routines. 5. The OS and apps are well marketed to the consumer.

      Apple screwed up on #3. OS/2 screwed up on #3 and #5. Linux major problem is #2 and #5.

      --
      In my universe I'm perfectly normal, it's not my fault you don't live in my universe.
    31. Re:Umm by dcstimm · · Score: 1

      Your Statement about how applications install is not a problem. If you have ever used MACOSX you will see /etc/ holds everything including passwd and all the normal unix stuff. Macosx is lucky because it only runs on specific hardware (ppc arch) so they can make binaries on one machine and it will work on every other machine on the market that runs Macosx. So their little bundle makes the users life alot easier. We have the same thing on x86 PCs but the distros have to remember the only binaries that will work on every x86 arch is "i386" which will slow things down a bit. Nothing is optimized. while distros like gentoo have fixed this problem Gentoo is alittle to advanced for the normal user. (but I have installed it on my sisters computer and she loves it). My sister doesnt know the difference between kde3 and windows 2000. her favorite games work (snood and station.com, and she is very happy) And she loves the idea if something freezes she just needs to do a ctrl alt + backspace, then type startx at the console (to her thats the same as a reboot). She would have never been able to install windows 2000 so having me install gentoo linux is not a big deal. Most people dont care what OS they are using, they just want their favorite apps to work and work correctly. Check out this screenshot http://linux.darylstimm.com/mysister.jpg it proves how easy you can make a desktop look and feel. if she needs a program installed I just say what do you want to install? she tells me and 99% of the time its already on the computer. and if it isnt its only one step away, go to xterm and type sudo emerge app. I hope you realize that linux is ready for the prime time. I know people that buy a powerbook and instead of Using Macosx they install PPClinux. And it seems you havent used a real distro, try gentoo linux... if you use the stage 3 tarball you can get the system up and running within 3 hours.

    32. Re:Umm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spoken like a true troll. Go back to your Linux and play while I get some work done.

      Funny. I use a linux desktop for my serious work, and a win box for playing games. Doing anything else on windows is too painfull.

    33. Re:Umm by MWelchUK · · Score: 1

      Just a small point, where would a beast like the Windows registry fit into the neat atomic model, I think that is far worse than the /etc directory!

      Infact its one of the main reasons I stopped using Microsoft products.

      As a 21 student who upto 2 years ago almost worshipped Microsoft in my ignorance, I am all for people having to learn a fair amount before being able to use a computer. I am now fighting to learn to have the patience to read HOWTO's and not to be afraid to edit very well documented config files rather than blindly click on buttons and I am far more appriecative and proud of the results.

      When I wanted to use a car I had to learn to drive (admittedly more for other peoples safety). When I got to Uni I had to learn how to use a washing machine to get clean clothes, when I wanted to have something more than microwaved curries I had to learn to cook, when I wanted to record a TV show I had to learn how to program the VCR (obviously before I got to uni). Why should it not be the same for using a computer?

    34. Re:Umm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Now when will Linux go mainstream on the desktop as it has on the server?

      the problem is that most of the users out there are trained on windows. if there was a linux desktop that functioned *exactly* like windows and was free it would quickly rule. now pretend you're a windows user, that's all you know, and microsoft's next release of windows look like [insert any linux desktop here]. currently most windows users would kill to get back to something they can use.

      it's incremental gui evolution. when the increment from the windows to the linux gui is small enough linux will start to take over.

    35. Re:Umm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you ever used GNOME you would know it doesn't have a "start menu". Its extremely modular, and KDE isn't far behind. KDE offers some additional features that make it feel more integrated, but I have yet to see GNOME 2.0. But neither are clunky or slow after you configure them to your liking. The problem isn't the desktop its the users. Unix has been stable for 30 years, but has always had a problem and that is simply "user error". Once the user learns how to use the computer then the problem goes away.

    36. Re:Umm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not?

      Because the dog is old, quite like a dinosaur, and will probably die soon. If you teach the dog it won't have a chance to fully comprehend the concepts it learned and it won't be able to help teach other old dogs because its too old to care anymore. It just wants what it already has and feels jealous when other dogs have more. Its a good thing people aren't dogs.

      Radically different you say? How can a 2D desktop get any more radical or different? There's a limit to the functionality of 1000x1000 pixels. However there are 3D desktops that have plenty of room for innovation and they are also being developed on linux.

    37. Re:Umm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > It's just the simple fact that KDE or Gnome should get off their ass, try to stop being everything to all people (platform-neutral - what's the damn point?) and try to integrate better with the underlying system.

      When you have contributed enough to the KDE or Gnome projects in order to request and be named the project leader, you may then direct the development of said projects.

      Otherwise, you've no reason to bitch about something that other people are creating for free with their valuable time and effort, and giving away for free so that people like you can do nothing but complain about it.

    38. Re:Umm by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 2
      Mac OS X seems to have overcome this hurdle with a workaround called "bundles". The user experience is not provided solely by "screen furniture". This is an elitist idea. The OS has to have the desktop user in the picture from the start.

      Elitist? Hardly. For your information, distributing applications as bundles has a set of disadvantages as well as advantages:

      Advantages : Simple, and programs can be easily manipulated by the user. Programs can be easily copied, downloaded, etc. Uninstallation/installation is drag and drop.

      Disadvantages : No dependancies (MacOS, being proprietary, has very little code sharing compared to Linux, and virtually all deps are based in the OS upgrades, so it doesn't really need them). No installation scripts - you can't present EULAs [1], request copy protect keys, remove generated data such as configs on uninstall and so on. Makes piracy much easier, as applications can simply be dragged onto a disk. Witness the case of a kid who was caught copying MS Office X onto his iPod - this would be much harder with Linux, and almost impossible with Windows. No install time customisation: for instance, with Mozilla you can opt to not have the Mail program, Chatzilla etc if you don't want them. This is not an option with the appfolders system.

      Because of all these disadvantages, Apple provides the Apple Installer service. Some programs use this, I believe XDarwin does. However, even this is not advanced enough for some apps, so Wise is making a tidy packet out of providing InstallShield style stub programs to deal with all the features that some people need, but appfolders lack.

      In short get off your horse. This idea that the desktop must be "designed with the user in mind", or that the Linux packages system is "elitist", is, frankly, bollocks. On what basis do you assume you are an expert in this area? [rant] I find a lot of Mac users are like this. They assume because they bought a Mac, they are instantly usability experts. They are not of course. [end rant].

      I never understood why the open source crowd decided to hop on the Unix horse. Proprietary Unix is no better than proprietary Windows, or proprietary Mac OS.

      The reasons for why UNIX was chosen rather cloning anything else or creating something new from scratch are well documented in the GNU Manifesto. You should read it, it's very interesting. If you can't be bothered however, here is the reasoning:

      Our aim is to create an open/free platform. It is not to create a "cool" research OS, it is freedom. Therefore we will recreate something that we know will work, and that we know is good. Most importantly, as the internet is still in the early stages of development, we must be able to work with minimal communication between the teams. Therefore we will use UNIX, as it's highly modular, there is a lot of shared experience here, and although is it not perfect, it is not bad (Stallmans words, not mine). UNIX is also very well standardised through POSIX and so on, and was well designed to begin with. This way, we will avoid endless flamewars over how to design the "perfect" OS, by uniting people behind a common goal they can work towards largely in isolation.

      So that is why Linux is based on UNIX and not something else entirely.

      [1] I had somebody tell me you can put them into the background of a .dmg file - not good enough I'm afraid, they must be click through. The best time for this is at installation. You can put it on first execution if you like, but how do you record that the user accepted? By using a config file that will be left hanging around when the user uninstalls the app?

    39. Re:Umm by TheQuantumShift · · Score: 2

      You're a student of 21? What were the blackjack courses all booked up? You never washed your own clothes before college? Yet you make a valid point about the registry, it is a mess. That and the shifty licensing are the only reasons windows sucks. I too think people should be a little more educated for computer use, but sifting through newsgroups, howto's, and year old docs just trying to get a fucking souncard to work, that's not education, that's geeky obsession.

      --

      Shift happens. Fire it up.
    40. Re:Umm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh? 3D desktop in Linux? Tell me more.

    41. Re:Umm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong. MacOSX has those files for single user startup. As soon as the kernel boots, NetInfo takes over. Some of us, myself included, despise that bastardized Windows Registry wannabe, but OS X, for most of the systemland processes, keeps EVERYTHING inside NI, accounts, passwords, firewall settings, services, networking. About the only config file that is actually used is httpd.conf for Apache. OS X Apps dump their stuff in the ~/Library, or the /Library areas if they need to.

      And you dont seem to have used OS X, because if you did, you'd understand that everything is contained in the .app package, the documentation is often in there too. The Application can be moved from folder to folder without it borking. Try moving the Mozilla binary out of /usr/local/mozilla (or wherever you stuck it), say to ~, and I mean AFTER the install. Watch the app bork.

      And I have a few other disagreements with what you said. Try copying text out of a QT app into a GTK+ app, or out of Moz into anything. XWindows as itself has no competant clipboard system, so the Desktop Environments hack it in there, but it only works properly with their own apps.

      Part of having a desktop is letting the user do what they want. Linux nearly has it. Nearly. Its just missing some things that can be real annoyance when you need them.

    42. Re:Umm by InfernoBlade · · Score: 1

      MS Office X isnt a bundle, so using it as an example isnt even relevent. Its an old CFM app, an OS 9 app. And if MS had a brain there, it would have stuck the registration information in the /Library/Preferences directory and hidden it. But MS made installation a little too easy, and stuck their registration information in the Office folder, so you could drag and drop the folder.

      And while you may consider that a disadvantage that you cant move apps around, I consider it a huge advantage. Say I want to rearrange my OS X box's /Applications folder, I create new folders there, drop the apps in, and all of them work. On Windows, update registry hell. On Linux, find conf files, edit them, if you can.

      And the Installer systems exist for programs that need to stick crap in Systemland, such as configs in the /Library rather in the ~/Library. They dont exist for any other reason. If you want an EULA, make your App display it on first run like what Blizzard does with its games, or make the App Bundle on a disc image with an agreement, which is what most X downloaded programs are.

    43. Re:Umm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MS arrogance will is too much they think windows will rule . Guess what listen MS troll Java is kicking .Net' butt (dot not ).Net is dead. In desktop Linux will rule very soon too. We will see who will have the last laugh

    44. Re:Umm by nathanh · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I never understood why the open source crowd decided to hop on the Unix horse.

      Because UNIX:

      • is well documented
      • has 30 years of research behind it
      • is familiar to many programmers
      • has lots of free user-space software
      • isn't really that bad

      Designing an entirely new OS means reinventing lots of wheels, relearning lots of mistakes, and massive porting efforts to get even basic apps on the desktop. Not to mention reteaching everybody how to use the new OS API, and developers needing to refind all the the tricks of the trade.

      It took Microsoft 10 years to build a new OS to the point where it didn't completely suck. The research costs must have been enormous. Can you imagine the free software developers doing the same thing with no budget?

    45. Re:Umm by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 2
      And while you may consider that a disadvantage that you cant move apps around, I consider it a huge advantage. Say I want to rearrange my OS X box's /Applications folder, I create new folders there, drop the apps in, and all of them work. On Windows, update registry hell. On Linux, find conf files, edit them, if you can.

      Huh? On Windows/Linux you never move apps around, because you have menus that can be reordered instead. The fact that on the Mac there are no apps menus simply means you have to perform filing system manipulations as well - by the way, how do you deal with multi-user scenarios here? Does everybody share the same menu/Applications folder?

      MS Office X isnt a bundle, so using it as an example isnt even relevent. Its an old CFM app, an OS 9 app.

      Dunno about this, maybe you're right. When I used Office X it seemed like a pretty tight rewrite to me, certainly it used Appfolders and was all Aquified.

      But MS made installation a little too easy, and stuck their registration information in the Office folder, so you could drag and drop the folder.

      Or maybe it was because otherwise if you uninstalled apps, you'd end up with a load of hidden files just lying around not being used in the Prefs folder?

      And the Installer systems exist for programs that need to stick crap in Systemland, such as configs in the /Library rather in the ~/Library. They dont exist for any other reason.

      Most Installers do way more than this. They check registration codes, let you customise the components of the app... the list goes on and on.

    46. Re:Umm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try moving Final Cut Pro after install and you will have some fun. I've tried it. Reinstall.

  9. Lycoris Desktop drawn for children by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wy does every new OS (Lycoris, XP etc.) have to look like a fricken cartoon!

    1. Re:Lycoris Desktop drawn for children by Budgreen · · Score: 1

      I will second that!

      This looks way to much like the M$ desktop for 10yr olds.. just click the big phone icon and you go online! wow..

      seriously tho WindowMaker rules :P

      --
      The greatest right given is the right to be wrong...
    2. Re:Lycoris Desktop drawn for children by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MacOS X?

    3. Re:Lycoris Desktop drawn for children by boowax · · Score: 1

      because when it comes to computers most people feel like 10 year olds! The average user wants a nice friendly screen that looks as non-technical as possible. If it looks like its going to require thought (the opposite of most cartoons) its going to be frightening to those who don't feel comfortable with the inner workings of their computer. People want a black box...a big shiny, cutesy, cartoony, drop-everthing-right-in-my-lap black box. This is why people like MacOS and the newer versions of windows. Its a psychology thing...thats why Mac was considered more user-friendly for so long (and to some extent still is) despite being much harder to work with if you want to get into the guts of your system. Linux is of course the opposite of this....lots of power and little fluff...not what the average user wants! He doesn't want control he wants ease!!!

      --

      You report, Slashdot decides
      Prevueing you're poast ownly hellps iff ewe no how two spel inn teh furst plase
  10. I Wonder... by D-Cypell · · Score: 0

    Redmond Linux Corp? I Smell a .rat!

  11. Network browser by Kingpin · · Score: 2

    Their network browser looks very very nice. Anyone know if a similar tool exists for gnome?

    Spanks.

    --
    Unable to read configuration file '/bigassraid/htdig//conf/14229.conf'
    Geocrawler error message.
    1. Re:Network browser by XavierXeon · · Score: 2, Informative

      It is Konqueror and as such not available for Gnome.

      However it is possible to run KDE apps from within Gnome if you have KDE installed.

    2. Re:Network browser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One probably does.

      But all the cool kids use KDE3. You can browse the network just fine with konqueror.

    3. Re:Network browser by avishal · · Score: 1

      checkout LinNeighborhood, works fine on gnome (never tried on kde).

      http://www.bnro.de/~schmidjo/

      --
      v==hal if /wal/; #if (Perl) = agar (Hindi)
    4. Re:Network browser by Raleel · · Score: 2

      Actually, nautilus will do _some_ of this, but I don't think it will browse the network. It does do samba though

      Ones that I can think of include gnomba and LinNeighborhood

      --
      -- Who is the bigger fool? The fool or the fool who follows him? --
    5. Re:Network browser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      neither does konqueurueroeroor. it just plugs into this shitty program called lisa or lice or something. and to get that to work, you've gotta set up all these boring network submasknet ranges and other gay nerd shit. kde is for fags and doublefags.

    6. Re:Network browser by stevey · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's not Konqueror according to their page - It's 'The Desktop/LX Network BrowserTM'.

      That seems a bit shabby to me - calling a standard application by a completely different name, and then trademarking it.

    7. Re:Network browser by 13Echo · · Score: 2

      The same type of thing could be implemented into Nautilus... At least I would think so.

      Lycoris one-ups a lot of other distributions because they work heavily on customizing the GUI, instead of writing proprietary config tools (like Yast). But I am interested in seeing how some of these new Lycoris tools have turned out. It looks like they are taking a step in a better direction by making GUI-based controls for everything imaginable. But most look like simple hacks so far.

      The only problem here is that Lycoris deviates from a lot of standard KDE features so much, that it seems like they are a bit behind in implementing newer versions of software into their distribution. They use a relatively old version of KDE... While that isn't a big problem, when more apps demand QT3 and a lot of other KDE3 specific features, Lycoris will be left behind.

      I still love the distribution though, and am anxious to play with this new release.

    8. Re:Network browser by vadox · · Score: 1

      Actually on RH 7.3 if you type smb: on nautilus it displays my (small, home) SAMBA network just fine, it is however read-only.

      I've managed to mount each drive (mount -t smbfs...) and then packing all the commands at a small script and i had full access to my XP box samba shares.

      Don't know about security, probably its crap, but it works. just install samba rpms and edit smb.conf.

    9. Re:Network browser by spitzak · · Score: 2
      I would like to see this moved into libc (or into the kernel or whereever it has to be). I find it very annoying that I can type smb:foo into Konq but cannot type "cat smb:foo" to the shell. Is any real attempt being done at this? Everything I hear about requires you to link with a new library and change all the fopen/close calls, I would like a solution that gives every program this ability instantly.

      It would also help a ton if there was a "start" command line program so that any program that wants can "open" a file or other URL without having to think about it.

    10. Re:Network browser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, 'cause we've definitely got to accommodate your lameass needs as our number one priority.

  12. Linux on desks by mr_z_beeblebrox · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Unfortunately to get Linux on the desks of many businesses two things have to happen (actually 2 or 1 thing). First, it must be an identical experience to Windows. I don't understand that as much of Linux is from the user standpoint (ie tech support handles installs etc...)Businesses do not want to interrupt a known good proccess without an obvious ROI. Second, Microsoft itself must provide motivation (they are working on it with their licensing scheme).

    Alternatively, if a big group of corps start using it other people will too.

    1. Re:Linux on desks by rkhalloran · · Score: 1

      Given the improved uptime, decreased exposure to virii, bundling in of things like terminal emulators and office suites, and reduced/removed licensing fees (yes I know any business will be buying a support contract, why do you THINK IBM's so big on Linux?), even factoring in retraining it's still likely you'll see a nice ROI.

    2. Re:Linux on desks by mr_z_beeblebrox · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Given the improved uptime, decreased exposure to virii, bundling in of things like terminal emulators and office suites, and reduced/removed licensing fees (yes I know any business will be buying a support contract, why do you THINK IBM's so big on Linux?), even factoring in retraining it's still likely you'll see a nice ROI.

      Unfortunately, Linux is perceived as an engineers tool. We tell people, "Damn I use it at home so I don't HAVE TO WORK on computers at home (no crashes)" All they see is "I told you, the engineer uses it, it must be impossible" I am the senior (and junior) admin at my company. I would love not to buy 100 copies of Office 2000 but they "know" it is too tough. Trust me, I do side with you. I feel that economically, I could play with more and better servers if we didn't spend so much $$$ on bad user apps.

    3. Re:Linux on desks by wd123 · · Score: 1

      I can't say I agree with the "it must be identical to Windows" idea.

      My mother, for a very long time, worked at the headquarters of Sears. They used OS/2 at Sears for a long time (being lovers of IBM and having lots of IBM contracts and so forth). Eventually (circa 1998 or thereabouts) they dumped OS/2 for WinNT 4.0. If you've used OS/2 and WinNT 4, you'll certainly recognize that they are not very much alike, except for the superficiality of having windows and menus and things. So basically, Sears broke off a long-standing contract with IBM (although that contract may have been up for renewal) to roll out an NT distribution across several thousand desktops.

      Why? Probably because it was too expensive or difficult to get OS/2 developers, and possibly for various other reasons. It was certainly not to make the end-user's life any easier (as my mother often testified to me when she'd drag me in on weekends to help figure out "what the heck is wrong with this damn machine.") So, if you have something that basically works like Windows (or whatever), and is not incredibly painstaking to migrate to, (and in this case) is free free free! (or cheap :), I could definitely see a company being willing to switch.

      The only requirement to me seems to be that people stop assuming that you always "get what you pay for." My mother, for example, still doesn't get how you can just give software away for nothing. Not to say that Linux trumps Windows in quality (maybe this is unpopular sentiment, but by and large Windows is more friendly, if not more stable, than a desktop Unix). Still, Linux is definitely "good enough" at this point to be a replacement in a simple office-use environment, where people basically word process, email, spreadsheet, and maybe make presentations. At least for me. And as far as 'productivity' tools go, I do roughly as much as the typical end-user. :)

      To end a long ramble, basically, I think that Linux is ready to move in to a corporate world of limited/scaled down use. All someone really needs to do is make a distro with simple instructions on how to prevent end-users from doing anything they're not supposed to do (e.g. by creating a distro that allows you to create custom install images with very limited menu options, etc).

      --
      "question = (to) ? be : !be;" --Shakespeare
    4. Re:Linux on desks by Ami+Ganguli · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If this were really true then nobody would ever upgrade MS Windows either. Note the GUI changes between Windows 3.1 & 95, and again between NT & XP.

      Windows is kept on the desktop by inertia. Under inertia I also include a host of custom applications that most companies have built up over time.

      The thing is that most of the companies I've seen are gradually reducing their dependance on Windows. The new apps tend to be more and more browser based and will work anywhere. It's not gonna happen overnight, but there will be a shift away from Windows over time.

      --
      It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail. - Abraham Maslow
    5. Re:Linux on desks by mr_z_beeblebrox · · Score: 1

      Those are all good and valid points, and yes NT OS2 are a 'bit' different. Unfortunately the point I see as valid in the business world (where we need to function as consultants etc...) is that maintaining windows while $cumbersome is an accepted and stable expense. The learning curve for Linux is as yet unknown to most corporate types. They will not dump a known and stable cost (even a big one) for an area of uncertainty. I am not defending the corporate outlook of many companies on this merely expressing it.

    6. Re:Linux on desks by mr_z_beeblebrox · · Score: 1

      Your point on inertia is a very good point. However, inertia is part of the reason linux must have a 'windows like' interface. They must still feel that they are going forward in terms of usability etc...

      Browser based apps are the 'killer' app for OS independence. Which is probably why M$ implements web standards so poorly.

    7. Re:Linux on desks by wd123 · · Score: 1

      I agree and disagree here. For a medium sized shop, they're probably not going to be able to make a change like that. However, in a really big shop, they can actually work on and test a deployment in a small area with little real cost impact. Or, in other words, they can say "Let's try this Lycoris thing over in Sales in Podunkville." and see how it pans out.

      That being said, of course, the OS/2 path was well known and they dropped it (slowly :). With enough incentive, anyone would probably drop Windows as well. Amusingly, I've heard very little about the "Windows Subscription Model" lately, probably because Microsoft suddenly realized that nobody is going to incur that kind of cost when there are alternatives which are catching up to business needs rapidly.

      I think, as a side note, it's worth mentioning that most new products don't give businesses anything extra. Sears, for example, was still running NT as of November or so on most of its desktops. Most people couldn't tell you why Office XP is more useful than Office 97. Etc. Even if Linux was always five years behind Microsoft, in the business world, it wouldn't matter that much. Nobody cares that XP is prettier than NT in an office world, and nobody cares that it has native firewalling or ICS or better support for internet media or... If it runs the apps they want it to, that's all they need.

      Why pay Microsoft (or anybody) every year when you can either buy a license for as long as you (and your IT department) need to keep it for, or get it for free?

      --
      "question = (to) ? be : !be;" --Shakespeare
    8. Re:Linux on desks by mr_z_beeblebrox · · Score: 1

      I have only experience in a mid-size company. I imagine with an IT dept what you say is true. I want to be there!!!

    9. Re:Linux on desks by akandels · · Score: 1

      I disagree. Linux needs powerful software that isn't available on windows. The same thing, that as of now, is vice versa. Secondly, it needs a handy interface, but it doesn't have to be an identical one. As long as it's easy to use and looks nice, they will make the switch.

    10. Re:Linux on desks by ericman31 · · Score: 1

      The thing is that most of the companies I've seen are gradually reducing their dependance on Windows.

      I'll give you the Technical Architect point of view on why this is. It has nothing to do with shifting away from Windows. It is because then we don't have to worry about what DLL's, lib's, etc. are on a user's PC. We don't have to maintain the code on the user's PC. We don't have to roll out version changes to the user's PC. What Linux kernel, Solaris patch level or NT service pack they have is irrelevant. All we (the project team) have to do is tell desktop support to make sure all browsers are IE5 or Netscape 4 or better, for example, and the roll out is done. We develop once, test once, roll out to the server, train the users. We can connect users across the WAN, the Internet, the whatever. The OS is on it's way to becoming irrelevant on the corporate desktop.

      --
      In my universe I'm perfectly normal, it's not my fault you don't live in my universe.
    11. Re:Linux on desks by mr_z_beeblebrox · · Score: 1

      As long as it's easy to use and looks nice, they will make the switch.

      We don't use Kde, and it fits as I am guessing does gnome.

    12. Re:Linux on desks by virtual_mps · · Score: 1

      Hmm. In my experience many of these browser-based apps use activex and only work with msie. Browser-based apps are trendy, so you're seeing a lot of them--that doesn't mean the the people implementing them grasp the point.

    13. Re:Linux on desks by Amiga+Trombone · · Score: 1

      So basically, Sears broke off a long-standing contract with IBM (although that contract may have been up for renewal) to roll out an NT distribution across several thousand desktops.

      Actually, that probably happened at the behest of IBM themselves. They've been encouraging a migration off of OS/2 for several years now. But there are still some companies that swear by OS/2, though. I know as recently as 2001 there were still several business units at the Bank of America that were still using it, and were fighting like tigers to avoid migrating to Windows. Don't know if they're using it still.

    14. Re:Linux on desks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      true , which is why I dont think its a bad thing if KDE looks like windows. besides there are other window managers out there. and if kde were to get a good percentage of desktops say 5 years from now, maybe much better window managers will be promoted in the linux community.

    15. Re:Linux on desks by wd123 · · Score: 1

      That could possibly be true. I'm not sure, though. My discussion with the IT/integration folks was that there hadn't been a push from IBM.

      Personally, I don't blame those who want to keep OS/2. OS/2 was a great system. It had a nice, clean GUI, was full 32-bit preemptive multitasking, and ran quite nicely on my 486DX/33 w/ 8mb of RAM. OS/2 was one of those vastly superior pieces of software that was vanquished by the Microsoft Machine, and I definitely miss it. OS/2 had some odd quirks, to be sure (it took object oriented desktop computing to rather painful extremes at times) but overall it was a thing of beauty. It was basically what NT should have been, and couldn't become because of Win32.

      Ah, memories.

      --
      "question = (to) ? be : !be;" --Shakespeare
    16. Re:Linux on desks by ericman31 · · Score: 1

      What's your point?

      Yes, some browser based apps use ActiveX, but many more are written in Java and run on Java App Servers.

      --
      In my universe I'm perfectly normal, it's not my fault you don't live in my universe.
  13. I know who... by toupsie · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Who says Linux is dead on the desktop? ;-)

    The overwhelming numbers of BSD users do. As I always say, Linux for serving, OpenBSD for firewalling and Mac OS X for when you got to get things done.

    --
    Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
    1. Re:I know who... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Mac OS X for when you got to get things done.

      Mac OS is for women, homosexuals, and people who buy hardware because it's "cute!"

    2. Re:I know who... by tps12 · · Score: 3, Funny

      As I always say, Linux for serving, OpenBSD for firewalling and Mac OS X for when you got to get things done.

      Assuming by "serving" you mean "applying kernel patches," and by "getting things done" you mean "waiting for windows to render."

      --

      Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
    3. Re:I know who... by toupsie · · Score: 2

      And people that want a desktop for UNIX that doesn't suck @$$ like XFree86 with any Window Manager.

      --
      Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
    4. Re:I know who... by toupsie · · Score: 2
      Assuming by "serving" you mean "applying kernel patches,"

      If ain't broke, I don't touch it. I have Linux boxes with over 365 days of uptime. I consider those to have a "stable" kernel without need of patching.

      and by "getting things done" you mean "waiting for windows to render."

      That was Mac OS X 10.0 (Public Beta II). The current version (10.1.5) is very fast on my Dual G4. With Jaguar coming out next month, Quartz Extreme is going to make my fast system, super-duper fast when it comes to window rendering.

      --
      Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
    5. Re:I know who... by dieman · · Score: 1

      So instead of effeciencies, we plunder the hardware stash and make a UI that uses all your HW to death. Too bad the bulk of machines I see running OSX (iBooks, mostly the 12in variety) dont have the hardware to really do Quartz Extreme.

      I like having battery life on my lifebook, anyhow.

      --
      -- dieman - Scott Dier
    6. Re:I know who... by toupsie · · Score: 2
      So instead of effeciencies, we plunder the hardware stash and make a UI that uses all your HW to death.

      Isn't the biggest bitch about Apple that the "hardware is not as fast as x86"? So with that argument, it would appear that Quartz is "efficient".

      Too bad the bulk of machines I see running OSX (iBooks, mostly the 12in variety) dont have the hardware to really do Quartz Extreme.

      What? Quartz Extreme does not blunder hardware for performance. It just takes advantage of the capabilities of modern video cards with 16 megs of memory or more. And the current crop of iBooks (12" included) does have the capability to take advantage of Quartz Extreme.

      Next time review the specs...

      --
      Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
    7. Re:I know who... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Mac OS is for women, homosexuals, and people who buy hardware because it's "cute!" "

      And anyone who buys hardware because it's "cute!" falls into one of the first two catagories, leaving us only two:

      Women and homosexuals.

      That is all.

    8. Re:I know who... by avishal · · Score: 1

      You should be stoned for comparing OS X with Lindows/Windows (desktops i mean).

      gnome (ximian) is good enough for most of the things. Just hoping that codeweavers (www.codeweavers.com/products/crossover/) is acquired by RH/deb etc., so that we can handle M$ apps without booting into the M$ env (for free). Hate saving it in .doc format, but my organization is too naive for docBook (or XML). VMware helps, but won't let me do a `rm -rf windows` on my machine.

      --
      v==hal if /wal/; #if (Perl) = agar (Hindi)
    9. Re:I know who... by toupsie · · Score: 2
      Just hoping that codeweavers (www.codeweavers.com/products/crossover/) is acquired by RH/deb etc., so that we can handle M$ apps without booting into the M$ env (for free).

      Jeez, Mac OS X doesn't have to boot into a M$ env to handle M$ apps. We either use the real thing or just boot Windows within Mac OS X. And if we are feeling really unproductive, we can also boot Linux x86 within Mac OS X.

      --
      Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
    10. Re:I know who... by hendridm · · Score: 2

      > Mac OS is for women, homosexuals, and people who buy hardware because it's "cute!"

      Hmmm, regardless of the factualness of this statement (of which I largely agree), you're talking about a pretty large demographic. I'm sure Apple would love to get their hands on these people (as would any other OS vendor). After all, you're talking about well over 50% of the population.

    11. Re:I know who... by Pinehill.net · · Score: 1

      *ugh*
      I've been trying to use OS X for a year now (currently at v10.1.5) and is is still too frustratingly slow for real work.

      My x86 box with windowmaker and XFree 4.2 however is smoooooth, functional and looks awesome. Mad props out to all the l33t coderz responsible for mozilla, nautilus, Xfree, windowmaker, linux kernel, debian and all the rest.

    12. Re:I know who... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit! My powerbook G4 400 is UNUSABLE with OS X 10.1.5, CRAP! thank god for YellowDog Linux!!!!

    13. Re:I know who... by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 2
      The overwhelming numbers of BSD users do [apple.com].

      Two things you clearly don't understand.

      1) MacOS is not BSD. FreeBSD is BSD, OpenBSD is BSD, MacOS X is ... well, MacOS. That's why it's called MacOS and not Apple BSD. The fact that they used large parts of FreeBSD and Linux as the core is irrelevant. It is MacOS.

      2) There are at least 4 times as many Linux desktop users as MacOS X users. According to Apple, MacOS X has 0.5% market share (1 in 10 mac users, mac's have 5%). These figures were produced when under pressure from Microsoft to increase sales, so they're likely to be a slight overestimate. I'm assuming 2% Linux Desktop usage here, which is the estimate I get from IDC (an independant 3rd party). Don't assume that OS X has lots of users. Microsoft is struggling to make money from the premier office suite sales are so slow. What, Office X is too expensive? Is this from the people who are saying that $120 is reasonable from Apple? One quarter of the number of Linux users - this is hardly overwhelming.

      You can rant and rave about your shiny new toy all you like, the fact is, we don't care. The Mac is proprietary, and that's not the way forward. You're finding this out the hard way with the 10.2 upgrade price and dotMac. Quit the shills, it annoys us people who really do want to get things done.

    14. Re:I know who... by toupsie · · Score: 2
      You can rant and rave about your shiny new toy all you like, the fact is, we don't care. The Mac is proprietary, and that's not the way forward. You're finding this out the hard way with the 10.2 upgrade price and dotMac. Quit the shills, it annoys us people who really do want to get things done.

      Gee, someone is having a fit today!!! I guess I would be upset too if I had to boot into Windows to get any work done...

      Worst. Rant. Ever!

      --
      Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
    15. Re:I know who... by mfnickster · · Score: 1

      MacOS is not BSD. FreeBSD is BSD, OpenBSD is BSD, MacOS X is ... well, MacOS.

      Nah, you can call it Mac OS all you want, but it's really NeXT with an Apple 'skin' on it. So if NeXTStep was BSD, then Mac OS X is also. Personally, I think they merely plundered BSD, as did FreeBSD and OpenBSD.

      The fact that they used large parts of FreeBSD and Linux...

      I wasn't aware that they had used anything at all from Linux. Please enlighten me which bits are from Linux... things like gcc are GNU, but not necessarily Linux.

      There are at least 4 times as many Linux desktop users as MacOS X users.

      That's surprising to me, but if it's accurate it goes a long way toward showing that Linux is far from dead on the desktop.

      - MFN

      --
      "Slow down, Cowboy! It has been 3 years, 7 months and 26 days since you last successfully posted a comment."
  14. Re:Linux is dead on the desktop ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I use it for doing a bit of C/C++ and Java programming and my main pc for playing games (win2k).

    In other words, you boot it up on the rare occasions that you feel like typing some stuff you don't understand and seeing if you can compile something to say Hello World. Then, after feeling properly 1337, you go back to your win2k box.

  15. we've had it all wrong by bsDaemon · · Score: 2, Funny

    What any free os needs to succeed is a really good pinball version and atleast 13 versions of Solitare.

    1. Re:we've had it all wrong by larien · · Score: 2

      Worryingly enough, I believe that if I loaded linux for my mother with enough card games, she'd be happy with the result.

    2. Re:we've had it all wrong by Quill_28 · · Score: 1

      why do you think MS put those games on Windows 3.1 in the first place?

      To get users familiar using a mouse and pointing and clicking.

      The quickest way to get most users comfortable on a machine(OS), is let them play some simple yet fun games. Card games are a perfect choice.

      MS OS have problems because of stability, crappy command line, crappy windows system(unless u only run 1 maybe 2 programs at a time), lack of utilities installed, etc.

      But in terms of being user friendly, ease of installing programs, and relative ease of installing hardware, there is a lot to learn from them.

    3. Re:we've had it all wrong by hendridm · · Score: 2

      > MS OS have problems because of stability, crappy command line, crappy windows system(unless u only run 1 maybe 2 programs at a time), lack of utilities installed, etc.

      Lack os stability? Upgrade to Windows 2000 or higher and live in the now.

      Crappy command line? What doesn't it do that you need?

      1 or 2 programs at a time? I run lots of apps at a time and I have perfect stability, and the Alt-Tab or clicking on the icon on the bottom is pretty simple to manage.

      Lack of utilities installed? You must be a Mandrake user. Some of us like to install our own shit...

      Oh yeah, and GO INTEL or GO HOME.

    4. Re:we've had it all wrong by Quill_28 · · Score: 1

      and while Windows 2000 is better it is still not as stable.

      There is a lot that cmd.exe doesn't do, to even suggest it has the power of a unix shell is absurd. grep, awk, sed, etc

      and alt-tab sucks, pasting between windows sucks, listen I am a windows user(some would say an expert). Not saying everyone should use linux, mac, or windows they all have problems and advantages. I am saying that Linux has things to learn from MS. And vice versa.

      I am not a mandrake user do not even run linux, I just don't to have to go out and find standard utilities(on most unix boxes) when I want to ssh, etc.

    5. Re:we've had it all wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I disagree with "or higher". XP need a few more service packs before it is stable. I know people here have reported better stability on their machine, but this isn't the case for everyone. I, personally, have had a lot of problems with XP (many many friendlier blue screens of death, often happening on boot) to the point where I went back to 98SE. While not perfect, it is better than XP was.

    6. Re:we've had it all wrong by mvdwege · · Score: 1

      You could try showing her PySol. Just about every known solitaire variant is in there, coupled with beautiful cardsets (some of them scanned versions of antique designs).

      Mart
      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
    7. Re:we've had it all wrong by hendridm · · Score: 1

      > and while Windows 2000 is better it is still not as stable.

      Perhaps not as stable, but production-quality stable.

      >There is a lot that cmd.exe doesn't do

      You're right, but back when I was a DOS junky I didn't seem to mind and/or I found third-party utilities that made me happy.

      > and alt-tab sucks, pasting between windows sucks

      Although you're entitled to your opinion, I don't see a problem in offer Alt-Tab as an option. I think most would find it handy. Why does cutting and pasting suck? Do you retype everything?

      I understand your argument about Windows missing some essential utilities. SSH client/server should at least be there for sure.

    8. Re:we've had it all wrong by Quill_28 · · Score: 1

      >Perhaps not as stable, but production-quality >stable.

      Fair enough

      Two things off hand that bug me about Windows windowing system.

      Normally what you cut and paste, you have to do:

      1. highlights with mouse

      2. either
      a. ctrl-c to copy
      b. right-click and choose copy

      3. either
      a. ctrl-v to paste
      b. right-click and choose paste

      X-Windows
      1. highlight with a mouse, double will get the word and triple click will get the whole line

      2. paste using middle button

      much easier and quicker.

      To me Windows apps are made to be self-contained. And I find working with more than one to burdensome. Also, the virtual windows can be quite nice, especially when working with unrelated windows.

      I forget the second right now because my boss walked in during the middle of the note! :-0

      Again, each have their strengths but going from a NT admin job to a different position at a unix-shop, i find that I like x-windows more and more.

  16. That explains alot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My download speed became 80% slower in 10 minutes flat!

  17. note to clueless moron by Ender+Ryan · · Score: 1
    "Normal" users DON'T change their resolution, EVER.

    Most people use the default setup, possibly changing their desktop wallpaper.

    There are also GUI tools for configuring X. The only way X is inferior to windows in the resolution changing department is that you have to restart X. But you can also quickly change resolution using CTRL-ALT-+/-, which is useful sometimes.

    --
    Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
  18. Rasterman has sex by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is obvious from Rasterman Linux desktop still dead...he has said that he has switched tactics. Someone say OSX?

  19. In Related News... by kaustik · · Score: 1

    Redmond-based Linux providor Lycoris teaming up with MPAA, RIAA to provide users with a safe-computing environment, code-name Palladium.

  20. Re:hi! by arazor · · Score: 0
    >Who says Linux is dead on the desktop? ;-)

    >I DO!

    Who keeps the metric system down?

    We Do!

  21. desktop linux by asv108 · · Score: 1, Redundant
    Who says Linux is dead on the desktop?

    When was it ever alive?

    1. Re:desktop linux by yobbo · · Score: 2

      Are you implying that it can't be dead because it was never alive? If so, consider that for something to be dead, it doesn't have to be alive first. If you kill something, yes it would have to be alive in order to be able to be killed.

  22. Linux dead? alive? by tylerdave · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I don't know, but to me it seems that while the current state of the linux desktop leaves a LOT to be desired, it is continuing to make improvements. If groups like Redomnd Linux keep making improvements, the linux desktop will keep getting better and more compelling. I admit I only use the linux desktop to toy around right now, but I can definitely see it being viable in the future. Why does everyone have to say that linux on the desktop is dead? Obviously if you don't like it, you don't have to use it. I'll bet that there are pleanty of people that do use it and welcome any improvements. (Okay, I'm starting to rant)

  23. Oh dear god... by Dark+Lord+Seth · · Score: 1

    The XP fisher-price look has leaked into a linux distro. I say we ritually burn it unless they come up with a distro that hasn't got the XP look and its intended audience as target. (retards, who regulary say the follwing: "OH NIFTY COLOURS!!! CLICKETITYCLICK! PRETTY! What did I do?")

    1. Re:Oh dear god... by liquidsin · · Score: 2

      I'd rather they be running linux (not as root...) than running XP, where there random clicking won't destroy the system as easily. Considering how much MS invests on making their OS look and feel the way a user wants it to, versus what any linux distro spends (ie. nothing) I'd say that the best way to bring Win users to linux is by copying the look and feel of windows. Buf if your best argument is "it's bad because it looks like XP" then maybe you should be showing those screen caps to your grandma, and see what she prefers: the xp look, or KDE. Average users want pretty and easy. Want to see more people use linux? Make it pretty and easy.

      --
      do not read this line twice.
    2. Re:Oh dear god... by kyjello · · Score: 1

      Apparently us linux advocates can't win. When linux was ugly and hard to use everyone is like, Oh it is so hard to use. Now when it looks good, everyone is like, oh it's too easy, I don't like it! What is that? Having ACTUALLY used lycoris in the past I found it much easier to use than windows. Now with their excellent configuration menu, and what looks like a click and run warehouse called irisit looks better than ever. Now we just have to get nubes to install this rather than Redhat(gag).

      --
      kyjello is too damn smooth to make a signature.
    3. Re:Oh dear god... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Firstly, I want to say that there is nothing wrong with a "pretty" computing environment. While you might not like this look, I don't think there's anything wrong with it. I'm sure you don't bitch because your television set doesn't look like it was hacked together from junkyard scrap... it's functional, and it looks good, at least, good enough to go in your home theatre. Granted, I will take functionality over form, but if you've got functionality (yes, I know we're talking about Windows ;)), why complain when they try to make it look better. This applies to virtually everything else.... when you hire architects, you expect the building not to topple over, but you also want it to be visually appealing.

      When I work at a computer, I expect it to function properly, but it's nice when the user interface isn't appalling.

      And what about all the people who do case mods? Would you insult them because they put their time and work into something useless? Obviously they value aesthetics and put a lot of time into turning an often-ugly beige case into a work of art.

      I've played with many different Linux distributions, as well as BeOS, FreeBSD, and a handful of other x86 operating systems. I'm certainly not an average user, and I want "pretty and easy" too. I also like to configure the system the way I want, and if that entails digging into the registry or hacking config files, then so be it. I really don't see a conflict of interest in having it pretty and easy and giving you access to whatever you want, and the power to configure the system to your heart's desire.

    4. Re:Oh dear god... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looks more like "Teletubbies" than Fisher-Price, if you ask me...

  24. Re:Linux is dead on the desktop ... by liquidsin · · Score: 2

    I wasn't going to join into the 'linux is dead' flame war, but you drew me in. Quite frankly, I think linux as a desktop OS is great. I've pretty much gotten to the point where I can't handle windows for anything more than games (try as I might, I can't get Solder of Fortune 2 running under linux...). I run mandrake 8.1, and everything just works. It never mysteriously shuts down on me like win9x likes to do (although I must admit, win2k has been pretty stable, though I only use it for games). There's more than enough software available for anything I want to do under linux (browsers, irc, office apps, graphics, multimedia). All in all, I think quite the opposite - linux on the desktop is just starting to get good. Now that there are some more user-friendly distros (mandrake, redhat, and apparently lycoris) with easy installation and a pretty gui for the newcomers, now is the time when linux installs on desktops should be on the rise. The more people use it, the more it will improve as a desktop OS, and the more it improves, the more people will use it. Things are just getting interesting...

    --
    do not read this line twice.
  25. I say it's dead by prisoner · · Score: 1, Troll

    that's who. Can you imagine your average user recompiling the kernel or some such? ha. However, I believe that it is starting to get *closer* in terms of setup, etc. I liken it to the differences between a mac and a pc. Both work, they just require different approaches to solving problems. In terms of "life" though, it's a mummy.

    1. Re:I say it's dead by reaper20 · · Score: 2

      Once again ... "recompiling the kernel" seems to be a pretty good excuse.

      With most modern distros you never, ever have to recompile the kernel. I've been running Linux for 4 years, and I haven't HAD to recompile a kernel in almost two. Linux on the desktop does not mean Grandma compiling kernels and reading man pages.

      Please get your facts straight.

    2. Re:I say it's dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trying getting a laptop with ACPI running without recompiling your kernel.

      I've been using Linux for 8+ years and I still can't get it running properly on my laptop.

    3. Re:I say it's dead by mshiltonj · · Score: 2

      Can you imagine your average user recompiling the kernel or some such?

      No, but can imagine the average user inserting the Red Hat 7.3 disc and pressing the the big "Standard Install" button. Is it that simple yet? Might it been soon. No, and yes.

      Then after they reboot into Ximian Gnome, they should see a big button or menu item that says "Get Security Updates", which will prompt them for a "security password" (root). When Red Carpet finishes, remind the user the press the button again in a few weeks.

      I believe it really can be that easy -- soon.

    4. Re:I say it's dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you imagine your average user recompiling the kernel or some such?

      I'm sorry could you repeat that, all I you heard you say is "Blah Blah Blah, I'm too stupid to use Linux."

    5. Re:I say it's dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Why does everyone like to complain about "recompiling the kernel"?? What exactly is it that elevates answering a couple of build-related questions (what kind of CPU do you have, what kind of network card do you have, do you want USB support, etc.) to the level of rocket science or brain surgery??

      The genuinely hard parts of building a kernel (sending the right options to the compiler and linker, installing in the right place, rewriting your MBR to recognize the new boot block) are all done automatically. You basically type "make ; make install" and you walk away for a while. Where's the hard part there??

      Of course, in my mind, the legitimacy of the need to build a kernel in the first place naturally comes up. The only reasons you'd EVER need to rebuild your kernel are:

      • You just got some new hardware, and your current kernel has no support, but a new one does
      • A new kernel has a better included driver for your hardware
      • You want to tune your hardware support to remove drivers for things you don't have and/or improve performance
      Any reason other than those would categorically fail the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" test, (and the third reason does, in certain situations) so why bother with it at all?
    6. Re:I say it's dead by prisoner · · Score: 1

      I hope yer right and I think that linux is pointed in the right direction but I think we're a long way away yet in terms of mindset among the linux userbase. I do think, however, that corporate interests (Red Hat, et.al.) will drive it towards the "big red button"...

  26. True Linux Desktop? by bafreer · · Score: 1, Insightful
    Clearly what they are going for is the ease of windows for many utilities:
    • network neighborhood
    • control panel
    • sofware installer/updated
    • general ease of use of windows
    While I think that for the average linux user, this will be far too bloated, I wish that something like this existed when I first switched to linux.
    I currently use Mandrake (no surprise), but I am finding that I enjoy more and more the customizability of editing things by hand. I try to modify settings by hand whenever possible, and stay away from applets. Mandrake has done well by not confining you to applets.
    Although I would try this distro (if I had an extra comp.), I enjoy mounting filesytems by hand, as well as modifying XF86-config and compiling by hand. Something that other distros could learn from them however, is creating similar network neightboorhood client for browsing smb servers. I use Linneightborhood and Komba2, but it would be nice to be able to browse a server without needing to mount it first.

    All in all, kudos, I hope everything works as you claim, keep up the good work!

    1. Re:True Linux Desktop? by MsGeek · · Score: 2

      The most important thing about Lycoris is this: they are doing Linux for Newbies the right way. Everything Lycoris puts out has been released with source code. If you buy Lycoris from the Lycoris site or from Fry's or whatever you get a source code CD-ROM along with your installer CD. This is contrary to Lindows which does NOT release source.

      Lycoris is not 100% polished yet. I tried to update a Build 44 install to Build 46, but it didn't entirely work...something has stepped on my TCP-IP stack and my connectivity is dead. Perhaps a fresh install of Build 46 from a burnt CD will do the trick.

      Once they get Open Office as part of the install Lycoris will be the leader in easy distros. For geeks like me, it won't be the distro that is used on a daily basis (I really like RH 7.3) but for my Great Uncle who's never touched a PC it's great.

      --
      Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
  27. A related link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lycoris's Wikipedia article. It doesn't say a whole heap, but you can add more.

    1. Re:A related link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed, you can add more...

    2. Re:A related link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You o troll, who dares to vandalise the wikipedia, have an IP address of 159.40.32.80

  28. Where's the Source? by EconomyGuy · · Score: 1

    This looks pretty good in my opinion, I think I may even install it on my Mom's computer so she can start to understand the Linux world... my only concern was the availability of sourcecode. There was a snapshots page... but that's a far cry from a nice ISO to download and burn onto a CD. I noticed that for 10 extra bucks I could get a CD with the source, but that seems to be in violation of the spirit of the GPL. Hey, I know these guys are trying to make money... but they are trying to make money of the backs of some very dedicated volunteers... the least they could do is provide a more simple way to access their source.

    Aside from that, this looks great. I just hope that it runs as well as their cute little pictures make me want to believe.

    --
    Only 120 characters... who can summarize their entire world understanding in 120 characters?!
    1. Re:Where's the Source? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
      Where's the Source?
      It is here
    2. Re:Where's the Source? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      providing the source is available on the internet also (for free). i personally dont see a problem with $10 for the source cds. its a convenience issue there. but IT MUST be available elsewhere for free too then. although this may not be within the GPL so im not really sure.

    3. Re:Where's the Source? by CynicTheHedgehog · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, first off, this product is targetted at the relatives of people who like Linux. Is the average person going to wontonly switch to a totally foreign operating system based on ideals he or she may not care about? Probably not. But I've seen several posts today along the lines of, "this would be great for my mom..." That being the case, the only people who are really going to buy or download this product are the people who will be doing the actually installation, i.e. geeks.

      So, a geek decides to free his mother from the oppressive hand of The Man. Given the choice of a $30 OS with 60 days support and a free OS with no support, which is he going to chose? If something breaks he knows he's going to be the one driving to his mother's place to fix it, so support be damned. How likely is he to buy the product? Even if he's fairly honest he's probably got it in his head that he is a contributing member of some altruistic community and this company owes him a free distribution.

      So he downloads the ISO and burns it to disc, as will every other geek. Lycoris can no longer afford to pay its developers (who, in my opinion, have done a damn good job of integration), and they go under.

      Or they can comply to the GPL only in the ways that they need to, and they can make you pay for the ease of having the product on a handy CD (as opposed to the hefty task of downloading the snapshots). They don't have to hand you the code; they just have to make it available. And technically it is.

      This is the same tactic SuSE uses, and I'm 100% behind it. It allows companies to hire talent and addt some profit motive into the Linux industry, which results in better products and cooler jobs. There's a lot of free software developers scratching their own itches, but to get anyone to do anything revolutionary (as in complete, integrated, bug-free, and usable) you have to pay them (witness OS X).

    4. Re:Where's the Source? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't make assumptions when you obviously haven't done all your research.

      The source is on a separate CD, and the ISO can be downloaded along with the main install CD and devtools:

      ftp://ftp.lycoris.com/pub/linux/desktoplx/iso/

      CD1 is all you need to install it, and although they install a small subset of the products available than other distributions, they do offer a complete set of best-of-breed titles.

      I think they have the best offering for new linux users, and have worked real hard to make Lycoris an easy to use Desktop OS.

    5. Re:Where's the Source? by nelsonal · · Score: 1

      I pre-ordered it, it was the first distro I've ever purchased. Well, actually the second, but I only bought RH 5.3 for the fine manual that came with it, from a clearance table, they had very good descriptions of all the packages that came with it at the time. I would guess that if it survives it will be because small OEMs or screwdriver shops buy it in bulk at a lower rate for cheap computers. It has to be more than just someone making less than 20 a year without support or ISOs are probably a better choice. An el cheapo duron system with Lycoris and Star Office 6, after a bulk discount could probably be sold for about $300 or so, without a monitor.

      --
      Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
    6. Re:Where's the Source? by mla_anderson · · Score: 1

      That's nice, but the iso images are marked unretrievable.

      --
      Sig is on vacation
    7. Re:Where's the Source? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So he downloads the ISO and burns it to disc, as will every other geek. Lycoris can no longer afford to pay its developers (who, in my opinion, have done a damn good job of integration), and they go under.

      Congratulations. You've correctly identified the Open Source business model. This is why your favorite software companies can't pull a profit.

    8. Re:Where's the Source? by asteinberg · · Score: 1
      So he downloads the ISO and burns it to disc, as will every other geek. Lycoris can no longer afford to pay its developers
      Sure they can - you forgot about those two oh-so-crucial steps:
      1. ...
      2. profit

      But seriously, while I think your logic is completely accurate, you're forgetting that Lycoris/Suse are not alone in the Linux for My Mom market. If I'm faced with the decision of paying $40 to install one of these versus downloading Mandrake or Red Hat, I'll opt for the latter (despite that annoying feeling inside that I *should* do the Right Thing and buy one of these). Unfortunately, until Mandrake and Red Hat start forcing me to buy their products too, I'll probably keep going with whatever's free. Hell, if they started forcing me to pay, I might be inclined to install Debian or (my personal favorite) Source Mage. After all, I'm the one doing the installation/configuration - my parents will still see the same pretty KDE interface either way. Even on their Windows machine, it's not like they ever delve as far as the control panel. If there is a problem with their computer, they'll be contacting me. (Incidentally, here's another place where Linux would be great - if I'm not home, I can walk them through starting up ssh and then from there I can just log in remotely and fix the problem).

      --
      The first ever Ultimate Frisbee video game: here (now
  29. I am tired of this... by Lumpy · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Linux is dead, linux will never be useable on the desktop. Linux is too hard, linux doesnt have games, linux doesnt do X or Y or even Z. linux is unstable, linux is WHATEVER...

    I am tired of the FUD. it's flying from both sides now and it is stupid.... STOP IT!

    Linux is maturing and it is maturing well. Linux is a POWER operating system just like BSD that is never intended for the masses and will never be for the masses... Think about this linux lovers. (I am one of them BTW! Microsoft free for 4 years now) do you want your beloved OS to be diluted down to a microsoft level? I sure the hell don't. I chose linux because I was tired of having to do everything the microsoft way. I wanted to do it MY way... and look Linux gave that to me. and that everyone is the one and only reason people switch. Granted Microsoft is giving people more and more reasons to switch nowdays.

    Linux? it has been ready for the corperate desktop for over a year now. anyone that says different is full of crap and doesn't know what they are talking about... in fact it's better for the corperate desktop because it can easily be locked down and have ALL apps easily deployed without pain (terminal server anyone? if you can do the same with windows for 2 times the price of a linux solution WITHOUT doing it illegally please tell me.)

    Both have their advantages... MS caters to those that have the phycological problems associated with change.... that's fine. Linux caters to those that prefer to push the envelope... that's great. but anything dying or dead? not. linux cant die because it can't be killed... that's the great part of open source.. Windows? it can be easily killed... when Microsoft goes away windows will go away as the sourcecode is hidden and closed.. just like GeOS.. it will die and fade.

    use what you like. do what you want. just stop lying and making up bulls**t ok everyone?

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    1. Re:I am tired of this... by gosand · · Score: 5, Funny
      Linux is dead, linux will never be useable on the desktop. Linux is too hard, linux doesnt have games, linux doesnt do X or Y or even Z.

      Huh? Linux does X.

      --

      My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

    2. Re:I am tired of this... by JordoCrouse · · Score: 2

      I am tired of the FUD. it's flying from both sides now and it is stupid.... STOP IT!

      And you continue to spread the FUD - you were unable to make your point without mentioning Microsoft 18 times.

      Here is the truth - sit 80% of the general population in front of a Linux desktop (KDE or Gnome, it doesn't matter) and ask them to do their daily work. Its very difficult, because bad things can happen, and usually do. A process might hang, or the printer might not be working, or the network goes down. For those of us who are Linux literate, its very easy to pop up a command line and fix the problem - but its as familiar as brain surgery to my fiance. Face it - the linux desktop is developed for geeks (because its geeks that wrote it). It just doesn't adapt to the other 80%.

      And the other 80% is the group that decides if Linux is dead on the desktop, because they are the important market. It does not matter what your average geek thinks about some new electronic toy, it only matters what the average person on the street thinks.

      linux cant die because it can't be killed... that's the great part of open source..

      Linux != desktop. You've been living in Microsoft land too long.

      But to end on an on topic note - I really like the looks of the Lycrois desktop - heres hoping that its as easy to use as it looks.

      --
      Do you have Linux and a DotPal? Click here now!
    3. Re:I am tired of this... by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      sit 80% of the general population in front of a Linux desktop (KDE or Gnome, it doesn't matter) and ask them to do their daily work. Its very difficult, because bad things can happen, and usually do.
      and the EXACT SAME THING HAPPENS TO WINDOWS.

      first I have sat many many in a corperate setting in front of a linux box.. Most people touch it daily and in fact a large number of off the street people touch it. they use it and ask what it is becasue it looks nice and was easy to use..

      It is a redhat 7.2 install with KDE. it is used as a broadband internet demo kiosk.. Kids were constantly trashing the windows box. so I replaced it with a linux box. hasn't been hacked or trashed cince and MANY MANY people use it easily. I cheated... I changed the Mozilla head to the dorky Sweeping E..

      so I have sat down 80% of the population.. and they find it no differnt to them than Microsoft.

      so what's your next point?

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    4. Re:I am tired of this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Linux is maturing and it is maturing well. Linux is a POWER operating system just like BSD that is never intended for the masses and will never be for the masses... Think about this linux lovers. (I am one of them BTW! Microsoft free for 4 years now) do you want your beloved OS to be diluted down to a microsoft level?

      I've also been using Linux for 4 years, and I'm still with the guys who believe that Linux is no good on the desktop. Face it.

      You can slap layers and layers of software on it like so much makeup, but at the end of the day, Linux is UNIX, and pure UNIX is no good on the desktop.(1)

      Let me ask you this; how many people do you know who are running Tru64 at home?

      Why should they run Linux at home?

      People don't want to use an OS for the sake of using it. They want to get things done; emailing their friends, checking out EBay, downloading MP3's, writing angry letters to the mail order company...you get the picture.

      You and I, we're different. We like to fiddle and tune and tweak our OS. We'll hapilly boot our computer just to spend a half hour trying out some changes to our Samba configuration. We don't mind, but the vast majority of users do.

      Linux is built for people like us. It's in your face, it doesn't go out of its way to be helpful, its a rough diamond that has lots of little flaws. Non-geeks want the system to get out of their way, to be transparent, to become something that simply lets them get their tasks finished.

      Linux isn't dead on the desktop. Its a Zombie. Its not even alive, but it doesn't know it.

      (1) I'm talking about UNIX, not POSIX. Don't even try to argue that OS X is UNIX; it isn't, its POSIX with parts of the UNIX filesystem hierachy for compatability.

    5. Re:I am tired of this... by EvilBudMan · · Score: 1

      --linux cant die because it can't be killed... that's the great part of open source.. --

      Yes, it can if M$ or someone else manages to get a law passed banning it.

      Check out this link.
      http://www.politechbot.com/p-03797.html

    6. Re:I am tired of this... by Nomad7674 · · Score: 2
      Linux is maturing and it is maturing well. Linux is a POWER operating system just like BSD that is never intended for the masses and will never be for the masses... Think about this linux lovers. (I am one of them BTW! Microsoft free for 4 years now) do you want your beloved OS to be diluted down to a microsoft level?

      I think this makes a good point and highlights a split in the Linux community that not every insider seems to recognize. Maybe as an outsider (Mac-user at home, Win2K at work), I can make the point.

      The Linux community, as I see it, is broken into two factions:

      1. The Linux Purist Faction: This faction likes Linux as it is and wants to keep the things which make it strong around without significant concessions to converts. This group likes the fact that Linux is cryptic and something which requires significant time to understand, because this process weeds out those who aren't serious about using Linux (as opposed to any other system).
      2. The User Base Faction: This faction wants Linux to become the OS of choice in the world. Some are also ferverently anti-MS, some are simply ferverently pro-Linux. This group loves Linux because of some level of uniqueness, but is willing to conceed some of Linux's percieved strengths (infinite customizability, different look and feel, etc.) in order to win additional marketshare or at least mindshare. Their ideal system is one which they can hand over to their grandmother to use for all of her everyday work.

      Lycorix and Lindows are both aimed at the second group. They want to increase marketshare at all costs and as such, want to reduce the barrier to entry to nil. The first group is more supported by Gentoo and the other distros which can be compiled at install time in all ways to be precisely alligned to your specific setup. Most distros try to please both factions equally.

      Which faction is right? Neither and both, probably. MacOS X taught the Mac-heads like me that change is good in an effort to increase marketshare, but that it is important not to surrender the essentials. Of course, all of life is a balancing act and no two people agree on the right balance. But if you can find it, it is a holy grail. Don't be too quick to blast efforts like Lycorix. They may be too far on one side, but in the end, they may move the middle and give Linux a direction which benefits both sides of the aisle.

    7. Re:I am tired of this... by toupsie · · Score: 2
      Linux? it has been ready for the corperate desktop for over a year now. anyone that says different is full of crap and doesn't know what they are talking about...

      Bullshit! First, it appears your copy of Linux isn't even ready for spell checking. As someone that maintains a "Corporate Desktop" environment, I can tell you Linux is not ready and not even close. A pipe dream of yours.

      As much as I hate Microsoft Windows, it is blows Linux off the map when it comes to corporate desktop computing. When I have problems, I have access to the latest, professional information instead of working with a HOWTO that some guy wrote three years ago after doing copious amounts of bong hits in his college dorm or trying to dissect information from a mailing list involved in a flame war over a memory pointer. You cannot plop the average corporate drone in front of a Linux Desktop machine and expect immediate productivity. You might get away doing that with Mac OS X since everyone and their mother has copied the original Mac OS GUI. Cost is not a factor if the employees are able to generate more income using the computer than the cost of the computer, software, training and electricity that it uses. Even if the operating system, hardware and software is free, if the employee cannot get work done, that is an expensive computer to the employer. While there are many software packages available for Linux, none of them have the polish and quality of the typical Windows package available. Almost good enough is not good enough. And we could go on and on about the limitations of Linux on the desktop in a corporate environment but Slashdot has a finite level of storage.

      Don't let your zealotry cloud your judgement. Linux is ready for the Corporate Environment, not on the desktop but in the server closet serving and protecting those Windows Desktops.

      --
      Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
    8. Re:I am tired of this... by hetairoi · · Score: 1

      "because its geeks that wrote it"

      As opposed to the farm hands that write code for microsoft??

      --
      you're all figments of my deranged imagination
    9. Re:I am tired of this... by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      MacOS X taught the Mac-heads like me that change is good in an effort to increase marketshare, but that it is important not to surrender the essentials

      But there is one very important point in that. It was a sweeping change. there was no choice. Sure you can sit back and continue to use MAC-OS9.x but when you buy a new Mac next year what will come on it? it's a forced change. Apple will not forever maintain 9.x and 10.x to offer both to the masses.. they chose 10, you will use 10 or use the unsupported old OS.

      Linux has multiple directions.. I use Slackware because I like the nuts and bolts. I use Redhat in corperate because it has the ease of sliding in place of NT easily and without fuss. it doesn't even disrupt the users productivity. and I use BSD on my critical Firewall and SQL server here.. All co-existing with the W2K machines happily... (Yes, linux boxes are acting as the PDC and BDC for the W2K stuff.. and that will go away as soon as I can get Wine to run the last vertical app we have here.) The changes I am implimenting are a choice.. we could have started the change to ALL Mac's in the office.. but we chose the cheapest route that offer's the lowest liability and TCO.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    10. Re:I am tired of this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wow you are stupid...

      you call redhat and get tech support just like the windows MCSE's...

      next time you post stop lying.

    11. Re:I am tired of this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      first off sir, I posted from a Win2K box. so it's the inability of microsoft (and it's lame Web broswer) to spell check.

      My pipe dream is a solid reality with 20 workstations converted (2 of the people said "Cool we upgraded to XP!" when seeing the KDE desktop for the first time.) and with all completely converted to Linux by the end of 1Q 2003. noone freaked, noone cried, we didn't lose 20 bajillion dollars. the day had a 3 hour productivity burp that was less of an effect on the office than someone bringing in a huge box of bagles.

      it is ready, it is being deployed. and it's too bad that people wont take the time to try it being as fraid of change as they are.

      So.... I guess that I am doing the impossible.. hmmm... time to go buy lottery tickets. as next month I teach the other 3 Techs her ehow to admin the linux boxen.. I have one trained already.. it took 3 weeks to train a smart MCSE (not all are smart) how to completely admin these RH7.3 boxes. I expect the dumber ones to take 6 weeks.

      BTW: I am posting anon to preserve karma from the rampant closed minds here. Unless you tried a Linux deply and failed, you know nothing about what you said... I tried it, I'm doing it... what have you done?

    12. Re:I am tired of this... by avishal · · Score: 1

      Linux is too hard - agreed (for crashing systems)

      --
      v==hal if /wal/; #if (Perl) = agar (Hindi)
  30. For Linux to succeed, by NorthDude · · Score: 1

    They have to make ads with people flying all around in a Cathedral and a Bazard.

    --


    I'd rather be sailing...
  31. Amen! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Preach it my brotha!

  32. It's Troll Tuesday, do you know where your katz is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think JonKatz may be dead.
    He hasn't posted a story since April.

    What's the matter Taco, can't afford to pay your resident gasbag to post ill-researched inflammitory stories?!!

  33. Re:Is it just me, or are the fonts really big on S by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is probably because Slashdot is one of the few sites to actually properly use relative font sizes instead of absolute. Using tags like instead of means that the user can adjust the size of the text on their screen using their browser settings. Having said that, you probably have your browser settings set to larger or something like that.

  34. Red Hat is dying! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It started seemingly innocuously enough; a letter was received by one member of the KDE development team asking the KDE Project to use RedHat Linux on machines at LWCE and to display RedHat's shadow man logo on those machines. In exchange, the letter from RedHat explained, KDE would "benefit from many valuable marketing benefits in our booth, on our website, and in our newsletter."

    Interested, but a bit concerned due to RedHat's track record with KDE, the developer, Charles Samuels, wrote into a KDE mailing list for opinions on the offer. After a heated discussion, of which many participants had already been burnt by the distribution's disinterest in KDE, Samuels came up with a compromise.

    In his message back to RedHat's Tommy Mann, he said the KDE Project would take the offer if RedHat would provide a system for the KDE booth to show KDE on RedHat with and the company would demonstrate KDE in its own booth. Those in the mailing list discussion were pleased with this, and overall it sounded like a good way to improve relations between the two groups.

    This also seemed to be an offer still in RedHat's favor. After all, with many of KDE's core developers being on the payroll for competitors SuSE or MandrakeSoft, agreeing to show a system from a company that does little for the project may be regarded negatively by those companies that are actually helping.

    Curiously, RedHat's Mann wrote back saying they would not provide a system or even demo KDE in their booth. Much like a telemarketer, Mann continued by essentially repeating his original message, noting that if KDE would use RedHat it would have its name listed on a sign at RedHat's booth. The KDE logo, however, would not be displayed on the RedHat sign unless KDE completely switched to RedHat systems.

    This begs the question what exactly was RedHat thinking? They ask for KDE to do them a favor and rather then do KDE a favor in return that would also serve to promote RedHat, they refuse? Worse, insult was added to injury, since apparently RedHat was not even comfortable being seen with KDE running in their booth.

    Naturally, this move created no goodwill for the North Carolina-based company in the KDE community. Samuels responded by calmly noting what other less moderating viewpoints had said when he had initially asked the KDE community about the offer. Then he summed up his point by saying "I feel I returned to you a very reasonable offer... I find your active lack of support for KDE harmful to the entire Linux world, an opinion shared by many, many, others."

    Shortly thereafter, in another response sent to RedHat, KDE Dot News editor Navindra Umanee wrote "I find it amazing that KDE has to 'participate' in your 'program' to get a slight mention in your booth, when you even refuse to even display KDE running on Red Hat in your booth or provide a running, packaged, version of the latest KDE on Red Hat." He continued "I find it shameful that you should engage in market-speak double-talk with the KDE project, a community-based Open Source project that is providing you with millions of lines of free code in the form of the best Free Desktop suite available for Unix and that you don't even have the decency to properly support or acknowledge the contribution."

    At press time, Open for Business was unaware of any response by Mann or others at RedHat concerning this PR disaster. It does, however, raise an interesting question of what the software vendor hopes to accomplish with its continuing near boycotting of KDE.

    While the leading Linux distributor has warmed up to KDE somewhat, finally including the desktop in the 6.x releases a few years ago, its support continues to be poor. Many RedHat specific KDE bugs have been ignored by the company for multiple releases, and KDE's minor bug-fix releases almost never receive official upgrade packages for RedHat Linux.

    As RedHat's might is considerably weaker in the desktop segment, with its preferred desktop (GNOME) taking only about 20% of the desktop market versus KDE's over 50%, they would be wise to change course. While it has never taken the desktop as seriously as other vendors such as MandrakeSoft, why RedHat would burn bridges with a project that presents a serious threat to the Microsoft desktop monopoly - and thus is a guarantor of continued RedHat desktop and server sales - is a mystery.

    Vadim Plessky, another KDE developer, also wrote RedHat, noting "[the] strategy used by Mr.Mann ... is definitly [sic] out order, even for traditional (closed-source) software, or hardware company." Plessky concluded with a potential result of such action, saying "You are making [a] wrong move with such [an] attitude to KDE, which will result in [an] even further drop in market share for RedHat Linux. While being at 70% market share 2-3 years ago, RedHat hardly enjoys more than 25% marketshare nowdays."

    Only time will tell if this prediction will come true, but if RedHat continues with similar actions through out the community, it may end up alienating its support base. Neither this nor its refusal to fully support KDE bode well for the company.

  35. Re:It's Troll Tuesday, do you know where your katz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Clear proof that "Slashdot is dying"!

  36. For those who like it ugly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    The XP fisher-price look has leaked into a linux distro. I say we ritually burn it unless they come up with a distro that hasn't got the XP look and its intended audience as target. (retards, who regulary say the follwing: "OH NIFTY COLOURS!!! CLICKETITYCLICK! PRETTY! What did I do?")
    A geek's perfect distro?:
    "OH NIFTY COLOURS!!! CLICKETITYCLICK! PRETTY! TWM grimey-stucco look!"
  37. Re:Is it just me, or are the fonts really big on S by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i spelled mongoloid wrong :(

  38. Trolling by af_robot · · Score: 1

    How many times it should be repeated?! Linux CAN'T DIE! It is just a freaking OS kernel! and btw, who put that smelling dead penguin on my desk?!!!

  39. anti-human-usable-interface Slashdot geeks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ) New distro - open()screenshots page
    ) Geeks see pretty screenshots
    ) WARNING: Geekyness factor panic
    ) Open|process_attack
    ) Flame_Slashdot about distro's low_geek_factor suckyness
    ) Userfriend+looking_good=ultimate geekyness_sin
    ) Continue using Pine+Lynx on TWM

  40. Help!! by smellmyfart · · Score: 1

    I need help can some one please explain to me a few things

    1. What the hell is lindows?
    2. What the hell is Lycoris
    3. Why does Lycoris's icons look like windows icons
    4. What advantage do they provide over my current setup of Gnome2 and Redhat 7.1?
    5. and why are these two going to same the linux desktop?

    Sorry i know i should look this stuff up but i am to tired this morning, please shed the light. thanks

    --
    First, you have to know, not fear, know that someday you are going to die
    1. Re:Help!! by zangdesign · · Score: 2

      1. depending on who you read - a bad idea or a very bad idea
      2. the worst name for a company since lindows
      3. because someone wasn't feeling very original that day
      4. hard to say - neither distro was designed with the advanced user in mind
      5. see 3.

      --
      To celebrate the occasion of my 1000th post, I will post no more forever on Slashdot. Goodbye.
    2. Re:Help!! by smellmyfart · · Score: 1

      number 5 above was supposed to be save linux but it seems to me that the whole thing is revolving around ease of use, which is based upon gnome and kde not really "cleaning" up their setup

      --
      First, you have to know, not fear, know that someday you are going to die
    3. Re:Help!! by nelsonal · · Score: 1

      1. What the hell is lindows?
      Lindows is the MP3.com guy's way of striking out at windows. Its intended to be a $99 retail linux distro with proprietary improvments to Wine that allow compatability with most MS Windows products, especially office.
      2. What the hell is Lycoris[?]
      Lycoris is a linux distro designed to replicate the look and feel of the MS Windows UI with GPL mods to KDE and other applications. As mentioned above it offers less choice and hopefully intimidation ot the beggining user.
      3. Why does Lycoris's icons look like windows icons[?]
      Because 95% of computer users already know and use the Windows icons. And that is who they want to sell Lycoris to.
      4. What advantage do they provide over my current setup of Gnome2 and Redhat 7.1?
      Chicks dig it man! Actually none that I know of, its more focused on new users as opposed to power users.
      5. and why are these two going to same the linux desktop?
      I don't know about save the Linux desktop, they are both geared towards adding new users, especially former Windows users by lowering the switching costs. They are the two distros that seem most focused on desktops rather than servers or more general systems, which is why they usually get mentioned in stories about Linux desktops.

      --
      Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
  41. Is it easier to share a net connection now? by mbourgon · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I remember one of the big things they claimed the first time around was that the network config would easily let you share your internet connection through the Lycoris box. But it turned out not to be the case, you had to go manually edit some files. (fortunately they had a pointer to a decent howto, but not the same as click-and-share).

    So, does it work "correctly" now?

    And my Karma Whoring for the day:
    it's probably pronounced "Licorice". Some people like Licorice, other's don't.

    --
    "Sometimes a woman is a kind of religion, she can save your soul & set you free from all your sins" - Bad Examples
  42. Re:hi! by ThereIsNoSporkNeo · · Score: 1, Funny

    Who controls the British crown?
    Who keeps the Metric system down?
    We do, We do.

    Who keeps Atlantis off the maps?
    Who keeps the Martians under wraps?
    We do, we do.

    Who holds back the electric car?
    Who makes a star?
    We do, we do.

    Who robs kingfish of their sight?
    Who rigs every Oscar Night?
    We do, WE DO!

    --
    With my dying breath, I curse Zoidberg!
  43. Practise what you preach! by jocks · · Score: 3, Interesting

    As I have said before, my wife and I have moved to using SuSE 8.0 exclusively in the house, we have NO windows products. My wife is visually impaired so this is not a move we would make lightly. We use KDE 3.01, Mozilla and KMail amongst others. For us it is great. My wife particularly likes the zooming function with Mozilla.

    Linux may not be fully alive on the desktop, to get there it requires people to stop talking about it, drop Windows and get on with it. As far as games go, I have a copy of dungeonkeeper that I would love to get running, I will just have to be patient!

    As far as "Windows clone" distros go, we are not interested. This would be a move back to the propriatory software that we are deliberately moving away from.

    I can't see this stuff appealing to corporates either. Will linux run my windows apps? The answer should remain "No", far better than "Maybe". In terms of support "Maybe" is a real non-starter.

    1. Re:Practise what you preach! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Drop windows. Be unable to play games that are from 1995. Let alone new ones. Weee... look at me, I can play solitaire.

      Fun, fun.

    2. Re:Practise what you preach! by jocks · · Score: 1

      Weee... look at me, I have technology on my desk that scientists would have killed for a few years ago and the only worthwhile thing I can think of doing with it is play games.

      Dumb dumb.

    3. Re:Practise what you preach! by j1mmy · · Score: 1

      As I have said before, my wife and I have moved to using SuSE 8.0 exclusively in the house, we have NO windows products.

      Well aren't you special?

      My wife is visually impaired so this is not a move we would make lightly. We use KDE 3.01, Mozilla and KMail amongst others. For us it is great. My wife particularly likes the zooming function with Mozilla.

      Nobody cares.

      Linux may not be fully alive on the desktop, to get there it requires people to stop talking about it, drop Windows and get on with it.

      Most windows users aren't talking about Linux on the desktop. Most of them don't know it exists. Alternatives are too confusing.

      As far as games go, I have a copy of dungeonkeeper that I would love to get running, I will just have to be patient!

      Or run windows.

      As far as "Windows clone" distros go, we are not interested. This would be a move back to the propriatory software that we are deliberately moving away from.

      Ignoring your spelling, how is this proprietary? It's a linux distro with KDE.

      I can't see this stuff appealing to corporates either. Will linux run my windows apps? The answer should remain "No", far better than "Maybe". In terms of support "Maybe" is a real non-starter.

      Who needs to run windows apps if there are good unix clones? Have you used support for any commercial software lately? It's abysmal and it's not cheap. You'll have an easier time searching google groups and finding answers there.

    4. Re:Practise what you preach! by jocks · · Score: 1

      I will ignore your snide comments and deal with your more approachable ones:

      Most windows users aren't talking about Linux on the desktop. Most of them don't know it exists. Alternatives are too confusing.
      I agree, however, the supposed Linux users in this discussion group are. I am suggesting that they should stop talking and get on with it.

      Or run windows.
      I cannot. Ethically and technically, I cannot bring myself to use Windows. That may seem like an extreme statement, but the principle stands.

      Who needs to run windows apps if there are good unix clones? Have you used support for any commercial software lately? It's abysmal and it's not cheap. You'll have an easier time searching google groups and finding answers there.
      I have no commercial apps at home so I do not know about support from home users perspective, however I am aware thay the support for products like MS Office is both poor and expensive. I absolutely agree with you that good UNIX clones make a viable alternative, which explains my first statement.

      Thank you for correcting my spelling.

    5. Re:Practise what you preach! by black88 · · Score: 0

      Ok,

      I have tried, but frankly since I cannot use Linux for what I need(Music Production/Use of Soundfont/SbLive)I have dropped both Slackware and Lycoris.

      Even Demudi(Debian Music Distro) does not have support forthcoming for Soundfonts, and, I know it sounds petty, but I gotta use what I gotta use to get shit done, and Winxp does that for me.

      Any of you hotshot kernel hackers wanna try and get soundfonts to work under Linux?

    6. Re:Practise what you preach! by jocks · · Score: 1

      Aha, a man with a purpose! Now you are the kind of person that needs to tell the community what you want. Constructive critisism, like you have posted, is exactly the thing that it needs. Good work!

    7. Re:Practise what you preach! by 13Echo · · Score: 2

      WINE works pretty well now. There aren't really many Windows apps that don't run on my Linux box to be honest with you. Games are sometimes a bit more difficult, but even DirectX 8 games like MOH:AA will run fine on a Linux box with WINE installed (and no Windows OS). But it does take a little bit of configuration.

      I did what you did. I bit the bullet and stopped using Windows altogether, and opted for Slackware 8.1. It works great, it's fast, and gets the job done. All of the apps that I need are available, typically for free. Despite my problems with a few commerical Windows programs, I have to just deal with it. The benefits of using Linux at home totally outweigh the lack of using a few Windows-only apps.

      So mod me down if you guys wish, but the naysayers only argue the point because they are ignorant to using Linux (not because it is difficult, but just because they haven't really tried it). That is just their loss.

  44. How is that a troll??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did you even bother to go beyond the subject line?

    It was a POSITIVE comment about Linux on the desktop... "Linux is dead on the desktop... For who?" - The rest of the comment summed up to, "Definately not me."

  45. Apple's Switch Ads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hello SlashDot Community,
    I admit it; I have the Ellen Feiss Switch "advertisement" bookmarked. I think that I may end up masturbating to it today, at the office, during lunch, when everyone else is gone. Do I need help?

    1. Re:Apple's Switch Ads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      No. I think that is pretty normal behaviour.

  46. Umm, NO. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your wife had been using Mozilla.
    She had little interaction with the underlying OS.

    MS does sort of have a point when they point out that (for naieve users), the browser is the OS.
    The only way your wife would have been aware of the OS is if something didn't work .

  47. Damn idiots... by tom1974 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Looney town is in full tune, read among other things....

    a) It looks so bloated
    b) where is my source code
    c) It looks nice but I like doin' things the ass way, like mounting and unmounting by hand and digging around the muck and blah blah blah...

    Why don't you try it first before commenting? and second, egoistic bastards who don't have a job or don't have to get things done other than tinker with the box can screw yourselfs.

    Thank You.

    1. Re:Damn idiots... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      waaaaaahhh! where;s that cool looking source codes that i dunno what htey mean but i always put in my eterm windows when i make screenshots to look soooOO cool but i can't code muh way out of a paper bag.

    2. Re:Damn idiots... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SHUDDUP I LIKE TINKERING WITH MY BOX i put my finger in my boybutt *squish*

  48. Would it be so wrong to show some support? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I don't understand it. Everyone constantly says that Microsoft does everything wrong and lately there seems to have been endless breast beating about the absence of Linux on the desktop as a viable alternative. Lycoris may not be the best distro for the experienced user but that's the point! Ask yourself this - if you Grandmother had to use Linux would she be able to use your distro? Could she use Lycoris'? Lycoris may be noddy but if that is what it takes to enable the average user to be productive quickly on Linux then great! Lycoris' success can only be good for Linux as a whole so show some support!

  49. Um? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Should give Lindows a run for its money.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but Lindows actually runs some Windows programs, while Lycoris just looks like Windows.

  50. Dead on Desktop by joshsnow · · Score: 1

    Should give Lindows a run for its money. Who says Linux is dead on the desktop? ;-)"
    Only the KDE Nay-saysers

    1. Re:Dead on Desktop by warmcat · · Score: 2

      Interesting... I am running KDE3 on the Redhat limbo beta. I seem to recall it was on 7.3 too, although I was still trying to use Gnome at that point. They don't seem to be downplaying KDE from my point of view, you get a choice of either or both.

      Nautilus does most of what you'd expect, but little things like not self-updating if you copy files into the directory its looking at, the Konq preview-on-hover, and the sheer speed difference when you have a few windows open made KDE much better as it stands today IMHO.

  51. Ahh Yes by NitsujTPU · · Score: 2

    The true measure of the quality of a user interface... the airbrushed icons.

  52. From the revised edition of the "Necronomicon": by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That which is dead cannot die,
    and in strange eons, even death may die.

    Linux fhtagn!

  53. Linux Desktop Vitality by Jack+Hughes · · Score: 1
    I'm not sure that comparing market share with Windows or Mac OS is really that relevant.

    For starters, it is an apples and pears comparison. It would be better to ignore any machine that is running the OS it came installed with - just measure those machines where people have actively sought out a newer operating system.

    Even then - the amount of advertising spent by Microsoft and Mac - together with secondary advertising from all the magazines hyping the various OS upgrades could also distort the picture.... and by far outweigh the amount of advertising for Linux distributions. Has anyone seen a main stream advert for Linux that isn't about using it as a server OS?

    However, in recent times we are seeing much more attention on Linux as a desktop. Four years ago the question would have been "is Linux dead?" Now it is simply accepted that Linux has a place in the OS landscape. So the fact that the question "is the Linux desktop dead?" is being asked is perhaps signifcant in itself.

    Finally, we seem to have an increasing number of "pure play" linux as desktop operating systems - Lycoris being just one example... Lindows being another. How many were there two years ago?

    Of course, as I am quite happily using Linux and a Desktop Operating System - and each day it gets better, means that it isn't dead - it might only just have been born!

    Three cheers for Lycoris - they look to have done a very good job.

  54. ooops, forgot the link! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  55. Linux, James Linux. by Wizri · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Linux never dies.

  56. Nitpick by Mr_Silver · · Score: 2
    I could release software for the ZX81. It still doesn't mean that it isn't dead though.

    But seriously, Linux on the desktop isn't dead. Just struggling. But it holds it's own as a server which suits me (and I suspect a lot of people) just fine.

    --
    Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
  57. Ghey! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It looks really f00kin gay!

  58. Lycoris Reactions by jaaron · · Score: 4, Informative

    I tried out Lycoris a while ago when I was exploring other distros. I was really pleased with the overall experience. Generally user friendly, clean interface, network browser worked well for me, and the forums on the company web site were very friendly and helpful. All in all, I think Lycoris is probably the best Linux desktop available for an average [windows] computer user (not the average linux user that is).

    My only gripe was that so much software I'm used to finding on a unix-like OS was simply missing. Unless you knew better, you ended up after the initial install with out a compiler or make or anything to roll your own software. This of course became a hastle when wanted to install new software later.

    My point is, Lycoris is NOT for the linux power user out there (or maybe even average linux user), but then, it isn't targeted to be. For it's target audience, I think Lycoris makes an excellent choice of a Linux desktop (although, one might wonder how much of such an audience exists).

    --
    Who said Freedom was Fair?
    1. Re:Lycoris Reactions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      My only gripe was that so much software I'm used to finding on a unix-like OS was simply missing. Unless you knew better, you ended up after the initial install with out a compiler or make or anything to roll your own software. This of course became a hastle when wanted to install new software later.
      Not so! The dev-tools are on the 2nd CD. Maybe u forgot to look there (:
    2. Re:Lycoris Reactions by SurfsUp · · Score: 3, Insightful

      My only gripe was that so much software I'm used to finding on a unix-like OS was simply missing. Unless you knew better, you ended up after the initial install with out a compiler or make or anything to roll your own software. This of course became a hastle when wanted to install new software later.

      Lycoris is Debian-based, which means you have apt-get, which means you have no-fuss, no-muss ability to install anything that didn't come with the default install, just apt-get install <package>.

      The only thing is, you may have to use a Lycoris-specific sources.list, which isn't such a bad thing, it's much like the way Redhat users upgrade through red carpet.

      Though I personally prefer the real thing - straight up Debian - I see a lot of value in the extra integration work done by distributions like Lycoris, which saves an infinite amount of time and frustration for beginner.

      --
      Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
    3. Re:Lycoris Reactions by CrazyDuke · · Score: 1

      Not having at least gcc is annoying as hell, but I think the assumption is that if the user is clueful enough to want it then they can get it themselves.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
    4. Re:Lycoris Reactions by Seeker5528 · · Score: 1

      Lycoris is based on Caldera. Sometimes finding a version of the software you want that will run can be a non trivial exercise. This is offset to some degree by having a friendly community forum at the website and a download directory for user contributed downloads.

      This release was primarily a minor update to the previous release, the next planned release will be a major upgrade.

      Later, Seeker

    5. Re:Lycoris Reactions by SurfsUp · · Score: 2

      Lycoris is based on Caldera

      Yep, sorry: saw 'Lycoris', though 'Xandros'. Then I agree, unless there's a really simple way to add in the missing tools this would be a real pain for professional use. On the other hand, for Windows refugees... well, the presentation looks very slick.

      If they have a clue, they'll use the rpm version of apt-get.

      --
      Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
  59. Apple's Aqua vs Aqua Themes and This Stuff by hpavc · · Score: 1

    didnt apple squash all the people from making themes based on their gui asthetic look and feel. Seems to me that microsoft could just squash this if they anted to due to the XP look-a-like.

    --
    members are seeing something, your seeing an ad
    1. Re:Apple's Aqua vs Aqua Themes and This Stuff by claude_juan · · Score: 1

      yo may want to take the time to actually check out some theme sites. there are more aqua look-a-likes than anyone cares to see. so i doubt that apple had a real big effect on the aqua copying. for that matter, there are lots of xp themes out there as well. i speak of themes for the gnome and kde desktops.

    2. Re:Apple's Aqua vs Aqua Themes and This Stuff by WildBeast · · Score: 2

      Yeah but it's just too damn hard to squash them, there are still many Aqua themes. Microsoft is smart enough to know that they shouldn't play this stupid game.

      Censorship is bad mmmmokay

  60. Re:hi! by dinivin · · Score: 3, Funny

    Jebus... If you're going to quote The Simpsons, at least do it right:

    Who controls the British crown?
    Who keeps the metric system down?
    We do! We do.

    Who leaves the Atlantis off the maps?
    Who keeps the Martians under wraps?
    We do! We do.

    Who holds back the electric car?
    Who makes Steve Guttenberg a star?
    We do! We do.

    Who robs cave fish of their sight?
    Who rigs every Oscar night?
    We do! We do.

  61. stonecutters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    stonecutters, one of the best_episodes_ever
    hehehehehe

  62. That may be true, only one of each by JudgeFurious · · Score: 1

    But it's kind of obvious that most people have a tendency to standardize on one particular application that they get comfortable with to perform a given task. You don't think that Wordperfect is a completely incapable word processor do you? Of course you don't. It's a nice program for writing BUT most people have M$ Word (or it's bastard cousin in MS Works) lodged firmly in their minds when they get ready to type up a document and that's why Wordperfect is barely registering a pulse these days. Same thing goes for every single other type of application that you could say "a majority of people use".

    There is an obvious bridge that Linux on the desktop needs to cross in order to not be "dead on the desktop" and a lot of the people who love it now will bemoan the state of things if and when it comes to pass. The 10,000 programs that get dropped on a new user are going to have to be pared down to a handful of front runners for "most people".

    I like the often repeated suggestion of having a standard, basic, newbie, whatever install that does this and the alternative install that gives you the whole enchilada.

    That would go a long way towards getting things pointed in the right direction.

    But it's a moot point anyway because whatever gets done with Linux for the desktop OSX will have done it first and in all likelyhood done it better. At least from the average person/user perspective.

    --
    Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
  63. Re:hi! by mistermoonlight · · Score: 1
    And why is this guy +2 for being a troll?

    The Troll mod order goes down kids, down.

  64. Just Cerious... by slakdrgn · · Score: 1

    ...how long will walmart adopt this for their linux pcs? This looks a lot better then lindows (tho unfortunally I don't think they have wine preinstalled) and would have more of a standard welcoming base then mandrake.. they might even be able to sell these instore.. ;)

  65. Today we install a desktop Linux... by SwedishChef · · Score: 3, Interesting

    at a customer's worksite. Yesterday I took a win2k workstation, blew off the OS and installed SuSE 8.0. Then I downloaded the Citrix client for Linux and installed that and configured it for the user. Today we'll take the box to the client and put it to work.

    The biggest problem we've encountered with Linux on the desktop isn't using Linux (I've used it on my desktop for years) but interfacing it with the applications that have been sold to businesses that only work with MS operating systems. This particular customer uses its main application over a Citrix server and we convinced them to give Linux a try. After all, there isn't much difference between using Citrix on a Win2k box than on a Linux box... but the websurfing will be done with Linux (Galeon)... and email with Evolution.

    --
    No one ever had to evacuate a city because the solar panels broke!
  66. Looking at it the wrong way. by dar · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Linux is already easy to use. Linux with X and KDE or Gnome is as easy to use (maybe easier) than Win2k etc. That's not the issue.

    Linux will take off on the desktop when it is dead easy to install, easy to configure, easy to add new hardware, easy to get X installed, and easy to add new software.

    In my mind this implies the following:

    - A separate setup procedure for home users. Their needs are different from sys admins.

    - If users are dedicating the machine to Linux, don't bother them with partitioning. If sharing with Windows, give them some reasonable defaults.

    - APM, Sound cards, USB, scanners, printers, modems, dial-up ISP, email, web access, and GUI all have to work out of the box with minimal intervention on the part of the user.

    - Installing new software can't put users in shared library hell.

    When these things happen, Linux will become usable by the average user. Not before.

    Maybe Lycoris has all this figured out. But I didn't see it on their web site the last time I looked. They're still showing off their GUI. Which, as far as I'm concerned, indicates they don't understand the real issue.

    --
    My other Slashdot ID is much lower.
    1. Re:Looking at it the wrong way. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look again.

      The Control Center makes X Congifuration, and networking config and all other configuration a snap.

      The new Internet installer is a simple one click process.

      A ton of hardware just drops in configured, as in my Olympus difital camera shows up in the 'My Linux System' and I just click on it to view pictures.

    2. Re:Looking at it the wrong way. by 13Echo · · Score: 2

      Lycoris seems to have this issue under control for the most part. Most devices are detected automatically, without a hitch...

      However, I have had some problems getting the installer to kick in on less-common (in terms of modern hardware) video cards. It pukes out when the installer starts up.

      I think that they have fixes most of that in the most recent version though. And everything else about the installation is automated, thanks to the use of Lizard.

    3. Re:Looking at it the wrong way. by mla_anderson · · Score: 1
      At the risk of looking like a sales person I would have to say that RedHat comes very close to these standards. (I do not work for RedHat I use their products.)

      1. They have canned installations, workstation would be the best choice for home users.
      2. The partitioning can be done automagically.
      3. Most devices are detected at install, a dial-up application is installed to the desktop.
      4. Installing new software is not as easy...but add Ximian Gnome and it does very well.
      However if the networking portion of Licoris' distribution works well that would add the missing capability. It's becoming very common for families to have networks in the home. Good support for MS networks both from a serving standpoint and a browsing standpoint will make it psychologically easier to integrate a Linux box into the network.

      I have one Linux server, one dual boot Linux/Windows workstation, and one plain Windows machine. After about 6 months of work everything is nicely integrated on the network. (I have to save up for wireless before getting the PDAs on the network.) If Lycoris can deliver a distro that can do that the first day they have my support.

      BTW, the dual boot machine spends most of it's time in Linux. We go to Windows to play games and do our books (it's a pain to move from one version of accounting software to another). All our normal office work is done in Open Office and Evolution. My scanner, webcam, and CF reader aren't even configured in Windows. Linux on the desktop is far from dead.

      --
      Sig is on vacation
  67. Last "DeskTop" Linux i used... by floydman · · Score: 1

    The last "DeskTop" Linux i used was Corel Linux, and lets c where did that end up to be...
    to me its just another cd lying somewhere under that pile oc cd's over there...
    That doesnt mean that KDE and Gnome are not doing a fascinating Job, no, they are truly amazing, but i think that a "DeskTop" linux needs some more time, and a different approach...

    --
    The lunatic is in my head
  68. Looks very familiar .... by bushboy · · Score: 1

    Ok, so what we have here is a combination of windows style icons on the desktop and a modified KDE looking 'start bar'

    Is it supposed to 'win over windows users' ?

    Somehow, I very much dought it's going to succeed.

    Joe-User: "cool, so what's this nice cheap desktop thingy do ? - can I play games ?"

    Sales-guy: "Sure you can - loads of them ?"

    Joe-User: "So I can play Warcraft III on it ?"

    Sales-guy: "Er, not sure, have to find out about that..."

    Joe-User: "So will my copy of Office 2000 work with it ?"

    Sales-guy: "Er, not sure, have to find out about that..."

    Ad infinitum...

    --
    A slashdotting - you get the stick first and then the carrot !
    1. Re:Looks very familiar .... by 13Echo · · Score: 2

      And interesting enough, both of those software programs that you suggested work fine in Linux WITHOUT Windows. With the help of a really cool library called WINE, it works like a charm, as does most Windows software.

    2. Re:Looks very familiar .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ummmm
      Joe-User: I'll buy that cd player ...
      Joe-User: Can I Play my cassettes on it
      Sales-Guy: Which reality did you come from?
      Joe-User: What about records?
      Sales-Guy: I'm going home....

      I agree with the gaming point, but the main desktop market is not for games.
      There are at least 3000 PC's in this building
      none of which have a linux desktop :-(
      and have 0 games on them.
      And could all run linux fine, it's about proven
      history.

  69. But that could also be stated like so by JudgeFurious · · Score: 1

    1. A polished desktop environment (two, actually)

    That both lag behind the target and even farther behind the real leader in the catagory, OSX

    2. Solid productivity apps

    That due to marketing from the 800lb gorilla and the considerable lead they have in this area no one wants to use outside of the faithful.

    3. Good support for multimedia

    That again lags behind the target. Unless you can match or exceed the ability that the average Windows user has to either just click and open darned near anything they want or at the most go get the plugin to do so you aren't there yet.

    4. An amazing Web browser (or several, depending on taste and definition)

    Granted. In this one area things are right with the world. Still it should be understood that when you are hanging in there by one thin thread it's simple enough to cut it. All it would take would be one well placed "enhanced standard" to put this right back to lagging behind the established leader.

    Easy point-and-click installation

    Not from someones point of view who has spent the last few years installing programs in Windows or Mac OS. Even Red Carpet would draw a baffled "Huh?" from them.

    GUI admin tools

    Finally. Thank God!

    I really do agree with you that things have come miles from where we were but the odds are so long and the lead is so great that it's a little overwhelming if you think about it too much. The lead isn't so much in the software but rather in the mind. Being better isn't going to be enough but I think it might be all this movement can manage. Not shabby by any means but changing minds is going to take some help and a different approach. A fumble or two from MS might also be needed.

    --
    Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
    1. Re:But that could also be stated like so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MS is fumbling plenty, but it sounds like you are more against Linux than anything. It keeps getting better and better and all the faults you mentioned will be fixed in a year or two. Its always been free and will continue to be free. You're end user environment will remain consistent across platforms and after KDE and GNOME complete their functionality and bug fixes we'll find far better backwards compatibility. But the problem you mentioned about changing peoples mind is something I personally don't think is necessary. The only reason most people are using computers is because it was made easy for them. If their computers break they won't know how to reinstall or work with it. And using commercial products will tend to cost them a lot of time and money when things do break. But us humble linux advocates will always be around to help other linux users when they need it. Communism will prevail. I sure hope it isn't that which upsets you.

    2. Re:But that could also be stated like so by JudgeFurious · · Score: 1

      Oh man, no I don't lose any sleep over communism. And I don't really think of myself as against Linux. I mean, I own about 6 different distros that I can see from where I'm sitting. Sure there are more around the place but I'm not going to go dig out my Red Hat 5.2 to prove a point. I bought them all too out of a desire to see them succeed. I use Red Hat 7.3 now in my PC which sits next to my Mac and suffers greatly in comparison.

      I just think the hurdles to be jumped to really get a significant number of people to go for the OS are impressive and shouldn't be taken lightly.
      It does keep getting better and better but then so do the established OS's so you must measure the gain accordingly. I read a comment in here where someone stated that Linux might just be farther behind Windows now than it was a couple of years back and that's worth pondering for a moment.

      To the user who goes in and picks up a new Gateway, HP, or eMachine Windows is free too. It's included in the price of their computer and that perception isn't going to budge. It's wrong and the more informed people out there understand it but majority of them don't and don't care. They think their PC is cheaper than the one they bought 4 years ago and has more "stuff" in it than the old one did. That's really all that matters.

      I can't see how you don't think changing peoples minds is important in this equation. It's their mindset that keeps them in the "program" and keeps them from considering alternatives. Sure if their computers break they won't know how to reinstall or work with them because it was made easy for them but most of them know that the people who made it easy for them (and this is a laugh) are Microsoft.

      Get them to see that someone else can make it even easier for them (like Apple is trying to do, now there is a company that knows the need to change peoples perceptions of them) and then you might have a chance to attract some "joe users".

      --
      Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
  70. RE: Is Linux on the Desktop Dead? by zandermander · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I find it very interesting that people would declare Linux on the desktop dead when it seems it is just barely begun life.

    Consider, for example, the difference between a person in a developing country (say Thailand for example) and a person in the inner-city in America.

    The person in the inner-city has, on the surface, a hugely better life - easy access to clean water, health care, they probably own a TV, eat three meals a day (I won't go into the fat content of those meals...) and they might even own a car.

    But, this person sees the wealth all around them. They have always been poorer than their SUV driving suburban neighbors and recognize that their quality of life has not changed much.

    The Thai person grew up in a time when no one they knew owned anything more than a few water buffalo. Tap water (if they have a tap in the house) is undrinkable, electricity is still spotty and paved roads are still years away. This person may even have memories of famine when they were children. However, due to the rising economy, this person now lives in a nice house with a tin roof (thatched roofs, although pretty also make a great home for rats which carry the plague) and might even own a motorcycle. Compared to his childhood, he is styling .

    Although our Thai friend's life is still much harder than the poor American's, it is much better than in the recent past and improving. He has never known or seen the wealth his American friend has.

    Having never had dominance of the desktop and only now beginning to penetrate this market (much like our Thai friend discovering the thrill of racing his shiny new motorcycle), Linux has nowhere to go but up.

    It is all in your point of view...

  71. Thats the one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Since when did slapping on lots of bright colours and inventing GUI widgets that are completly unintuitive become "Human Usable"? No, HCI is a science, and it seems that over the last two years one of several possible things has happened:

    • All HCI experts have overdosed on LSD and havn't come down yet
    • The HCI experts were too expensive, so Apple and Microsoft have replaced them with the 4 year old children of the board members
    • The HCI experts have simply become bored, and they've found an excuse to use those neon felt tip pens that they found in the kids closet
    • Apple and Microsoft have stopped listenting to their HCI experts, and have started listening to Marketing


    Either way, Engelbert must be apalled.
  72. Look & Feel by Machitis · · Score: 1

    Quite frankly, I'm in the category that immediately responds with, "Why are they making it look like Windows?" But seriously... so what? I mean, beside all the other possible issues with this distro and others, why is its aesthetic similarities to another OS a factor worthy of deciding whether or not it is a viable distro? So many Linux users (including myself) use Linux because they want to do things their way. I bet you could change icons if you wanted to. So, when people who want to do it "their way" start complaining about the defaults, it's a contradiction. "Your way" then becomes "KDE's way" or "GNOME's way" -- not Your way. Yes, it's just appearance, but I'm tired of the religious devotion to being as dissimilar to Windows as possible instead of honest focus on efficiency, effectiveness, and pliability of an Operating System.

  73. Marketing 'Desktops' by beswicks · · Score: 1

    One of the main areas which Linux (and OSS in general) suffers is marketing. Unfortunatly the desktop computer buying population's opinions are formed from what they see and hear. Currently they are bombarded by MacOS and Windows adverts, and unsuprisingly they demand Mac's and WinTel boxes and hence have there desktops...

    There isn't a good solution to this, OSS companies cannot compeate with money the like Apple & MS do.

    On a side note marketing like this doesn't help either:

    Lindows.com pricing follows the broadband model .. Applications can all be digitally downloaded and installed ...

    mmm...

    Or maybe I overestimate peoples ability to filter bullshit.

  74. Could it look any more like windows? by SensitiveMale · · Score: 1
    Geez.

    For an OS that everyone hates, you linux goofballs sure to imitate it an awful lot.

  75. I LOVE IT !!! :-D by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am real good at Solitaire! My new computer came with Windows XP and I hate MS so I formatted the memory (I have lots) and put in Lycoris.

    IT EVEN KNEW MY NAME and set up a home account for me!!! :-D

    Thanks Lycoris,

    -Scott Root

  76. two biggest problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    -I've been *trying* to use linux all year. I have been forced to switch back to mac classic for now. Two major problems. a default "full security" install is still NOT secure. Two, dial up modem action sucks rubber donkey dong. I have to constantly delete the default modem, then re install it, to get the thing to dial out all the time. I've tried rh 7.1, 7.2, and mandrake 8. mandrake would never even dialout for me. Waste of time, and I am not going to be forced into becoming a software engineer to just get on the internet. Not happening, I wasted my money on that disk set. redhat will eventually dialout, but it matters not if you get rooted within an hour, which has happened to me twice now, despite alleged "high security" and what passes for a firewall. I don't run a server, but to a newbie, there are SO MANY "things" which are running all the time at boot, and most of them require days of updates to find out which to delete, how to delete, and then applying patch after update after errata, it ain't worth it to me. I'll try the next major version of redhat once it's out of beta, but until then, I'l stick with trusty old mac classic. Yep, it's slower-so what? It's always wprked, never got owned or rooted, regular old external US robotics modem gets found once, and not "lost" like linux loses it.

    If I somehow knew how to manually type a hundred obscure commands I could "fix" these problems. Well, I don't, and there's no way around it, including RTFM. I am bored with RTFM when every single SENTENCE in any random linux FM has a dozen acronyms that in turn make you go read some other manual, and then another, then another-and etc, just to get it to work as advertised. Triple phooie on that noise, ain't happening any more. I have spent more time in the past several months trying to learn to use linux than my entire manual reading time spent since the late 80's in using windows and mac. That is RIDICULOUS.
    As long as linux maintains it's "eliteness" with forcing command line hell on people, it will stay an "also ran". I'm joe average user, not a unix sysadmin, not a software programmer. I applaud that GUI is getting better on linux, because that's exactly what is needed. People think in pictures, that's why GUI is so popular. Who here doesn't run ANY gui interface on their machines? maybe 2 or 3 % of the people here? This is a big clue on human brain ergonomics. This is why windows and mac took over desktops. Unix has been around a long time, most people didn't use it because it required a professional job related level of understanding to use it. big clue 2, most people ar3e not interested in becoming unix administrators, they already have jobs and other hobbies, just want to turn on computer and use it, not be forced to tweak every night and do college level self study courses for months just to do normal computer stuff. If lycoris has acomplished this, then good for them!

    Look at it this way, if I went and bought some new car, and every weekend I had to put it into the shop, and the dealer kept recalling this or that, and required me to do mechanics courses, I'd sell that thing. Computers for most people are like cars, you should be able to turn key, boot up the car, go driving. You aren't supposed to be a professional mechanic just to drive a car. Same deal with computers. Yes, some instruction needed to drive a computer, but joe average has no need nor should he be required to be a full time computer mechanic to just go surfing and do stuff with a computer. I like computers, I like the idea of linux on the desktop, I have put my money where my mouth is, but I am NOT going to keep re installing this or that distro until I read that a thousand people who never touched it before installed it, and it worked, and it don't get rooted or owned. I've been to all the linux forums I can find, linux is STILL a major pain in the butt to make it work cleanly for "joe average" who isn't a software programmer. It's getting better, but it's not exactly there yet.

    1. Re:two biggest problems by prisoner · · Score: 1

      well put, if a bit vitriolic...:)

  77. Can you imagine if it looked like Apple's OS X? by WildBeast · · Score: 2

    If Lycoris was an OS X look-alike and not a Windows look-alike, Steve Jobs would be suing the hell outta this company. We all remember the themes stuff don't we?

  78. Re: Is Linux on the Desktop Dead? by Daengbo · · Score: 1

    >Tap water (if they have a tap in the house) is undrinkable,
    >electricity is still spotty and paved roads are still years away.
    Hey, but the sign in front of the water department on Prachacheun Road (in Bangkok) says "Namprapagindai," or "You can drink the tap water." Of course no one does or seems to believe them, but that's another matter.
    From your analogy, does that mean that you could use Linux on the desktop, but no one believes that you can? I think so, and so do many others here in Thailand, which is why I'm taking the RH7.2 based Thai distro "Linux TLE" and merging it with the RH7.2 based thin client distro "K12LTSP." Maybe we can change the piracy rate in Thailand.

  79. can't we do better than an XP knock-off? by js83592 · · Score: 1

    One look at the Screen Shots and its obvious where they got their design ideas.. XP. How does linux ever hope to be ANYTHING if all we do is duplicate the work already done? The idea is to, gasp, INNOVATE. Can't we do better than an XP knockoff?

  80. Where's the community involvement? by Mr.+McGibby · · Score: 1

    I looked, but was unable to see where the improvements that they have made to certain packages are advertised. I understand that they don't necessarily have to make these easily available, but I would like to at least know if they're contributing to the community in any way.

    --
    Mad Software: Rantings on Developing So
  81. Lycoris: Is it really not free? by linuxbaby · · Score: 1

    Did anyone find the link to download Lycoris for free?
    Or is it really paid-only?

    1. Re:Lycoris: Is it really not free? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, you can download ISOs.

      Here's the list of Mirrors they have so far:

      Lycoris Mirrors

    2. Re:Lycoris: Is it really not free? by 13Echo · · Score: 2

      It is not pay-only. The mirrors just don't have it up yet.

      However, if the said enhancments are any indication of what to expect of it after it has been installed, I feel that it is well worth the $30-$40 that it costs for them to mail you the disks.

      I hope that more people try, and then buy it from them if they like it. It is a good distribution, and is great for desktop use.

    3. Re:Lycoris: Is it really not free? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My question is why do I need a separate Product ID to install it on another machine and still get tech support for it?

  82. operating systems are not used by Lewis+Mettler,+Esq. · · Score: 2

    Operating systems never are used.

    Applications are.

    --
    NexuSys - Linux support by the best
    1. Re:operating systems are not used by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod this guy up, this is the point of the post.

  83. Flaky cut and paste by mobosplash · · Score: 1

    The one thing that drives me crazy on my linux box is how inconsistant cutting and pasting is. Is that just the way it is because of all the different toolkits? Is there any way to make this work better? Other than that I like KDE way better than windows and there are many features I miss even when on OS X.

  84. Re: Is Linux on the Desktop Dead? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This makes it revolutionary.

  85. Linux XP by boowax · · Score: 1

    I know its heresy to even mention the two in the same sentence but after looking at the Lycoris website I couldn't help thinking....this is the XP version of linux! It looks great! The real question of course is, does it work? Well for things like browsing, checking email and playing preinstalled games this will be great for bringing JoeUser to Linux. The fact that it looks like his current "user friendly" (read: everything hidden) Windows XP machine is a good thing. It will help him to adjust. And the automatic install for many of the most popular and useful apps will help him along until he can learn to use rpms and the like. After that however, he's pretty much lost....oh and btw he doesn't want to use the command line...EVER! Though I personally love the console, the average user considers it far beyond his comprehension to type a line of text at a prompt. One would guess that this has to do with the fact that he wouldn't know what to do if something went horribly wrong....but then he wouldn't know what to do if that happened in the GUI either. So this needs improvement. There needs to be an equivalent to windows' Install Sheild that allows the ignorant user to install with a double-click and a few "Next"s....and he won't even have to reboot :-P.

    Other than the fact that JoeUser won't be able to install BonziBuddy on his new Lycoris Linux box I see that he will have a fairly smooth transition....now the hard part, getting him to WANT to switch. He's apparently got no problem paying through the nose to MS for sub-par (but ubiquituous and usually automatic-if-not-preinstalled) software, so why put work into it (even if its free). We must strive to convience the average user that it somehow benefits him to learn things all over again when he'll only be saving about $100-$200 if he buys this off the shelf. How much is the time he spends learning everything again worth to him? Sure, he'll have to pay for the next "up"grade but he'll buy a new computer by that time and it will have the latest version of his favorite (and to his knowledge, probably the only) OS available for his computer. Frankly he doesn't care about DRM or "free as in freedom" when it comes to software, because he doesn't know anywhere and "free as in beer" doesn't affect him if it takes his "free as in time" to get it working and learn how to use a new system. What we need is a seamless XP-like experience for the new home user and it looks like Lycoris gives us that, at least on the surface. Most people don't like to learn for knowledge's sake, especially not when it comes to computers...they want their magic beiger box to do what they want before they know what they want and to tell them that they like it (see windows XP) and this is what Linux needs to have preinstalled on computers from DELL and Compaq and Gateway...unfortunately MS has it's claws so deep in those companies there isn't a foothold to get. Linux on the desktop is not dead, it simply hasn't been approached from the perspective of actually giving the average user what he wants and needs: simplicity....he doesn't want to know how it works and for the most part he doesn't even care about changing from default settings (execpt to install BonziBuddy of course - please don't let anyone port this to Linux).

    I say GO LYCORIS! for at least they have the right idea....and I hope they are able to implement it correctly, for the fate of linux's future may rest in their hands.

    --

    You report, Slashdot decides
    Prevueing you're poast ownly hellps iff ewe no how two spel inn teh furst plase
  86. in its infancy by Lewis+Mettler,+Esq. · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Linux on the desktop is not dead by any means.

    Clearly Microsoft wants to put out the phrase hoping that the weak of mind will believe it.

    But, it is just getting started.

    Lindows and Mandrake have just now shown up on the Wal-mart web site. Sure, DELL was beaten up by Gates and forced to beg off the market for now, but they will return. It may not be until the idiots at Microsoft are forced to comply with the appropriate laws, but it will happen.

    How can you help?

    Help distribute OpenOffice and even help promote StarOffice. Contact your local "beige box boys" and suggest they preload at least OpenOffice with every PC that goes out the door. They can even charge a few dollars extra to have it installed. Windows or linux, it does not matter. It is the benefit to the custom that will help alternative products and linux included.

    If Wal-Mart can sell PCs preloaded with Mandrake and Lindows, then so can the rest of them. And, once competition knows what is expected of them, they will comply. What is gone are the days when an extra $700 of Microsoft software is bundled with each PC that sells. That is no longer necessary. And, the vendors who figure that out will get the business.

    Have you compared Xandros or even the old Corel Linux with the windows explorer? Maybe you should.

    Corel Linux (several years old by now) is just as easy to use as windows ever was. And, currently Xandros is taking it a bit farther. Even farther than Mandrake with its "switch screen" features. It allows the user to log on another screen without logging off the first one. And then, of course, switching back and forth between users.

    Does it matter that Xandros puts out that kind of feature?

    Yes, it does.

    Linux will provide the platform for a whole series of very useful features. A single entity such as Microsoft simply can not and will not do so. Neither will just Mandrake. But, putting RedHat, Mandrake, Corel, eLx, Xandros, Lindows and others all into a highly competitive marketplace will greatly expand that marketplace and provide real benefits for all kinds of consumers.

    Linux on the desktop is not dead. Microsoft might be.

    --
    NexuSys - Linux support by the best
    1. Re:in its infancy by coupland · · Score: 2

      Guys, your jaded optimism is adorable but mis-placed. DR-DOS was a DOS killer. Desqview was a DOS/Win killer. OS/2 was a Windows killer. The iMac was a Wintel killer. PalmOS was a WinCE killer. And now Linux is an XP killer.

      Do what Linus says. Stop trying to beat anyone and just make something you like. It'll put a big-old smile on your face and when people says "Linux on the desktop is crap compared to Windows" you can answer: "Windows?"

  87. Linux is dead on the desktop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As long as X windows is the windowing system, Linux on the desktop is dead. If you are a coder and complain "waa I use linux on the desktop" well that's great. You probably just run text mode apps on the desktop. I can't believe all this time is wasted by making X look like Windows. 3d interfaces should be used more often in unix environments, not 2d eyecandy crap. Windows rules the desktop and will probably for the next 100 years.

  88. What distro are YOU using? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apparently one that doesn't use modules.
    Modules are your friend.

  89. Small Point. by FooMasterZero · · Score: 1

    With all the linux gripes about how linux doen't suppport application x or game y.
    It got me to thinking linux might be having the same life as the old macintoshes,and PC's once did.

    A linux system at work will be generally cost effective and more productive for end users. (* no games generally :-P *) then often users will what the same setup at home because they can do some work from home with no incompatibility issues.

    IBM PC's flooded businesses with thier equipment and DOS was it and it goes from there, as well as teachers wanted mac's in their home since that is what they had in school. You can even see that today that mac still realizes the important of product placement (*maybe ?*) as mac struggles or at least gives me the impression that they are struggling against Dell for school PC real estate.

    Now back to the point
    Linux is and has proven it self worthy for it's place in the business world especially when it comes to servers, even as a desktop at work linux works great. Linux has an office clone for the clerical types, development tools out the wazoo for the technical people, and web/email etc for everyone. So with the previous notion if people start using it at work it will trickle on home since people have to work from home for whatever reason. Then once that starts happening, people will start demanding more of less work software and more entertaining software like games.

    So really maybe linux should be a business desktop before becoming a home desktop ?

  90. Rollemup still plays! Re:we've had it all wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    dude - get Rollemup from TheLostBoyz!

  91. lycoris Linux = very bad mojo... by Lumpy · · Score: 1, Troll

    can anyone explain what the hell are they selling?

    they have user licenses for sale.. for what? linux requires NO per seat licensing.. so what are they trying to pull? what is their closed/un-free add-in that brings lycoris linux into the pit?

    this one thing will make sure that I reccomend against it. as it looks like nothing but REDhat 7.3 with a KDE theme added to it to make it more XPish.

    Linux has a ZERO per seat license cost.. what the hell are they trying to charge $19.95 for?

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  92. Re:hi! by ThereIsNoSporkNeo · · Score: 1

    I beg your forgiveness.

    I was only trying to spread the joy that is Simpsons to this dark, cold place.

    In my zeal, I was overly hasty and attempted to recreate the song from memory. I apologize profusely.

    Thank you Sir! May I have another Sir!

    --
    With my dying breath, I curse Zoidberg!
  93. Lycoris (the website) is down, and so are mirrors by hacker · · Score: 2
    It looks like /. took another one down. Lycoris is down, their mysql database is spitting errors, the mirrors are down, and now all the links point to some sort of phpwebhosting.com website.

    Oh well, /. takes another victim.

  94. Re: Is Linux on the Desktop Dead? by 13Echo · · Score: 2

    Simple. It is just more trolls try to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt into the minds of other people. This prevents people from even attempting to use Linux on the desktop.

  95. Desktop linux has two camps of idiots by Ilan+Volow · · Score: 2
    What I think a lot of people don't understand about desktop linux is that there are many different stupid factions fighting over equally stupid ideas.
    • One camp of idiots in the linux community can't seem to understand how the basic file/folder/desktop paradigm works. They says things like "don't call what people put files into a 'folder'. That's too much like windows. Call it 'directory'." That any HCI professional would say "folder keeps consistancy with the paradigm" is irrelevant to idiots such as these.
    • Another camp of idiots, the polar opposite of the first, wants to blindly carbon-copy microsoft. They can't seem to understand that many designs that Microsoft came up with were dead wrong from a GUI design perspective and that Microsoft has been constantly criticized by the HCI community for implementing them in the first place. Multi-row tabs, window-in-window MDI, billions of tiny, cryptic, unlabeled toolbar buttons that are too small to have fast access time with a mouse are just some of the many skeletons in microsofts UI design closet. That an HCI professional would say "adaptive menus like the kind in office 2000 can be easily proven to be a stupid idea" is irrelevant to idiots such as these.
    Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right...
    --
    Ergonomica Auctorita Illico!
  96. Tsk... by Jack+Hughes · · Score: 1

    ... You *must* get your spelling checker fixed. ..I assume you meant "...a huge box of beagles". Last time I tried this nobody got any work done for 3 days.

  97. No scanner support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tried it on my auxilliary computer. Thought I might be able to move my scanner to it, and free up some primary computer clutter. Didn't support my scanner. Dropped it and went back to Win2k.

    The OS doesn't matter folks. It what you run under the OS that does. If I can't use it to do what I want it to, it isn't very intertesting.

  98. rehashing a stupid flamewar by The+Droek · · Score: 1
    Quoth the submitter:
    Who says Linux is dead on the desktop? ;-)

    Okay, see the bolded portion of the quote? Alright, now, turn your head to the left. D'ya see it? Sort of a smiling face, winking?

    sheesh.

  99. Re: Is Linux on the Desktop Dead? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The only way your analogy makes sense is if people are willing to move from inner-city America to rural Thailand.

  100. To add to that... by gfxguy · · Score: 1

    I use Mandrake (and I've used Linux since '92 - like many others I don't like to/don't have time to play system administrator).

    The problem with all the junk it installs is so many things depend on them. It's like "Ok, I use gnome so I don't need KDE", but a bunch of tools you might want depend on KDE, so you can't uninstall it. So you say "Ok, I'll just use KDE" and discover even more things depend on gnome. So you say "well, I'm a programmer, but I don't need python", and a bunch of things depend on it.

    I know it's not quite the same as word processors and browsers, but these things are quite heavy and are all required. Pretty annoying.

    --
    Stupid sexy Flanders.
    1. Re:To add to that... by bogie · · Score: 2

      excellent point. Paring back an install on Mandrake or Redhat is a pain in the ass. And yes I'm well aware of Mandrakes 70MB minimal install, but that's not a full featured desktop is it? I've been customizing Redhat Desktop installs since 5.0 and now I just give up and let it install all the crap. Sure put pine, exim,mutt, fetchmail and 20 other mail utilites I'll never use in the bse install. Meanwhile Kmail is all I have ever used for years.

      That's why the reviewers raved over Corel's linux, it was desktop linux done right.

      --
      If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
  101. here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ftp://207.251.100.67/build46inc/

  102. An answer for you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The one-time-fee of $19.95 is for the 60 days e-mail support as well as access to downloads through IRIS. (IRIS is a click-n-go style installer for software titles.)

    Product Updates are free, and there is no recurring fee for IRIS (AFAIK). You can download an ISO free of charge and use it free of charge if you wish.

    1. Re:An answer for you by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      then they need to rename it or explain that. you aren't buying a user license. but you are buying a support contract.

      It's mis-marketing that causes most of the confusion and problems with a product.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  103. Hmm no download option? by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Might have missed it but all i see is 'purchase' from first glance..

    Another all commercial distro or is there a personal use freebee?

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  104. download option? Yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.lycoris.org has a download link to get to the mirrors. Unfortunately the site has been slashdotted. Wait a while and try back. They have ISOs that can be downloaded.

  105. Lycoris by LeftOfCentre · · Score: 1

    I'm not particularly fond of Linux for desktop use. I installed Lycoris but noticed that it wouldn't work with my USB mouse, and that it appeared to select the wrong graphics driver making everything dead-sluggish. I then gave the latest Red Hat a try and noticed it has improved a lot since I last tried it a few years ago. Not only did it have a nice graphical install, it also recognized my USB mouse and selected the appropriate graphics driver without any hitches. Very nice. I run it now on my second box.

  106. Popularity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    So there are at least two users who have to switch to away from Linux before it dies on the desktop. I have reason to believe there are a few million more out there like us, so Linux isn't even close to dead on the desktop.

    Haven't you heard? Second biggest isn't good enough, it's only the one with the biggest numbers that counts, and a million doesn't cut it.

    It doesn't matter if, say, you're a musician who's built up a loyal following and made a good living performing now for years; if your face didn't appear on MTV at least 8 times a day last week, then you're "obscure", and that, I'm sure you understand, is a terrible thing to be.

    It doesn't matter that you've lived your life well and made a difference to your community. Less than a hundred million people have heard of you, so you're a worthless nobody.

    The big numbers are where it's at. Jeez, get with the program.

  107. Mandrake and Lindows at walmart.com by fldvm · · Score: 1

    Is anyone at Slashdot working on an interview with the guy(s) that are responsible for PCs preloaded with Mandrake and Lindows to the marketplace at Walmart.com?

  108. From Windows to Linux on the desktop by Blikbok · · Score: 1

    I think I can speak with a little experience, because I am right now in the transition from Windows 2000 to Debian Linux. I spent three years at a Windows-only shop, and am now working in a Linux-preferred, Mac-tolerant environment. I get tired of doing all minor maintenance tasks in xterms. It seems the only reason I start X is to use a graphical web browser and open thirty xterms. I do enjoy the terse power of the commandline, but some tasks are just easier to accomplish when there is a picture to look at. I don't want my Linux box to look like XP. I'd just like to see more lightweight GUI helper/frontends for some of the common commandline apps, mainly to have some graphical output, not dozens of hi-res icons.

  109. Two desktops at the same time by SurfsUp · · Score: 2
    currently Xandros is taking it a bit farther. Even farther than Mandrake with its "switch screen" features. It allows the user to log on another screen without logging off the first one. And then, of course, switching back and forth between users.

    Try this:
    <Start Gnome>
    Ctrl-Alt-F2
    <log in>
    xinit /usr/bin/kde2 -- :1
    Voila, two desktops running at the same time. Or:
    <Start KDE>
    Ctrl-Alt-F2
    <log in>
    xinit /usr/bin/gnome-session -- :1
    if you want to do it the other way. I'm sure Xandros has put a nice slick interface on this, but it's always been something you can do with X. I do it all the time, in fact I'm running with xfce + KDE right now.
    --
    Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
    1. Re:Two desktops at the same time by Lewis+Mettler,+Esq. · · Score: 2

      I learn something new every day.

      Xandros has put a nice face on the feature. With Xandros you can define whether the return to the first screen will require or not require a password. Again a fine touch.

      I think the issue here is that different distros can feature or not feature capabilities that individual users may really desire.

      For example, Mandrake will use Samba just as Xandros does. But, 90% of all windows users would never use Mandrake because of the lack of ease of use to network.

      For years now, Corel Linux offered a clone of the Windows Explorer including "Network Neighborhood". But, the latest version of Mandrake is off on a picknic somewhere. It is not worth the time and trouble to learn the hard way when a right click will set it up right in the file manager.

      And, again the point is that the different distros will focus upon ease of use features in a different way. That is a primary advantage that linux will always benefit from and Microsoft will not. Microsoft may design their stuff one way, but who is to say that they pick the best way. And, "best for whom?" is always the issue.

      Regular line employees would not want Mandrake. Xandros or Lindows may be a much better solution for them. Less learning and a lot more like the Microsoft stuff they already know or also use from time to time. No one linux distro is going to do that as long as that company focuses upon the server market.

      And, that is the other point here. The desktop market is very different. And, it is not singular either. Developers may want or accept one version while a much easier distro may be necessary for 80-90% of all PC users.

      --
      NexuSys - Linux support by the best
  110. Is Lycoris truely Free? by tshak · · Score: 2

    I looked around there website, and I feel kind of blind, but I can't find a free download of it.

    --

    There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
  111. From here: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Get build 46:
    http://www.lycoris.com/download/

  112. My Linux desktop is the same as it ever was by Angst+Badger · · Score: 2

    My Linux desktop is alive and well. Near as I can tell, it's made of laminated particle board, and it supports my monitor and keyboard with admirable efficiency, which is most helpful when I'm working at my Linux commandline.

    Oh sure, I know that's not for everyone, but I switched to Linux so I wouldn't have to do the same thing as everyone. Which is, I thought, the entire point of open source. It'll be a cold day in hell before I ever use Lycoris, but that's just me -- I might, however, install it for my wife and daughter, both of whom are quite bright, but totally disinterested in software development. And that's cool, too.

    So congrats to the Lycoris folks for rolling out what looks like a polished product. More choice is always good.

    --
    Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
  113. So much for the originality by motox · · Score: 1

    It looks like a clone of Windows XP to me...

  114. Some thoughts by MoogMan · · Score: 1

    Im sorry, but some of this package is the most ugliest thing i've seen in a long time - its possibly the worst linux/winxp mix around in fact. Im not entirely convinced that making linux look like windows is the best of ideas. Hopefully they've not disabled themes etc so we can have it back to the default KDE3 themeage or at least something that looks nicer

    Additionally a lot of the things really are just things that are part of KDE3 rather than Lycoris.

    The update wizard is an amazingly good idea. I just hope that it works as well as it looks. This is definitely (in my opinion) one of the things that users will not move to linux.

    The software installer?! Now we're cooking on gas! We need more of this easy stuff. Damn, it looks like XP! Installing/Uninstalling is another hellish thing to be done by the linux newbie

    Recovery mode is possibly a good idea - I dont think hardened linux users will use it, but I get the feeling that this is specifically aimed at first time linux users. Although I dont really see it being much different from changing to a terminal and doing maintainance from there.

    Purchase. Uck, can I download it? No. I cant therefore get it for free so i'd rather stick to another distribution.

  115. It is just windows with a linux Kernel!!! by pardasaniman · · Score: 1

    I saw a screenshot, and my heart skip beat. I thought Linux was about choice, not advertising the same old disgusting desktop. Some say that windows users would appreciate a familiar desktop but, the people who I've converted to Linux all enjoy the different look. I really do not like the way this is gonna end up. The linux market does not have room for another commercial distro, the ones that exist have a hard enough time making money now.

  116. NPR already did an interview with Lindows by Lewis+Mettler,+Esq. · · Score: 2

    Check out the lindows.com web site.

    NPR has a recorded interview with Michael on the Lindows deal.

    --
    NexuSys - Linux support by the best
  117. well Gates is using illegal means against linux 2 by Lewis+Mettler,+Esq. · · Score: 2

    Was that your point?

    Illegal acts can nix a very fine competing product?

    DR-Dos suffered from illegal Microsoft acts. Microsft even paid the money to settle the Caldera case.

    Desqview suffered from the Window Manager being bundled with DOS even though Deskview did not sue. Perhaps they should have?

    And, OS/2 was also subject to a number of illegal moves by Microsoft including many conduct right in the face of IBM.

    And, most recently the idiot Gates took the baseball bat to DELL in order to force them to drop (for now) their support of linux on the desktop.

    There is no doubt that Gates thinks he is better off conducting illegal acts to hold off competition. That is why he himself engages in those illegal acts.

    --
    NexuSys - Linux support by the best
  118. Wow! by Com2Kid · · Score: 1

    Almost none of my hardware is on their compatability list!

    Then again it isn't on the Windows 2000 compatability list either. :-D

    There little software section there should /really/ be expaned. Not to mention that if MS ever even /tried/ to setup such a system people would freak out (err, yaaah, complete knowledge of every program installed on computer? Yaaaah riiiiiight! heh. There would be a /. freakout. :D )

  119. Yes, Virginia, there is a DOWNLOAD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A download is available at their official ftp server at:

    ftp://ftp.lycoris.com/pub/linux/desktoplx/iso/

    Also, there is a list of mirrors on their community site, whenever that recovers from the slashdot affect. ;-)

  120. Re:well Gates is using illegal means against linux by coupland · · Score: 2

    I think you've got a decent grasp of some of Microsoft's past "foibles" but you jump to the erroneous conclusion that just because Microsoft does something dastardly that it's by definition illegal. Publicly-traded companies exist to build shareholder value at any cost. What you see as illegal is merely response to stimulus -- the cold, calculating efficiency of the predator/prey principle, but in a free market setting. For example:

    DR-Dos suffered from illegal Microsoft acts.

    How is that? DR-DOS suffered because they were reverse-engineering a product. This is why OS/2, Wine, and Mono couldn't / can't succeed. When someone else is setting the standard you will always be in catch-up mode and they will always be first to market.

    Desqview suffered from the Window Manager being bundled with DOS even though Deskview did not sue.

    DOS did not have a bundled window manager, what it had was a crummy, single-tasking quasi-GUI file manager. It was not a window manager in any sense of the word. By the time of Windows 95 and DOS/Win bundling, Desqview was many years dead. Desqview suffered because when people upgraded to DOS 6 they found that magically DV no longer ran and an obscure upgrade was needed. I'm not even sure this was illegal, just very underhanded. This offered enough time for Windows 3.0 to come out and the rest is history.

    And, OS/2 was also subject to a number of illegal moves by Microsoft including many conduct right in the face of IBM.

    How was anything they did illegal? OS/2 was an OS well ahead of its time but lacking any apps. Since IBM had only licensed Win3.x APIs they were again relegated to perpetually playing catch-up.

    And, most recently the idiot Gates took the baseball bat to DELL in order to force them to drop (for now) their support of linux on the desktop.

    How do you figure? When even John Carmack, one of the strongest Linux advocates in the world thinks there's no money in Linux (games) on the desktop, why-oh-why do you think Dell should support it out of pure-hearted good nature? While I share your frustration I think you need to take a strong dose of reality. We don't live in a world where being "good" wins the war.

    IMHO Microsoft's greatest sins were in the early '90's when they would release a new DOS version and use the proceeds to fund their next Office upgrade which would fund their next DOS version ad infinitum. By leveraging these two products against each other they guaranteed nobody could win. Sadly no one else seems to remember this. Or what about the Office price wars when Office for Windows 2.0 was crap but it sold for a fraction the price of the competition? Microsoft could afford it by releasing new DOS versions and reaping the profits by the dumptruck-load. But Borland, Lotus, and Novell couldn't afford to match those price cuts and where are their office packages now? People always seem to focus on the wrong things. Penfield-Jackson had the penalty right, he was just a stupid ass who shot himself in the foot.

  121. Re: Is Linux on the Desktop Dead? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Linux IS the inner-city kid genius...

    Your analogy is that Linux, like a peasant Thailand, has nothing to compare itself to, when in fact Linux has EVERYTHING to compare itself to.
    such is the nature of an interconnected global marketplace...
    not to mention, your whole scenario only makes sense if every inner-city child was once part of the ruling class now on the way down...

  122. Re:well Gates is using illegal means against linux by Lewis+Mettler,+Esq. · · Score: 2

    Microsoft paid Caldera $150 million to avoid a possible judgment on the matter.

    And, yes, I am a lawyer so I can have a legal opinion that what Microsoft did was in fact a violation of the Federal antitrust laws.

    The Microsoft windows manager, "Windows" was bundled with DOS to foreclose such products as Deskview. Windows was no more than KDE or GNOME is today. In fact, it still is.

    Illegal bundling does in fact preclude competition from markets. That is "why" Microsoft engages in those acts.

    And, yes, I am a lawyer and do have a legal opinion that bundling a windows manager is illegal tying. It is illegal tying just like the browser is illegal tying. Do we have the final court decision on the browser tying? No. Not yet. The AOL law suit is still pending.

    Look, if Gates the idiot did not think that beating up on DELL was not necessary, why was he so stupid to engage in the act?

    You can claim that you disagree with the need for Gates to do what he did, but Gates himself decided (at Ballmers suggestion) to get involved and stop DELL from promoting linux desktops.

    You can create all the false ideas you want, but what they did is what matters. And, if your false stories were true, they would not have had to do anything at all. So, Gates and Baller disagree with you. Not me.

    I only think what they did was illegal and stupid.

    --
    NexuSys - Linux support by the best
  123. Re:well Gates is using illegal means against linux by coupland · · Score: 2

    You are grossly misinformed and should be embarassed to post such poorly-researched comments.

    The Microsoft windows manager, "Windows" was bundled with DOS to foreclose such products as Deskview.

    Your recollection of history is blatently false. Windows and DOS were not bundled until many years after Desqview was dead and Windows had a monopoly of the "OS" market. The fact is that Desqview 2.0 was released in 1987 whereas Win95 (the bundling of DOS and Windows) didn't take place until 1995. Bundling the products was the only thing that made sense and was in a sense the means to discontinue DOS 6.

    In fact, neither the DOJ nor the courts have ever found fault with Microsoft for "bundling" DOS and Windows, bundling didn't even become a factor until Netscape's demise. For example, the consent decree of 1994 makes no mention of bundling products and is completely devoted to licensing practises. While you're free to your own fiction, the facts, the DoJ, and the courts tend to disagree with you.

    Gates himself decided (at Ballmers suggestion) to get involved and stop DELL from promoting linux desktops

    References, please! I hope you work differently in court because I certainly make no judgements without some sort of evidence.

  124. Yes! Yes! Yes! by Balinares · · Score: 2

    Oh, where are the mod points when you need them.
    My good man, I agree with you SO entirely. I've been ranting about those points regularly since I switched my girlfriend to Linux (and more precisely, Mandrake) and analyzed her reactions to the system.

    There's also one point you may have overlooked: if we want hardware makers to write device drivers, then we need to make writing drivers WAY easier. There are efforts underway (like the ALSA architecture for sound devices), but we're still not there yet. If you want to, say, write a driver for an USB tablet, then you'll need to 1) modify the HID kernel driver slightly, so that it won't get hold of the tablet and try to use it with the standard HID-mouse driver; 2) add the kernel module for your tablet; and 3) add the X driver for the XInput support of your tablet. And I leave out the hassle that is getting X configured right. How the heck is an USB tablet vendor supposed to write a generic Linux driver in those conditions?

    This said, it might be that you don't give Lycoris enough credit. I haven't tested it (can you download the distro from their site, BTW?), but if you look at those screenshots, they've got 1) a hardware installer utility, 2) a software installer utility, and 3) a X configuration utility. So it might be that they have figured out the real issues after all. We can hope, anyway. I wish them good luck. We'll all need it.

    --

    -- B.
    This sig does in fact not have the property it claims not to have.
  125. Lah dee dah... by Spit · · Score: 1

    But grafting wings to a tank does not make it a fighter jet. I never understood why the open source crowd decided to hop on the Unix horse. Proprietary Unix is no better than proprietary Windows, or proprietary Mac OS. So why do we persist in insisting that Unix should be the basis for a desktop OS?

    In case you haven't noticed Mac OS X is as Unix as it gets. Apple were smart enough not to reinvent the wheel, they put hubcaps on.

    --
    POKE 36879,8
  126. Re:well Gates is using illegal means against linux by Lewis+Mettler,+Esq. · · Score: 2


    Microsoft paid $150 million to avoid the DOS Windows bundling from getting to the judge.

    Desqview did not sue. But, they could have. Suggesting Microsoft only illegally bundled the windows manager after Desqview was dead is your opinion. And, may not matter much. Besides, illegal acts are not excused simply because a competitor is on the way out. Rather illegal acts are then unnecessary.

    It is just like the idiots who beat up on DELL. If the false claim that Gates and Ballmer did not need to beat on Dell were true, then they would not have to do so, would they? Do you really think a guy like Gates and Ballmer act needlessly? They do not think so. So, when you claim DELL was going to axe linux anyway, you make Gates and Ballmer look to be fools.

    As for your suggestion that the courts disagree with my opionions, perhaps you should read the court decision more carefully. But, do not read the decisions that use faulty jurisprudance.

    The consent degree you like to mention was designed to prevent IE from being a required purchase with the OS. Perhaps you would like to explain to others what you think it was supposed to do? If not that?

    Microsoft was not convicted of violating it because that issue was never properly litigated. The large DOJ and States case replaced it.

    As for the monopoly in the OS, that was true for a long time. And, whether Microsoft got the monopoly legally or not has not been litigated. The new monopoly in browers is being litigated in the AOL law suit.

    As for DELL:

    Microsoft documents apparently have something to reveal.

    It does not sound like lack of demand had anything to do with it.

    Sounds more and more like additional illegal activity.

    The following is taken from the opening statement by the States.

    1. Microsoft held a series of meetings with Dell in regard to linux
    2. Meetings involved both Gates and Ballmer
    3. Microsoft does not sell a linux distro
    4. Microsoft needs to remind Dell why it is smart to partner with Microsoft
    5. Dell feels a need to discuss linux with Microsoft? (does he need permission from the godfather?)
    6. Ballmer is urged to make certain that Dell understands it is untenable for Dell to be marketing linux
    7. Ballmer suggests that Gates give Dell somewhat of a hard time (Ballmer suggests that Gates brown nose Dell)
    8. Dell in June of 2001 informs Microsoft (the crime family) that Dell has canceled their linux business unit
    9. Does not smell like lack of market demand at all

    Is this testimony? No, just statements from the States based upon Microsoft documents.

    But, does this sound like a lack of marketing demand nixed Redhat on Dell desktops? Not to me it does not.

    It sounds like Dell thinks that Microsoft Corporation has to approve any contracts that Dell might want to sign with others. (Or, they have to cancel if Microsoft does not approve.)

    --
    NexuSys - Linux support by the best
  127. The Mommy Test by joyjoy · · Score: 1

    I installed Red Hat 7.3, with my mom's permission, on her machine. She had installed Red Hat 5.2 a few years ago, which she amusingly refers to as the "Giant Penguin" because she couldn't get XWindows configured correctly and so she had a 320x200 desktop with a giant penguin the only thing visible.

    She likes her KDE desktop right now. That said, I asked her what she didn't like. Too MUCH choice was one of the first things she mentioned. She has 4 CD-Burning programs, none of which work correctly for everything she wants to do - so I spent this weekend uninstalling and leaving her with what I thought of as best-of-class apps for their particular job. And of course KSokoban which she is addicted to. She doesn't WANT 45 programs that all purport to do the same thing, it's too confusing when she's trying to learn just the basics.

    The other big problem was learning to install software. She gets confused and downloads source tarballs..or gets an RPM but then doesn't know what to do with it. Double-click installs that could apt-get all their dependencies would be GREAT.

    And thirdly, lack of apps...I'm talking end-user apps. Landscaping software because she wants to redesign the yard - had to boot into Windows to do that.

  128. Desktop? by Laser+Lou · · Score: 1

    The main reason why Linux has not been successful on the desktop is that there is less functionality available through Linux compatible business software than in Windows software.

    The simple presence of a GUI is not what makes an OS a desktop OS. MS-DOS was once the main "desktop" OS, even though it didn't have a GUI. The Macintosh OS was on fewer desktops than MS-DOS, even though it had a quality GUI. The difference was the amount of functionality available through MS-DOS business applications. If many highly functional business programs were available for Linux instead of Windows, Linux would lead on the desktop.

    --
    No data, no cry
  129. Read the whole post by prisoner · · Score: 1

    please. Beyond the recompiling the kernel bit (which is a bit old) I think I have it right on. I've run Linux off and on since about 1996 or so, unfortunately of late it's more off than on - 'bout 3 years or so but...anyways, I recently installed RH7.3 on an HP pavillion machine. Redhat refused to recognize my 3com network card. I searched about and finally realized that I needed an entry in /etc/modules.conf for the 3c509x module. This highlights my comment about the "different approach" - in windows you use the gui tools to do much the same thing. It also illustrates my "mummy" comment as such: 1) the fsck'ing driver was already there but wouldn't load up. 2) Everyone calls these bits of software drivers. Couldn't we call the damn file "drivers.conf" even though we're loading modules? Anyways, my .02

  130. Re:well Gates is using illegal means against linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    And, OS/2 was also subject to a number of illegal moves by Microsoft including many conduct right in the face of IBM.

    I haven't heard of any illegal moves by Microsoft against IBM. If you have any pointers, I would sincerely like to see them. Certainly if any company could defend itself against Microsoft, it would be IBM.

    I have always heard (and I have seen nothing that disputes it) that the failure of OS/2 is a result of the failure of IBM marketing droids, who couldn't sell water in a desert.

  131. Re:We Hate Microsoft!!! - Truce by iamwhatiseem · · Score: 1

    Truce, we are both on the right side
    It just erks me when a release, in my opinion, pays homage to Windows by modeling thier GUI after it.
    We recently replaced 14 users here that had Win95 to RH 7.2. I made the mistake of not realizing that these folks (even though I told them this was not Microsoft Windows) had no idea that apps like "Spinner" and RealPlayer would no longer work.
    Folks really have no idea what an OS is, these same people were also unaware that Macs cannot run Win apps either. So I purchased CrossOver, and installed RealPlayer, and other Win stuff (now of course, they are completely confused).
    Despite our disagreement, I bet you agree with this - that as of right now, unless a Linux guru is involved, to show the user the differences, and reasons why Linux is better, the 'switch' is highly likely to result in an immediate switch back.
    Unfortunately the major distros just don't have the dollars it would take to educate the general public on the benefits of Linux, and to the vast extent M$ hijacks their wallets.

  132. Re:We Hate Microsoft!!! - Truce by jwilhelm · · Score: 2

    Yeah I hear ya, and I agree. OK, truce! :)

  133. Re:operating systems have 'users' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Operating systems never are used.

    Then why don't operating systems have 'visitor IDs' instead of 'user IDs'???

  134. Re:well Gates is using illegal means against linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lets face it MS troll the good old days of Windows is over. Java has stumped .Net. No one is using Dot Not. Now linux will stump desktop soon from what I see. By the way more Linux server are deployed in production these days than Windows xp server who would have believed that 3 years ago. So stop being so arrogant.

  135. Oh and one other thing by JudgeFurious · · Score: 1

    I've been reading sentences like "all the faults you mentioned will be fixed in a year or two" for what's starting to close in on a decade. What I wouldn't give for that to have been the case. We might have a ballgame here then.

    --
    Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
  136. Re:I know who's the real elitist by mfnickster · · Score: 1

    But not homosexual women?

    And of course, as every red-blooded x86-racing straight male knows, women and homosexuals have no business using a computer....

    - MFN

    --
    "Slow down, Cowboy! It has been 3 years, 7 months and 26 days since you last successfully posted a comment."
  137. Re:well Gates is using illegal means against linux by Lewis+Mettler,+Esq. · · Score: 2

    Actually, Microsoft employed individuals to use false identification to bad mouth OS/2 and favor Microsoft. That was in the early days.

    More recently Microsoft charged IBM a higher price because they would not cease competing with their office products and OS/2.

    The latter issue could form the basis for another major antitrust law suit brought by IBM against Microsoft. Will they file? I do not make that call.

    But, I have been calling for AOL and SUN to file their private law suit for years. And, just recently they have done so. Both AOL and SUN will also win their respective law suits. As will BE.

    Other law suits may include those from RedHat and other linux distributors. That law suit could actually be a class action law suit.

    But, since you refuse to give your name your post is of little merit anyway. I would not use my name if I did not believe what I wrote either.

    --
    NexuSys - Linux support by the best
  138. Re:Today we install a desktop Linux... (followup) by SwedishChef · · Score: 2

    Not that anyone will read this, but just as an update:

    We installed the Linux workstation and I configured a username and password that was the same as the employee had used on her Win2k box. I used SuSE 8.0 and selected Gnome as the default GUI. We took off most of the desktop icons, and took most of the launchers out of the launch panel. I made a new launcher for Galeon and gave it a "globe" Icon to make it more resemble what she's used to for a browser.

    I also made a launcher for their major business application (a medical database) and gave it their normal description so that when she mouses over the panel the familiar name will show up. This was really a launcher to the Citrix client which was set up to automatically log her into the NT4 server and present a full-screen desktop of her own desktop (from her user profile in NT).

    There was no printer attached to her workstation so I didn't configure that. I did configure sound but didn't put any icons or launchers for a cd player. In fact, she doesn't have speakers on her desk so that was not used, apparently, in her old environment.

    This is an experiment to see whether a MS-centric operation can be moved to a Linux environment. We plan to slowly introduce the employees to Abiword and OpenOffice (I demonstrated both of these for them yesterday) and Evolution for email.

    We had an intern with us during the install who had never seen a Linux box before (going to a local community college which is *only* MS). He was amazed that I could turn what he thought was only a server machine into such an effective and useful desktop. He was further amazed when I demonstrated some of the more arcane features of Linux to him (sending email using the local box smtp server without having to go to the ISP's mail server, for instance).

    All in all, a most interesting experience for all of us.

    --
    No one ever had to evacuate a city because the solar panels broke!
  139. Lycoris Build 46 update... by MsGeek · · Score: 2

    Just to keep the record scrupulously accurate, I tried my Lycoris HD yesterday and had no further problems with connectivity. Lycoris does indeed rock. Scoff all you want about the "toy" nature of the distro...I strongly believe the folks who are building Lycoris are doing some important stuff which will trickle into more "mainstream" distributions and yield definite improvements.

    --
    Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.