Posted by
timothy
on from the version-number-fever dept.
meisenst writes "Lindows 2.0.0 is out, and features, among other things, the ability to browse Windows network shares and map them as you would on a Windows machine. The ISO release notes are here(1), the announcement is here(2) (for now, anyway), and some screenshots are here(3). Looks good!"
467 comments
walmart?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Is walmart going to upgrade their low-end machines now?
The link to Wal-mart at the Lindows homepage brought up a $200 machine with OS
It sure looks like a bait'n'switch to get you in the door with non-Intel and non-AMD
For TWICEthePRICE(tm)... you get $12 more hard drive capacity, DDR RAM at a $12 premium,
a $12 floppy, a modem certainly adding no more than $12 to the cost.
Oh yeah, and Joe Consumer sees twice the MHz on the package for TWICEthePRICE(tm)
Re:walmart?
by
unclebulgaria
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Quite obviously these machines have extremely cheap hardware. I wonder if this will be detriment to peoples opinion of the stability of linux?
A stable operating system coupled with cheap hardware will consequently lose a measure of its stability, a factor often cited as one of the main reasons for the adoption of linux.
Could this affect linux negatively?
Every Wal-mart picture prominently advertised these as "Lindows certified"
with a fine logo that was not clickable, nor did it explain exactly what that meant.
I didn't realize Cyrix CPUs were still being used in computers...
Still being used??? Where have you been. C3s are used all over the place. Blade servers, ultra mini's, all sorts of things. Some of the upcoming Via (not Cyrix any more) stuff is incredible. For instance, did you know you can run a C3 800 with no active cooling? In a setting where you don't need gobs of power (a small Linux file and print server) they are perfect. Very low heat. Fit standard Socket370. Here, read from the source if you're interested:
My immediate question is: Why don't you find out yourself? I mean, opinions here are so incredibly diverse about Linux distros and the like...
Personally, I say if you're willing to give enough effort to try out a new OS and learn a thing or two, hop straight over to 'drake or RedHat, but if not, then yeah... give this one a try, or hold out for When the new Corel-Linux gets released.
Don't necessarily completely overhaul your current box unless you really want to, but it wouldn't hurt to try something new, wouldn't you say?
-- Karma: Non-Heinous
Re:should i?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
jeebus that was a worthless reply. next time try giving some actual information rather than just saying "try it out for yourself".
Part of the problem is that Lindows isn't free. The original poster wasn't just talking about Linux, but Lindows (which was, of course, the topic of the article).
No, it would be too difficult for you. You had better stick to Windows.
-- Moon Macrosystems. Sun's biggest competitor.
Re:should i?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
It'll be terrible switching to Linux - you'll have to get used to things NOT crashing, and being able to get your work done on time!
Re:should i?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
except the apps you need to get your work done won't run on linux so it still won't get done on time
Re:should i?
by
DavidLeblond
·
· Score: 4, Informative
If you want to check out Linux without potentially killing your computer (and if you're a linux newbie this is very possible) either download Knoppix or something like Suse LiveCD. These run directly off the CD and do not require you to repartition your hard drive and the like. If you don't like them, take out the CD, delete the temp files (if you choose to make any), and go back to Windows.
Just an addendum, a lot of older CD-writers (like mine) will not burn Knoppix since it is 700MB.
Or try the new Gentoo and play some UT2003 while you're at it.
Re:should i?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
it is this kind of talk that keeps Linux out of the desktop. When people want to try it, and ask questions they are told they are stupid and should stick to an operating system more suited to thier stupidity (MS). This makes people think that linux is an insanely hard operating system to use and that they shouldn't go near it unless they have a PhD in computer science.
Newbie distros such as Mandrake and Lindows are helping ALOT in the migragtion of windows users to linux however until the community gets off thier high horse and starts helping linux newbies instead of instulting them, linux will go nowhere on the desktop.
Or try the new Gentoo Linux and play some UT2003 while you're at it.
speaking of which, it says specifically that it supports the sblive, which i have. and i never got any sound. any gurus here have any ideas on how i can remedy that? and yes i ran the pci-setup program it asks you to. thanks.
Re:should i?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
You're still running Windows 9x?
Windows 2000/XP almost never crashes. I have been running W2K since it's release, and I consistently get 2+ week uptimes before deciding to shut the machine down, and it's bluescreened less than 5 times.
Re:should i?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
yes. you should. you'll like its ease of installation for the OS and applications off of the website. one-click installation for all apps. and if you dont like it, send cust-support an email and get a refund. and dont listen to all the fags who put you down. they all started somewhere. they just wont admit it.
Re:should i?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Really? Windows 2000/XP *almost* never crashes? WOW!!! I've had that capability since about Linux 1.2.0.
I personally would not think it such a fantastic idea. If you are displeased with the lack of stability in Windows 95/98 or ME but cannot afford to upgrade to XP then perhaps it would be a viable option. But, Windows is still much easier despite various Linux vendors attemps to make Linux run just like Windows. Perhaps in the future, but I have family who I have tried to indoctrinate into the ways of linux, and although they like it I generally end up acting in a technical support role to sort out any problems they may have, and invariably if im not there to help them they get quite frustrated with it.
In my opinion the reason to migrate to linux is for power, control and flexibility. Although linux is making way in the desktop scene, at the moment, It remains quite difficult to use in general; the terminal is often unavoidable.
And if you truly are interested in going to linux, I would recommend going to (as someone suggested) Mandrake, SuSe or Redhat (these cater to people new to linux but they do not try to emulate windows). Lindows and these other truly "desktop" related distributions merely try to emulate windows.
Essentially, to an "average" user, it is Windows 2k/XP stability (arguebly more so), with much less choice in applications and incapable of playing most games, although with a cheaper price tag. The average user will not notice nor appreciate or be able to use linux's extreme configurability, power, security or open endedness. Which is a shame.
> But, Windows is still much easier despite various Linux vendors attemps to make Linux run just like Windows.
Have you actually used Lindows and compared it to WinXP. I haven't got a chance to try Lindows itself, but I've seen a demo of it, and it actually looks much simpler than WindowsXP.
Oh please. I am so fucking tired of hearing what's keeping linux off the fucking desktop. All that's keeping linux off the fucking desktop is fucking fuckheads with their heads stuck so far up their fucking ass all they can do is whine about the fucking desktop.
You need a kernel module for your sound card. Get alsa and configure it. The easiest way to do this is to follow the desktop guide at gentoo.org
My SBLive is working just fine and btw, UT2003 is running just fine in a Voodoo3 3500. No need for nvidia.
Re:should i?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Linux should remain free, this dist doesn't look any different to that which someone who knew what they were could come up with, using a free distro and a custom desktop.
Mounting Shares
by
nuggz
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Being able to easily mount share drives is a big plus. I hope someone pulls all this into the free distributions.
User space mounting would be very nice, as it is mounting my digital camera and various nfs/samba directories makes quite a mess of my fstab
Re:Mounting Shares
by
esonik
·
· Score: 3, Informative
I guess it is easier but I have absolutely no problem w/doing mount//host/sharename/mnt/samba/foo
In fact, I have a lot less problems mounting Windows' shares on my Linux machine than I do mounting them Windows -> Windows.
What do I know though, I am just a big geek.
Re:Mounting Shares
by
slackerweb
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Mandrake 8.2 can do that. In the control center under mount points there are options to mount samba and nfs directories. It searches your network for shared directories, then you pick the one you want and give it a mount point.
There is entirely too much talk of mounting things. It is impure to talk of such things. I hereby censor this thread in the name of the emperor of China - what's his name again?
Speaking of which, is there a (Free) linux prog to browse a given Windows 'Workgroup' (right name?) and show what machines are sharing on it? In other words, something to do what opening up Network Neighborhood does on Windows. Text mode or graphical, doesn't matter to me.
do a search on rpmfind or apt-cache search, or however you do it for LinNeighborhood. Practically the same thing as the windows network neighborhood icon.
Yeah, typing smb://name_of_share in Konqueror's address bar is so cumbersome... Thank goodness there is a $100 commercial product that hides it behind some stupid icon.
This has (partially) been accomplished for NFS on Unix boxen using AMD (Auto-Mounting Daemon). I agree that it would be really great to see something like this implemented for the SMB protocol that was as cross-compatible with different Unices and Linux distros as AMD is. If anyone knows of something to accomplish this, speak up! I'd love hear about it.
-- "Well kids, you tried your best, and you failed. The lesson is, never try."
Re:Mounting Shares
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
your my wife now!
KDE has allowed windows browsing for a LONG TIME
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Informative
ummmmmm.... i've been using KDE to browse the windows network here at work and at home for quite a long time. I don't think Lindows should be given credit for what konqueror, not to mention LinNeighborhood, has done.
Looks good... but where's the Windows support?
by
Leviat
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
I have to admit, the screenshots look pretty good, but I don't see any Windows support.
It seems to be that if this is supposed to be a merged environment, they would do better to shop MS Office running rather than StarOffice.
For the current time being, Lindows seems to be just YALD (Yet Another Linux Distribution).
Re:Looks good... but where's the Windows support?
by
chill
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
The point is to stop using MS Office, as well as MS Windows.
For a large number of businesses, StarOffice or OpenOffice will handle what they need. Are they perfect? No, especially in converting documents with Macros.
Moving to a Linux desktop is a COST and CONTROL issue. Linux/OpenOffice for 10,000 desktops costs $0 -- or maybe $79 if you want to buy a disk and save the download time. A knowledgable admin can then create a custom "Kickstart" for the install, and image the drives using "dd" -- saving money on Norton Ghost in the process.
A bit of effort on the part of company admins, coders and you can save a LOT of cash on licenses. Not to mention the $$ involved with keeping the licenses current, on file and in compliance.
But, you're right in the SOME Windows support should be offered. Maybe a partnership with the CrossOver or WineX people so people who *NEED* a Windows app have an option.
--
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Re:Looks good... but where's the Windows support?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
A couple of screenshots of Lindows running Windows applications:
http://www.lindows.com/lindows_products_screensh ot s.php?insider=yes
Does anybody else realize how confusing buying a cheap 'lindows' PC might be for a non tech-savvy user? Their website alludes to running standard windows software, and hinting that software 'might' be compatible... but they never really come out and say:
This is what will run. Everything else will not.
I wonder how busy their 800 number is. If they are stupid enough to provide one.
I love the idea, but not educating new users about what exactly they are buying seems very misleading. I can see the mindless drones going:
"Windows computer, $899"
"Lindows computer, $399"
Lindows says it runs some "Microsoft Windows Compatible" software, and it is cheaper... I'll go for that one.
Only to find out that, two weeks later, their new version of The Sims just won't run.
Do you know that there is a version of "The Sims" for Mandrake Linux?
Re:Misleading?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Only to find out that, two weeks later, their new version of The Sims just won't run.
Pardon my ignorance (their site is slashdotted), but can you plop in a disk, like the sims, and it run the auto-run install like a standard windows box? Or is it like your standard linux box where the tech savvy can install, but aunt mable can't?
And are we talking about Mandrake linux here? Doing a search for mandrake at lindows.com yields no results... so if they are using Mandrake as their base, that would be an interesting fact to know.
Re:Misleading?
by
cmorriss
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Does anybody else realize how confusing buying a cheap 'lindows' PC might be for a non tech-savvy user? Their website alludes to running standard windows software, and hinting that software 'might' be compatible...
Actually, they changed directions a little while ago. Their website now says almost nothing about running standard Windows applications. They changed their tune to now simply give easy access to the many native linux applications that are available.
They call it the Click-N-Run Warehouse. It allows a user to just select an application from their warehouse and it will automatically be downloaded and installed. I think they realized that they were going to run into the problems you describe and decided they were biting off more than they could chew.
-- 10 minutes working on a sig. What a waste.
Re:Misleading?
by
gfxguy
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I agree, it's misleading. Even the FAQ doesn't answer the question ("What Microsoft® Windows applications will LindowsOS(TM) run?"):
LindowsOS(TM) has been optimized to run certain Microsoft® Windows "bridge" programs. So far, Microsoft® Office 2000 applications like Microsoft® Word, Microsoft® Excel and PowerPoint® have been certified to run under LindowsOS. We term these applications "bridge" programs because they will help you switch to the LindowsOS environment.
Even if you don't have a copy of Microsoft Office, LindowsOS computers come with software to view, print and copy MS Word files, MS PowerPoint files and MS Excel documents. To edit Microsoft Office compatible files, we'd recommend one of the office suites in our Click-N-Run Warehouse(TM) such as StarOffice(TM) or OpenOffice.
LindowsOS is continually improving its support for running Microsoft Windows compatible programs, expanding on the support for these bridge programs.
So, in other words, pretty nothing except Word and Office? I guess that those programs run is a pretty big step, though. Although I'm in the camp that says "why use Linux to run MS applications?"
I've been pretty bitterly disappointed with how Lindows has backed away from Windows compability. Early on, they was the big deal: That they were going to take Wine and expand it dramatically with the goal of having near-full Windows compatibility.
Apparently, they've decided that was too hard and/or expensive, and decided to market this ridiculous click-and-run as some "revolutionary" feature.
Sheesh, when will SOMEONE figure out that the key to HUGE fame and riches is to come out with an operating system that is FREAKING COMPATIBLE WITH WINDOWS. This is not rocket science. It just takes money and guts.
And just to head off the typical replies to this, let me deal with them:
1) But RM101! They APIS are undocumented!!!
True, in many cases. So what? Do what Wine does-- figure them out. And that only applies to Microsoft applications. There are a LOT of applications out there that use the standard ones.
2) But RM101! They'll just change the APIs!!!!
No, they can't, or they break everyone's software out there. Microsoft was built on backward compatbility.
3) But RM101! They'll just sue anyone who tries!!
First of all, Microsoft has ZERO history of suing companies in order to destroy them (See Apple for an example of a company that uses the lawsuit as a weapon). And even if they did, so what? Like I said, money and guts. They'll lose.
PLEASE!! SOMEONE OUT THERE GET A CLUE!!
I thought Lindows had one, but apparently not.
-- Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Ok, so the naive user buys a Lindows PC and finds that some of software just won't install on it or if it does unexpected things might happen.
Compare that to the naive user buying a Windows PC... they will find that some software just won't install on it, or if it does, unexpected things happen.;-)
True, in the second scenario the probability of things working reasonably well is higher. But the reality is that in the naive user's perception computers today are a hit-or-miss thing... it might work or it might not, whether it does might as well be black magic.
First of all, Microsoft has ZERO history of suing companies in order to destroy them (See Apple for an example of a company that uses the lawsuit as a weapon). And even if they did, so what? Like I said, money and guts. They'll lose.
That's a funny thing to say with respect to this post! Microsoft suied Lindows over their name.
it appears to me that lindows had a deal with codeweavers or something where codeweavers would provide what they needed for windows compatibility.. i doubt lindows did a whole lot of development on wine themselves.. it looks like codeweavers realized they lindows was full of crap and backed out of the deal..
perhaps i am wrong..? but it's the impression i get.. and i hope lindows goes to hell.. more power to lycoris. lycoris is much more reasonable with the open source community.
So do it already. If it's so straightforward, what are you waiting for?
If I had a few spare 100 millions of dollars lying around, I would. That's what galls me: Robertson has the freaking money and contacts. He could do it -- if he had the guts to see it through. Unfortunately, he's either a) lost focus on the real target, b) he's decided that he the risk is too high, or c) has deluded himself into thinking that "click-and-run" really is revolutionary and you really don't have to have compatability with the HUGE shrink-wrap and installed-software market (GAH!)
-- Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Re:Misleading?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Sheesh, when will SOMEONE figure out that the key to HUGE fame and riches is to come out with an operating system that is FREAKING COMPATIBLE WITH WINDOWS. This is not rocket science. It just takes money and guts.
Yes, it worked so well for IBM and OS/2.
Quite rightly - frankly Lindows is a more than obvious shot at profiting from the fame of the name "Windows". Microsoft never sued Red Hat or Suse over their name...
OS/2 is the PERFECT example! Do you know what killed OS/2? No, it wasn't IBM's marketing. It was lack of Win32 compatibility, as well as lack of hardware compability. All the apps and drivers were being written for Windows, and IBM had to run around begging developers.
I mean, IBM used to ship OS/2 AND Windows 3.1 (3.1!!) on the same boxes. You had to go through a rigamorole to delete OS/2 and install Win 3.1. Yet everyone did, because the software selection and hardware select for OS/2 completely sucked.
Compability is everything! It's been proven time and time again.
-- Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
But you'll note that's a legitimate complaint, based on the similarity between Windows and Lindows. You may not necessarily agree that it infringes (I do agree, actually), but it's legitimate.
What you'll note is that it's NOT a technology lawsuit.
-- Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Yes, but as you later expand, it wasn't just win32 compatibility, it was the lack of software. Linux has a little win32 compatibility and a whole lot of it's own software, this is a lot different from OS/2 with almost no software compared to windows, and only win16 compatibility.
-- I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
I'd have to agree here. Making an OS that is windows compatible (same API) means being able to reuse all the drivers and all the applications. It's a lot of work but even if that gets you 10% market share that's still more than enough to pay a hundred of engineers for the work. And then you don't have to worry about getting those freaking drivers anymore, so you save on driver developpment.
If all the work done on writting drivers for Linux had been put into writting an API layer to reuse Windows drivers, we would all enjoy more, better, faster drivers. But most Linux zealot would rather make fun of the Windows API and reinvent the wheel (without the hardware docs which are under NDA of course).
Re:Misleading?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
> Sheesh, when will SOMEONE figure out that the key > to HUGE fame and riches is to come out with an > operating system that is FREAKING COMPATIBLE WITH > WINDOWS. This is not rocket science. It just takes > money and guts.
OS2 Warp version 3
All my DOS and Windows programs ran on it. It was Solid_As_A_Rock. The multitasking worked.. Doom + Word + Telemate Pro dialup 14.4k connection to a linux (slackware:-) shell... all in 16Mb of RAM!
So where's the fame and riches for IBM? Win95 was nothing but a buggy beta that crashed frequently at demos at that time...
Well, maybe not 100s of millions, but certainly a lot of it. Windows is not exactly a small product. You need engineers, LOTS of testing staff (including lots of different hardware, lots of different apps, etc), as well as a commitment to a solid marketing campaign. I've always wanted to see something like "Absolutely, positively 100% compatible. Only better."
To do it right, you need big engineering resources, as well as enough money to keep you afloat without income for a few years.
-- Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Re:Misleading?
by
2short
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Certainly part of what killed OS/2 was lack of apps, but the real problem was that IBM wasn't running around begging developers. They were charging an arm and a leg for the SDK at a time when if you looked a little geeky, MS would throw copies of the Win32 SDK at your head.
Do you know what killed OS/2? No, it wasn't IBM's marketing. It was lack of Win32 compatibility, as well as lack of hardware compability.
That lack of compatibility was urged along by the successive versions of win32s.dll, which kept breaking compatibility. IBM finally gave up, and MS stopped changing win32s.dll, after version 1.30 of win32s.dll came out, which added a call to request memory out of range of the 512 MB limit on DOS sessions under OS/2--a fairly fundamental thing to break, and a limit only recently, long after it would make much difference, eliminated. There's no real reason to be picky about the base address of memory one allocates--so it was added solely to break OS/2 compatibility. Gee...you just claimed that MS couldn't possibly do something like that. Looks like a counterexample to me.
Speaking of breaking existing software--checked MS's EULA lately? To get security fixes, you have to agree that MS has the right to automatically install OS upgrades that may prevent software from running. So nowadays, with Windows you can either live with security holes or accept "DOS isn't done until Lotus won't run" as SOP.
Compatibility is a Catch-22. Without it, people kvetch about not having it. With it, developers see no reason to bother to write for anything but Windows--and indeed, you complain about both the lack of OS/2 native software and the lack of compatibility.
Someone did that, a long time ago. It was called OS/2. It even ran Windows applications better than Windows did (protected memory.)
The result? It would run all the Windows apps, so people decided they didn't need to write native applications for it, and it completely failed (on the desktop market, anyway, I know it's still in use in some places.)
I suppose that's how it would go if you do it as a company. An open-source project might be different, though I guess we already have Wine, and they haven't achieved 100% compatibility yet...
-- Patrick Doyle I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
Re:Misleading?
by
pete-classic
·
· Score: 4, Funny
I've always wanted to see something like "Absolutely, positively 100% compatible. Only better."
Hrm... I'm remembering something about "PC Compatable" or some such... Where would I have heard that before...
Seems to me I remember that helping to bring down a fairly large corporation or two...
Jester
Re:Misleading?
by
karmawarrior
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I bought the $199 Walmart PC recently, which comes with Lindows.
It's not bad (though my PC came with a bizarre installation problem - the partition containing the OS was bigger than the disk it was on, I'd have lost data had I not gone and reformatted it all for Slackware anyway.) The major issue with the "Windows compatability" was that the usual WINE problems came up - standard installers tend to put their dialogs in places where they can't easily be reached, and then they fail anyway because they're looking for system requirements that, apparently, haven't been met.
I tried with the types of app Lindows needs to run to "compete" with Windows, namely a proprietry database frontend of the sort sold by corporations to other corporations, well below the radar of open source projects (who gives a stuff if Office XP or Outlook works? There are plenty of open source/free software alternatives to those applications.) This was Pilot Administrator, for those who've heard of it, an OLAP product. It didn't install, and, from what I can see, wasn't doing anything special.
Lindows is user friendly. Setting it up on my network was a piece of cake. I suspect some Windows applications work well if you can find a way of installing them. But at the same time, it's not something I'd dump in front of a typical Windows user and say "Hey, use this, it'll run most of what you want it to run." Rather, the WINE features are better described as useful bonusses, for the few applications that run.
For an explanation of what killed OS/2, read Judge Jackson's Findings of Fact, which describes the full story in gory detail.
In short: OS/2 ceased to be marketed as soon as Windows 95 came out, because Microsoft made it virtually impossible for IBM to stay in business (IBM still needed to sell some version of Windows, and MS made it prohibitively expensive while IBM was a "competitor".) OS/2 and the Lotus office suite were dropped hastily as a result of MS's threats.
OS/2 was only Windows 16-bit compatible. And it only really became the robust platform it was in it's mid-life after all the Win32 start started really happening. I worked in a place where a percentage of the technical staff were running OS/2. They were still stuck using 16 bit Office up until about a year ago, truly they were in the 'ghetto' of the company in that regard.
Re:Misleading?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
You sound like soneone who likes windows and microsoft fine, why do you care about Lindows???
If security, stability, features out of the box (such as firewall, citrix-like remote apps, cd-burning software, office suite, price, and a user-in-control as opposed to coporate-controled OS), then get red hat or mandrake or something.
If not, stick with windows. Ease of windows w/power of linux is already there in modern distros, even down to the look of mac osx and windows xp - lindows is really pointless, imo.
yup, there is a slight learning curve, but also from windows to osx, and vice=versa...when folks used my comp with kde2.x last year, before they had used xp, they thought it was xp - they clicked around, noted the diff, made the comment, and surfed - oblivious.
How do they expect to make money selling a service that Debian, Suse and Redhat already provide in apt-get, yast2 and up2date respectivly?
Re:Misleading?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
so let me get this straight. you want an OS that is 100% windows compatible. and you say all it takes is money. so when you finally get it, it'll cost as much as windows, because of all the effort and expense.
so why dont u just go out and buy windows, you bill-loving psuedo-linux-user, and keep you're moronic neanderthal mouth shut.
so when you finally get it, it'll cost as much as windows, because of all the effort and expense.
So what? I have absolutely no problem with paying for software. What I want are Windows-quality applications on a Unix core running on commodity hardware.
-- Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Oh, they did the right thing by NOT using windows software. I just don't understand why they CHARGE so much. I mean, even is it's cheaper than windows, it's the most expensive distro out there since all others are free. Even with all the advertising, i fear this is still a lost cause.
>The key to HUGE fame and riches is to come out with an operating system that is FREAKING COMPATIBLE WITH WINDOWS.
I'm just thinking here, but won't it be easier to come out with an OS that is compatiable with the new OSX, since it is build on *BSD?? Image that, now you have a market of users on mac and pc platform that use the same software, if it's cheaper, how long do you think that MS could stand against that?? There already seems to be a fair number of Mac Apps.. even MS products, so what would happen if you could run them on your brand new PCX/OS?? Doing the same thing as a mac user on cheaper hardware.. hehe.. this might piss off both Apple and MS..
But RM101, they won't *change* the API's, they will instead add more and more *new* API's, not document them, and use them in their latest office suite, so no one could reasonably keep up compatabilitry in a competing operating system.
I've seen this type of thing from them regularly over the years.
So explain to me why I can install Office XP on Windows 98.
That's not to say that Microsoft won't add new APIs (as they certainly have a right to do), but it's not the picture you paint. Microsoft WANTS to sell Office apps, even on older operating systems.
-- Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Apparently, they've decided that was too hard and/or expensive, and decided to market this ridiculous click-and-run as some "revolutionary" feature.
Bingo. I think you just the nail on the head. It's like in the cartoons, where at the end when Elmer Fudd decides to be a rabbit after failing at killing bugss so many times. "Why beat them when you can join them?" Why do work to make a quality product when you can make more money if you spend your R&D budget on marketing your piece of crap?
I'm just thinking here, but won't it be easier to come out with an OS that is compatiable with the new OSX, since it is build on *BSD??
Not only that, but the GNUStep project is based on the OpenStep spec, just as OS X is. I believe one of the current design goals of GNUStep is to achieve source compatibility with OS X.
To some extent, but I don't Microsoft is replacing the entire operating system when you install Office. At some point, it's got to call standard stuff.
In any case, I still don't it's that big of a deal. These are solvable problems.
-- Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Re:Misleading?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
MicroSoft: Do you think Bill looked in his pants to come up with that name?
This is one of the reasons I patronize WineX. The compatibility isn't 100% but it's good enough to run some of my favorite games, e.g., StarCraft. I'm hoping the Wine folks can take it as far as it can go, to 100% Windows compatibility and then some. Leave the OS and everything else to other people.
Not the driver part and the included programs and other stuff but the rest yes. The pure OS part of windows is only 45MB so if you install a 100MB program you could easily add a new OS
Re:Misleading?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
OS/2 was only Windows 16-bit compatible
That's because it (OS/2 2.0) was introduced in 1992, three years before a "32 bit" windows really even existed. And OS/2 DID support Win32s. From 1992 to 1995, OS/2 really was a better Windows than Windows, but due to a variety of factors (from IBM's incompetence at marketing, to Microsoft's brilliant FUD at suggesting Win3.0 was really an operating system instead of a program environment, etc.) it failed.
If IBM, with it's resources, can't compete with Microsoft, I really don't see how some company whose product doesn't even provide OS/2 level compatibility is going to succeed.
Of course, the better windows than windows required two to three times the memory of windows itself back in the days memory was expensive as fuck. When I was running OS/2 2.0 on a 486 DX 33 with 8 1 meg 30 pin simms in there, people thought I had a goddamn monster. Each one of those simms was like $120 as I recall.
True, in many cases. So what? Do what Wine does-- figure them out. And that only applies to Microsoft applications. There are a LOT of applications out there that use the standard ones.
OK, windows is an operating system, with many thousands of API's, figuring them out ain't that easy.
2) But RM101! They'll just change the APIs!!!!
No, they can't, or they break everyone's software out there. Microsoft was built on backward compatbility.
How many application broke between 2000 and XP?
3) But RM101! They'll just sue anyone who tries!!
First of all, Microsoft has ZERO history of suing companies in order to destroy them (See Apple for an example of a company that uses the lawsuit as a weapon). And even if they did, so what? Like I said, money and guts. They'll lose.
Well, the relationship of Microsoft and the law is a whole book in itself, I'll just point you to it's EULA and the efforts it made against samba.
PLEASE!! SOMEONE OUT THERE GET A CLUE!!
No comment.
I thought Lindows had one, but apparently not.
There are plenty of short coming in Lindow, most of the ones you have pointed out however seem bogus.
If I had a few spare 100 millions of dollars lying around, I would. That's what galls me: Robertson has the freaking money and contacts. He could do it -- if he had the guts to see it through
The difference between you and Mr. Robertson is that Mr. Robertson has already thrown a bunch of money, time, and engineers at the Windows-compatibility problem, and you are only guessing. Given that, I would imagine that he has a better estimate of how difficult the task is than you do.
--
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Lindows has backed down from their original claims of being able to run Windows applications. The only Windows app they currently claim to be able to run is Office 2000. (from the Lindows FAQ)
"LindowsOS^(TM) has been optimized to run certain Microsoft® Windows "bridge" programs. So far, Microsoft® Office 2000 applications like Microsoft® Word, Microsoft® Excel and PowerPoint® have been certified to run under LindowsOS. We term these applications "bridge" programs because they will help you switch to the LindowsOS environment.
Even if you don't have a copy of Microsoft Office, LindowsOS computers come with software to view, print and copy MS Word files, MS PowerPoint files and MS Excel documents. To edit Microsoft Office compatible files, we'd recommend one of the office suites in our Click-N-Run Warehouse^(TM) such as StarOffice^(TM) or OpenOffice.
--
In a world that is Free and Open,
who needs Windows and Gates?
Re:Misleading?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Microsoft *is* updating the entire operating system when you update to "office xp". the setup says so on the fucking wizard 'dialogs'. your moronic lame ass troll. who the fuck is moderating this idoits posts?
Actually, his original post said M$ had zero history of *suing* someone to put them out of business. He made no claims about whether M$ assimilates, incompatibles-to-death, or otherwise incapacitates their soon-to-be-late competition.
What with MS starting to lock out the warez'ing XP'ers (which is one thing), and hiking up the corporate licenses (which is altogether different), then there's a massive demand for a well supported and highly compatible win9x clone out there.
Doesn't have to be open source or anything like that...
There's a huge market for a second source win9x compatible out there. And if IBM can't see theres a lot of money to be made in OS/2 being that, then they should be selling something they understand...
I notice in recent times, direct x being the carrot which is leading people in the next stage of the MS minefield... USB 2.0 will be after that...
BZZZT! WRONG answer. IBM didn't ship copies of Win 3.1 with OS/2. IBM developed two versions of OS/2 - One with Windows *included* in the kernel, the other requiring the USER to supply the copy of Windows. You couldn't install OS/2 with Windows support, and then uninstall OS/2 and keep Windows - it didn't work that way. See, IBM still had access to Win 3.1 source from their deals with MS. When their license ran out, MS released 3.11 in order to break OS/2's hooks. IBM was able to figure out what they did, and released an APAR (its number escapes me) to remidy this.
How do I know? I worked at IBM, supporting OS/2 in their call center. I got there just as OS/2 2.11 was rolling out and left after WARP Server.
-- Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!
When did they release 1.0?
by
cmorriss
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
We've heard a lot about Lindows, but as far as I know, it was always only a beta.
Maybe they just went straight to 2.0 to make it sound like they are somewhat stable.
-- 10 minutes working on a sig. What a waste.
Re:When did they release 1.0?
by
Oculus+Habent
·
· Score: 5, Funny
2.0 may seem like a big mark, but it isn't until it reached 3.1 that it will really be considered a productive business tool.
-- That what was all this school was for... to teach us how to solve our own problems. -- janeowit
Re:When did they release 1.0?
by
Osiris+Ani
·
· Score: 1
Tuesday
Dec 31, 2002
12:00 PM
LindowsOS General Release - Expected Before the End of the Year (or sooner)!
LindowsOS is expected out before the end of the year.
Apparently, even they don't know exactly when 1.0 is to be released. Maybe they're counting down. I hear LindowsOS Version 0 is going to rock!
Re:When did they release 1.0?
by
Osiris+Ani
·
· Score: 1
Feh, if it's like many products, things really start to pick up at version 2.5.1.
Re:When did they release 1.0?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Lindows for Workgroups?:-/
Michael Robertson Is Cooperative
by
Bruce+Perens
·
· Score: 4, Informative
The last few times I've had an issue to bring to Michael Robertson's attention on the community's behalf, he's always fixed the problem, and he's done it promptly.
Re:Michael Robertson Is Cooperative
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0, Funny
HAW HAW HAW!!
We all now know what Mr. Perens is doing now that he has no income. Browsing Slashdot.
Bruce, you don't want to follow in the footsteps of dot com (non)millionaires. Do NOT grow a gnu beard. Do NOT stop daily hygene.
You may be able to survive in corporate america, but avoid the gnu-hippy ways!
Re:Michael Robertson Is Cooperative
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Saying Michael Robertson is cooperative when Bruce Perens asks him to do something... is like saying the pope listens to people who happen to be cardinals...
Re:Michael Robertson Is Cooperative
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I'm sure he'd promptly fix any of Alan Cox's problems, or Linus Torvald's problems.
Known leaders always get put to the top of the line. This isn't a valid stat. If he did the same thing for an average user, then that'd mean something.
Re:Michael Robertson Is Cooperative
by
Evro
·
· Score: 0
Bruce,
I would like to thank you for participating on Slashdot. I can't think of anyone (famous) from the "open source community" that spends as much time actually interacting with the lay of the community. Rasmus from PHP, John Carmack, JWZ, a few of the samba guys, and maybe some others can be seen from time to time, but you are a relatively frequent poster. Thanks for giving us some info that's not fed through the filter of the media, and for bringing the "community" to Slashdot. Few "famous" people seem to have the balls/time to interact with the lusers in such a public forum, and it's appreciated greatly.
Sincerely, Evan Linux Poser & pseudo admin
-- rooooar
Re:Michael Robertson Is Cooperative
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
When I installed redhat beta limbo, there was a notice about it being beta, and thats it I think. I just clicked through though it might have been an eula.
Many appliances have a "do not use until reading manual" sticker which could almost be considered a EULA, as it has the warning and precautions.
That cold be a legal defense. "Your honor, the plaintiff clearly removed the sticker, thereby agreeing that they had read the precautions on the Spaceballs Flame Thrower..."
-- That what was all this school was for... to teach us how to solve our own problems. -- janeowit
Re:EULA?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
mandrake requires you to agree to the gpl, that's it
I've recently installed mandrake 8.2 and the eula states that some of the sw is licensed differently, i.e. no free distribution (or something along those lines).
You may not... iii) provide, lease, lend, use for timesharing or service bureau purposes or otherwise use or allow others to use LindowsOS to or for the benefit of Third Parties
So if I install Lindows on my laptop, I'm not allowed to lend my laptop to a friend who needs to make a presentation, take a class, etc?
I'm just waiting for the day when some jackbooted BSA thug comes knocking on my door with a "legal in 30 days or DIE" ultimatum, and 30 days later I can yell "kiss my fanny you fascist bastard, I GOT no licensing to worry about!"
WITHOUT the peasants showing up at my door with torches and pitchforks, that is. Most of mine could care less what they use, as long as their documents open properly and their e-mail moves around.
Seriously...the more we make a big fuss about things like this, the worse Linux looks. Anyone not familiar with Linux would think "So does this mean that Linux users couldn't see Windows shares until just now? What else does Linux not have?"
Ah, but there is. Last I checked (and that was in 1999) Sharity did almost everything in the Right Way.
You get a single mount point, say/smb/ and in there you have all workgroups as directories. Each of those are filled with directories for each machine in the workgroup and the next level of directories are for each share on the machine.
So you automatically get a directory/smb/workgroup/jukebox/ogg for the ogg share of the machine "jukebox". This hierarchy is updated continuously. Upon access, you get a GUI dialog for entering username and password if those are required. It worked perfectly, even back in 1999.
The one problem, of course, is that it costs a small fortune. It boggles my mind that nobody has done a free implementation of this obvious idea. Rather, you get tools for manually selecting and mounting each single share, basically front-ends for smbmount. This is silly, the network should be a part of the file system, not something you operate on in a special way all the time.
Something a bit more automatic seems to be available here. I have not tested it, though - I have moved on and currently have no need for Windows sharing.
Anyone not familiar with Linux would think "So does this mean that Linux users couldn't see Windows shares until just now? What else does Linux not have?"
What's wrong with that statement? Its effectively true. Linux has had these capabilities for a while, but not unless you understand smbmount, man pages, and UNC pathnames. Which means for most users who need these services, it may as well never have existed. This is the case in most `we don't give a damn about usability' Linux distros, though I do think there have actually been a few distros which have bothered to do this properly before.
What part of Gnomba, Komba, LinNeighborhood, smb2www, tksmb, xsmbrowser, and Konqueror don't you understand? They've all had this capability for some time.
-- The ocean parts and the meteors come down
Laid out in amber, baby.
Re:Oh....wow
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Mod parent up please (and mod grandparent down please)
What part of `out of the box set up, modern toolkit, initscript if necessary don't you get?y Sure, Konq can broswe the network, but as posted earlier in this discussion most distros don't bother including an initscript necessary to run the lisa service. The rest aren't particularly popular or full featured.
Well, I admit I'm rude, but worse than that, I was talking out of my ass. I haven't even tried any of those programs until a couple hours ago.
However, I installed Konqeror, and it did work out of the box for browsing and viewing files on the network. No initscript whatsoever is installed. All the kde services started themselves when I ran konq. I don't see one called lisa though. This may just be my distro's (Debian) doing.
smb2www also worked well, once I fixed a trivial configuration problem. That's not out-of-the-box, but I filed a bug report, so next week, it will probably work with no user effort.
I tried a couple others (Linneighborhood, komba2, xsmbrowse), and admittedly, they mount shares and make you navigate to a directory rather than letting you access the files immediately.
I apologize for being an ass; however, you made it sound like Linux users had to use smbmount directly to do any kind of browsing, which wasn't the case.
Heh, I see I have a "freak" now, cool.
-- The ocean parts and the meteors come down
Laid out in amber, baby.
The only novel idea I've seen Lindows use is the package download. Brilliant idea that more linux distros should make available to Windose converts. Who knows, Lindows users may figure out that other linux distros can do just about anything they want.
It's not even novel that they "embraced" the idea and called it their own - they "embraced" that idea from M$.
-- "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
Re:Downloading packages
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
YaST (included with SuSE) is also very commonly used for this.
Oh the joy
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Someday I'll be able to do everything Windows can do and I won't have to use Windows!
Mod this one sideways please, you can't and won't ever understand it.
Thanks
Hurh? What's wrong with X?
by
ebbomega
·
· Score: 2
XWindow system's been around for god-knows how long... Why, if they're already using UNIX, is it so traumatic to get X up and running?
-- Karma: Non-Heinous
Note for the cheapskates among us
by
JonTurner
·
· Score: 2, Informative
If you're looking for a freebie, keep moving. Lindows currently costs $99.00. (Alternately, it comes bundled on some systems from WalMart.com starting at only $200.00!) So what do you get for $99? A well-integrated, easy-to-setup and attractive Linux desktop with two years' access to Lindows' application download servers via an easy-to-use web app front end they call "Click and Run".
If you want a free version, you'll need to wait for the LindowsOS General Release later this year.
Re:Note for the cheapskates among us
by
SN74S181
·
· Score: 1
The WalMart bundle includes a copy of Lindows written on the hard drive, but you're shit out of luck if it gets corrupted, as you don't get any installation media at all.
And judging from what I've heard about Lindows running everything as root, it's gonna hose up fast, and in ways nobody who runs a regular Linux would have ever guessed.
Re:Note for the cheapskates among us
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
As a purchaser, I can definitively say you are wrong. Lindows is on the hard drive, and you get a "recovery disk" that will reinstall the original version on your box, in the event you hose it.
Re:Note for the cheapskates among us
by
/dev/trash
·
· Score: 1
Lindows is gonna do a General release? They'll be bankrupt and gone by 2003Q1
Re:Note for the cheapskates among us
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Lindows is based on a large amount of GPLed code. Does the $99 include the source code to Lindows?
Re:finally
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Then go with Mandrake, Redhat, Suse or Debian. Not this junk.
doh! version 1.0 doh!! version 2.0
by
atari2600
·
· Score: 1
I was scrolling along and first shock - able to connect to Windows NT Server:S - ok ok. Still scrolling and i see StarOffice 6.0 can save, edit and blah blah MS-Office Documents in their native format - does that mean to say
Lindows: lookie here suckers - this wont run MS-Office well and we hate MS and so does Sun - so why dont u pay for StarOffice for Lindows (hyukhyuk) although you can pirate MS-Office for free.
User: Hey thats a great idea!
As of 1.0, Mike (the CEO) replied to my email that games wasnt high on their list and they would consider it soon.
Where is my pack of cards?
Re:doh! version 1.0 doh!! version 2.0
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Hello idiot. Just thought I'd let you know you are a grade-A moron.
Re:doh! version 1.0 doh!! version 2.0
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Have you actually used Lindows??? I'm able to run M$ Word and excel in Lindows. As well I have StarOffice on my system (which is free to all lindows.com members!) and use it all the time to do what I need. It's ignorant idots like you that give Lindows a bad name. But the last laugh is on you because you'll be left behind in your ignorance surfing for warez while the rest of us are starting the revolution!
Re:doh! version 1.0 doh!! version 2.0
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
calling him an idiot and a moron when you f**kers are just cowards like i am. How come you people forgot real quick about the Lindows/Wine thing...assholes.
While our main development has always been done on Win2k workstations and HP-UX servers, we've long used Linux (since version 4, IIRC) for low-priority office work,...
Are you sure you're a cheif admin or whatever? As far as I know there's no linux version 4.
-- --
Note: If you don't agree with me, don't bother replying. I won't read it.
Now this is disturbing ...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
In his picture, Michael Robertson looks uncannily like Conan O'Brien. Does Triumph have a page?
Re:finally
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Excellent work, tps12...
predicted comments
by
asteinberg
·
· Score: 5, Funny
Okay, time to predict the responses. In this discussion, there will be:
13 posts about how it dumb it is that this looks so much like Windows.
5 of which will also predict the death of Linux on the desktop.
21 responses to those posts about how looking like Windows is a good thing.
18 posts suggesting alternate desktop-oriented distros, including Mandrake, Red Hat, Lycoris, and Xandros.
7 responses to those posts claiming that Debian is far better.
5 responses to the Debian posts about source based distributions like Gentoo and Source Mage being far more up-to-date and superior.
14 posts will praise Lindows for being easy-to-use and with plans (that will not actually happen) to install it for their parents.
8 of those will commend the new networking setup and resolution switcher and wonder why other distros haven't done these things yet.
5 people will explain that other distros HAVE done that.
3 posts will make fun of the name Lindows. 6 will ask about if the Windows emulation actually works (nobody will have a supported answer). 5 posts will question if this release is truly worthy of being called "version 2.0.0". 4 posts will point out that you can buy computers with Lindows preinstalled from Wal-mart. 6 posts will offer mirrors of the screenshots/article.
Of the 17 posts modded up to 4 or 5, at least 13 will begin with the phrase "I'll probably get modded down for this, but..."
And finally, there will be THIS post, which tries to redeem itself for being dumb with a self-deprecating final statement.
-- The first ever Ultimate Frisbee video game: here (now
DAMN! I forgot about the 3 posts replying to the predictions with things I forgot.
---
Ohh, what's really going to bake your noodle later on is, would you still have made your post if I hadn't said anything?
-- The first ever Ultimate Frisbee video game: here (now
Re:predicted comments
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
yeah, i stopped reading slashdot comments a while back. DOH!!!
1 post crying for mirrors to the screenshots - this one!
Aaaaaah!!!
-- Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Re:predicted comments
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
You forgot to mention the post by you about you forgetting to include the replies to your post. And you forgot about this post about the post about the parent post.
A meta-meta-meta-comment. Just don't reply, the univese might explode.
Re:predicted comments
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Linux on the desktop is as dead as Stephen King at age 54!!!
That should cover prediction 2 as well as one of the "but you forgot" predictions. I'm efficient
Re:predicted comments
by
FooBarWidget
·
· Score: 2
Discussions? Impossible! This is Slashdot! There is no such thing as "discussion"! They call it "trolling" or "flamewar".
Re:predicted comments
by
PrimeNumber
·
· Score: 3, Funny
You also forgot the 15 joke de jour Slashdot jokes with the subject line: "In other news..."
These are so common, I am getting nostalgic for the days of the 15 redundant BSOD jokes every topic. 8{
We tested Lindows....
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
...here at work. I work for a corporation that sells everything from distributed fax databasing software to cameras. The only Linux stuff around is the few servers that I have set up for rumedial intranet and inter-departmental data management tasks. So when Lindows came along I thought that maybe it could be used to demonstrate how easy Linux really is (thus gaining some support for driver writing and new software projects, et cetera).
Boy were we (me and the other two Linux users in this company of thousands) when we sat down with Lindows to set it up as a workstation running a few printers, a scanner, some software through Wine, etc. We quickly realized that it was nothing more then a really bad, ugly, poorly concieved, library lacking Linux distribution. It offerred nothing more then your conventional Mandrake or Redhat boxed sets (in fact far, far, far less) and innovated nothing. It was laughed at by the few managers that saw it. Lindows failed us, as it will hordes of other people.
Re:We tested Lindows....
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I think that you harbor a severe difficulty with understanding the written word my friend. My post stated quite clearly that Lindows is pathetic, possessing far, far, far less in terms of content and offering in comparison to Redhat or Mandrake. Duh.
And no, there is no way that you even hope to fill my shoes, you fat little "technical school" graduate.
-Tai
Re:We tested Lindows....
by
rseuhs
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Actually, Lindows has something that every other Linux distribution lacks:
Good marketing. Just the name "Lindows" attrackts a lot of users. Thousands of ex-RedHat users who have only seen GNOME will love Lindow's KDE desktop and will think that's the difference between Linux (which is KDE for them) and Lindows.
OEM contracts. Walmart sells those preinstalled. Many of the 200$ PCs will be used as web/email/simplewordprocessing computers, which can be done with any Linux distribution, also Lindows.
Of course many will upgrade to real Linux distributions, but as a bridge from Windows, Lindows seems quite nice for me.
Re:We tested Lindows....
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
please post it here so I can steal your job... as you obviousally have ZERO admin and IT skills... just like your spelling.
So you misspell obviously, and then accuse his spelling of having no IT skills.
So, you missed one day of spelling class, and the entire course on grammar?
Re:Amazing!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
you may want winblows touching your linux box's privates, but not me!!!
That works if you're root. It does not work if you are a user. Doesn't solve the problem.
Re:User vs Root
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
learn how to configure your setup you raging newbie
Re:User vs Root
by
Minstrel78
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Lindows "solves" the problem by simply having the user run as root all the time. I frankly can't see how Lindows is anything but the worst of both worlds.
Thanks for pointing this out, though you suck for beating me to it. I find this a fatal "flaw" if you will in the whole concept. The idea "Let's get Linux in front of those who would not normally adopt it, and hey...let's have'em logged in as root to make their experience more Windows like." It's suicidal from a technical perspective. Just plain stupid.
Cumbersome? I had more trouble getting my CD-RW drive set up than I did a samba share. Under my user account I type 'mount mp3', I enter the password and I suddenly have access to a network share. It was not even remotely difficult to set up (well, getting the share activated on the other end was a bit of a challenge since I'd never set up a samba share before).
To get 'mount mp3' to work, didn't you have to put an entry into fstab?
Making a huge fstab is my complaint to begin with.
Re:User vs Root
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Simple...
It doesn't run any services. You cannot even SSH/ftp/browse your machine or anything..;)
Re:User vs Root
by
Khopesh
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Lindows "solves" the problem [of mounting samba shares] by simply having the user run as root all the time. I frankly can't see how Lindows is anything but the worst of both worlds.
eww. there's an easier solution.
(i hope the lindows people are reading...)
use sudo. from the sudo website, "Sudo (superuser do) allows a system administrator to give certain users (or groups of users) the ability to run some (or all) commands as root or another user while logging the commands and arguments."
I use sudo almost exclusively for mounting (including smbmount). there are ways to easily configure it so that it doesn't need a password to perform some (or all) actions.
That depends on parity or of the day of the year on the gregorian calendar system.
where is enlightenment
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Where is Enlightenment or how is it run through lindows and does it even work with lindows
Re:where is enlightenment
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Of course it runs with Lindows. You can install it from a terminal window. Lindows runs X, so of course it can run. But I dunno why you want to... Enlightenment is sorta dead... probably from the time that Raster said "the Linux desktop is dead."
I used to love E back in the days.. but now not many people use it anymore:(
Re:where is enlightenment
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The Register has this article about Lindows bundling EarthLink's software to make dial-up easier for novices. From what they're saying, Lindows did have a fairly friendly support for broadband, most likely because it's prolly just DHCP, but dial-up was more challenging, I seriously hope it didn't require manual configuration of pppd heh;]
Make sure you read the Release Notes!!
by
I_am_Rambi
·
· Score: 3, Informative
There are interesting release notes for 2.0
2.0 cannot install to a secondary slave drive yet - Can't get a new hard drive after Lindows is installed
Advanced Install options needs improvement in drive labeling and drive order - If you have more than one drive, good luck installing and setting up your drives
Due to problems it was causing, we had to turn off the "Restore session" option when rebooting. We'll work on getting this fixed and back in. - If it crashes, your out of luck
No support for DSL (PPPOE) - Well, there goes DSL users
Re:Make sure you read the Release Notes!!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
> 2.0 cannot install to a secondary slave drive yet - Can't get a new hard drive after Lindows is installed
What does the 'not install..' have to do with installing another disk drive? Lindows prevents the BIOS from seeing the drive, or Lindows can't mount the new drive's partitions, or?..
Re:Make sure you read the Release Notes!!
by
moonbender
·
· Score: 2
Yep, 3 out of those 4 would make installing this a pain or even impossible. Fortunately, I didn't even try.
Re:Make sure you read the Release Notes!!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
They forgot:
Everything runs as root, negating any possible hope of security.
Re:Make sure you read the Release Notes!!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Not necessarilly. Some DSL companies still use pptp.
so what is the appeal of Lindows?
by
wo1verin3
·
· Score: 1
Originally everyone was excited because they believed you would be able to run native 32-bit windows applications, previous screenshots showed MS Word running.
Now they seemed to have moved away from that, is there anything to distinguish this distro from another now?
The one click warehouse is great for a feee I'd imagine, but that software is already available free for the most part.
Re:so what is the appeal of Lindows?
by
someguy42
·
· Score: 1
The distinguishing factor here is the fact that they don't even attempt to make an even remotely unique GUI for their distro. And while I'm at it, if I want my machine to look like Windoze, function like Windoze, and interact with Windoze machines, I'm gonna run Windoze.
-- The probability that someone is watching you is directly proportional to the stupidity of your actions.
Re:so what is the appeal of Lindows?
by
static55
·
· Score: 0
Lindows is forging forward on the desktop Linux "market" trying to be the best it can be.. with much publicity, like the other day, for example their deal with Earthlink.. While others are already using earthlink with pppd! Their low-cost PC's at walmart are pretty good deals tho.. for a little more then the cost of WindowsXP Professional, you can get an 800mhz celery with no floppy or modem.
Another step in the wrong direction
by
tokki
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Linux and open source needs to just drop X as the GUI, and come up with something new. Something developed with the general consumer in mind. Something that doesn't require KDE or Gnome to patch it's many shortcomings.
Why are we all deluding ourselves into thinking that X11 and it's KDE/Gnome companions are viable desktop environments for consumers when they really aren't. It does the open source movement a disservice to constantly hype up an inferior platform while ignoring it's many shortcomings, simply because it says "open source" or "Linux".
Re:Another step in the wrong direction
by
Wumpus
·
· Score: 1
...something with no backwards compatibility whatsoever, something that forces everybody to throw away every single application they have, or run an X server on top of.
Why, exactly?
Re:Another step in the wrong direction
by
Wdomburg
·
· Score: 2
>Linux and open source needs to just drop X as the >GUI, and come up with something new. Something >developed with the general consumer in mind.
People are working on alternates - see DirectFB, Berlin, GGI, etc. Guess what? Aside from DirectFB, which has its place in embedded systems, virtually noone uses or cares about them.
The fact of the matter is there's nothing seriously wrong with X11. Most of the "X sucks" crowd are parroting something they read somewhere without any real understanding.
>Something that doesn't require KDE or Gnome to >patch it's many shortcomings.
KDE and Gnome are outside the scope of what X11 does. What you're saying is roughtly equivilent to saying you shouldn't buy a house that requires you to buy furniture to "patch its many shortcomings".
Matt
Re:Another step in the wrong direction
by
tokki
·
· Score: 1
I doubt it would be hard to do backwards compatability, either through a legacy API or through an X client running on top of the new GUI.
It's necessary only if you think Linux or other open source operating systems (heck, even commercial) should be widely used on the desktop.
Everytime I bring this up and people come up with knee-jerk reactions to defend X, I've yet to see anyone actually come up with a compelling reason why X is as good as or better than the other GUIs out there (Mac OS X, BeOS, MS Windows) as far as a consumer-oriented desktop goes. It's goes some great features if you're a system administrator or an engineer, but the regular user any benefits of X are worthless to them.
Re:Another step in the wrong direction
by
FooBarWidget
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Here comes the "X sucks" post again. What is wrong with X? Why break all compatibility just to ditch X? Why ditch X at all?
1) There are no good alternatives. Period. DirectFB doesn't support nearly as many cards, and Berlin isn't even ready.
2) Network transparency. Some people claim that it's useless today but that's just false. It's still being used in corporate environments and it's becoming more and more important in the embedded market. If you want to create an alternative, it better be network transparent.
3) X is proven. It's more than 15 years old now. Don't think X sucks just because XFree86 isn't the best implementation.
4) X is extensible. Nearly all shortcomings can be worked around using extensions. Take a look at XRender for example. Or DRI. Or DGA. And in the near future: translucent windows, screen resizing and rotation (RandR or something).
5) X is fast enough. No X isn't slow. Moving windows doesn't seem to be smooth, but that's because of the communication between the window manager and the window, not because X is slow. When I switched to Metacity, moving windows suddenly became *a lot* smoother. Yes, X communicates through sockets. But locally, pixmaps (95% of all traffic) are transferred through shared memory (at least XFree86 does). CPUs are becoming faster and faster, so socket overhead should become smaller and smaller. Of course, assuming that the driver is good and fast.
6) XFree86 configuration is currently complicated. But that won't stay that way. Why ditch XFree86 and replace it with something new and incompatible when you can just improve XFree86? The developers are already planning on getting rid of XF86Config completely and go for hardware autodetection.
Re:Another step in the wrong direction
by
tokki
·
· Score: 1
X for geeks is fine. Geeks like to play, tinker, putter. But for the consumer desktop, KDE or Gnome aren't even enough to make the environment
There are so many things wrong with X that it would take alot more than a slashdot post to list them.
Please, go ahead and list any benefits to X to the consumer, I've never heard anyone from the X camp list any, so if there are, I'd love to hear them. The only arguments I've heard thus far are either knee-jerk rhetoric damning my anti-X heresy, or benefits of X that regular computer users could care less about.
I saw take a step back, look at what we've got with X and Gnome/KDE, why it isn't working, and look at projects like those you listed and projects like OpenBeOS and see if things are still going in the right direction. As it stands, Microsoft is sweating bricks over open source operating systems on the server side, but they are laughing themselves silly at the failed attempts to get them onto the desktop.
Re:Another step in the wrong direction
by
FooBarWidget
·
· Score: 2
"Everytime I bring this up and people come up with knee-jerk reactions to defend X, I've yet to see anyone actually come up with a compelling reason why X is as good as or better than the other GUIs out there (Mac OS X, BeOS, MS Windows) as far as a consumer-oriented desktop goes."
I feel the opposite. Everytime people come up with reactions to mod down X, I've yet to see anyone actually come up with a compelling reason why X is worse than all the other windowing systems out there. I said "windowing system", because that's what X is: a windowing system, not a GUI!
"It's goes some great features if you're a system administrator or an engineer, but the regular user any benefits of X are worthless to them."
And Linux offers many things that regular users will never use. So why not remove all those features? Just because regular users won't use them, doesn't mean they should be removed. It doesn't harm regular users, but it does benefit others, so why remove it?
Re:Another step in the wrong direction
by
Wumpus
·
· Score: 1
I doubt it would be hard to do backwards compatability, either through a legacy API or through an X client running on top of the new GUI.
So, you want to ditch X, and get to keep it, with an X server running on top of whatever it is you pick to replace X. Of course, now you have to worry about how X applications would integrate with your New'n'Spiffy (tm) windowing system. Don't forget that at least initially (say, first 5-8 years or so), most of the applications would want to use will be X applications, so desktop integration with X clients IS going to be an issue.
Everytime I bring this up and people come up with knee-jerk reactions to defend X
That's because your idea is misguided. When you casually suggest throwing away ~200000 LOC (for the server alone) and at least ten times as much code in libraries, clients, desktop gizmos, screensavers, drivers, video rendering and 3D services - you name it, I would expect YOU to come up with a reason why you think that would be a good idea, not the other way around.
In short, I think you should answer the following question first:
What's bad enough about X that dumping it and launching the massive undertaking of rewriting it would be cheaper than fixing?
My answer would be: Nothing.
Re:Another step in the wrong direction
by
Junta
·
· Score: 2
Well, I guess network transparency doesn't matter to consumers by and large, but I like it, dammit. And there is no real benefit to throwing out X and starting over, just a huge waste of time and effort.
The perceived 'problems' with X are non-issues or more easily solved through extensions. Toolkits (ala qt and gtk) as well as things like SDL take care of any API strangess that could scare developers.
Already, desktop environments are pretty complete, except when it comes to configuring the X server itself on the fly. Now I know there is or is in the works an extension to configure displays on the fly, and desktop environments incorporating config tools that utilize this would help greatly. Although this is becoming less and less important. When was the last time you had to change color depth/resolution for your windows desktop (note that switching resolutions is more comonly done by games, and linux games also change resolutions).
X is a solid, proven, good system. By the time the supposed 'X replacements' develop the functionality they found lacking in X, X gets an extension before the project is done..
-- XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Re:Another step in the wrong direction
by
tokki
·
· Score: 0, Troll
Here comes the "X sucks" post again. What is wrong with X? Why break all compatibility just to ditch X? Why ditch X at all?
Here comes the "X doesn't suck" post again;)
1) There are no good alternatives. Period. DirectFB doesn't support nearly as many cards, and Berlin isn't even ready.
That's hardly ever been a reason not to make a change. If that was the reasoning years ago, open source and Linux and FreeBSD never would have come to be. There are several good candidates to choose from, personally I'd like to see something done with OpenBeOS. BeOS was a wonderfully full featured and elegant GUI, as well as very easy to use.
2) Network transparency. Some people claim that it's useless today but that's just false. It's still being used in corporate environments and it's becoming more and more important in the embedded market. If you want to create an alternative, it better be network transparent.
While that is useful for the corporate and geek environment, it is absolutely useless for a consumer. There are several alternatives to network transparency while still mainting the capability, such as making a GUI that is capable of being network transparent, but not by default.
3) X is proven. It's more than 15 years old now. Don't think X sucks just because XFree86 isn't the best implementation.
X is proven in the sysadmin and engineering environments. However, it has failed in the desktop realm.
4) X is extensible. Nearly all shortcomings can be worked around using extensions. Take a look at XRender for example. Or DRI. Or DGA. And in the near future: translucent windows, screen resizing and rotation (RandR or something).
Nearly all of X's shortcomings perhaps, but not all. Developers still have to choose whether to develop in KDE, Gnome, or X by itself, or develop their own widget sets (ala Mozilla). They have little idea of what type of environment a consumer would have.
5) X is fast enough. No X isn't slow. Moving windows doesn't seem to be smooth, but that's because of the communication between the window manager and the window, not because X is slow. When I switched to Metacity, moving windows suddenly became *a lot* smoother.
X by itself might be fast, but to get it to anywhere near the usability and even asthetic qualities of other GUIs, it becomes slow. Thus I still say "X is slow", or perhaps more accurately, "the X environment is slow".
Yes, X communicates through sockets. But locally, pixmaps (95% of all traffic) are transferred through shared memory (at least XFree86 does). CPUs are becoming faster and faster, so socket overhead should become smaller and smaller.
Of course, assuming that the driver is good and fast.
Just another example of how X was designed with a completely different set of requirements than those that apply to a consumer desktop.
6) XFree86 configuration is currently complicated. But that won't stay that way. Why ditch XFree86 and replace it with something new and incompatible when you can just improve XFree86? The developers are already planning on getting rid of XF86Config completely and go for hardware autodetection.
That's a major step, but how will it handle driver updates? Will grandma have to recompile her kernel?
While not totally X-related, the split between KDE and Gnome is only making things more difficult. Competition generally benefits all, but it's creating a rift between an already niche market.
If the desire is to keep X and open source desktops in the realm of the geek, then these steps are fine. But if there is really a desire to get them onto the desktop and bust the Microsoft monopolies, these flaws I've listed and many others need to be addressed by X or by a new GUI.
Re:Another step in the wrong direction
by
SN74S181
·
· Score: 1
The developers are already planning on getting rid of XF86Config completely and go for hardware autodetection.
Wow, the convergence to a Microsoft worldview plows ever on forward.
They've abandoned older video hardware (what happened to S3 Trio64 support? Not supporting legacy hardware, eh?).
Now they want a plug-n-pray config....
Gack
Re:Another step in the wrong direction
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
What's wrong with building on X?
You say we're deluding ourselves, but yet you do absolutely nothing to back up your claim.
Re:Another step in the wrong direction
by
tokki
·
· Score: 1
So, you want to ditch X, and get to keep it, with an X server running on top of whatever it is you pick to replace X. Of course, now you have to worry about how X applications would integrate with your New'n'Spiffy (tm) windowing system. Don't forget that at least initially (say, first 5-8 years or so), most of the applications would want to use will be X applications, so desktop integration with X clients IS going to be an issue.
It's a simliar issue with Mac OS X and Mac OS 9. They made a decision to drop the old system in favor of the new. It was the right thing to do, the old system wasn't allowing Mac OS to evolve anymore and offer features that consumers wanted. But at the same time they knew they couldn't completely abandon the older Mac OS, so they made the Classic environment, which allowed them to run old apps on top of.
That's because your idea is misguided. When you casually suggest throwing away ~200000 LOC (for the server alone) and at least ten times as much code in libraries, clients, desktop gizmos, screensavers, drivers, video rendering and 3D services - you name it, I would expect YOU to come up with a reason why you think that would be a good idea, not the other way around.
All great leaps in innovation in the operating system world required abanding old code and old systems. It wasn't an easy choice, but it's one that needs to be at least discussed.
How many patches, shortcumming, and complicated installs, and leaps in technology on competing platforms. How many more excuses and scapegoats to blame for X's lack of proliferation on the desktop are going to be made before is enough.
Before enough is enough, and a clean break is need to be made.
Linux itself has several such milestones, such as LibC, VM code, packet filtering, and more.
Re:Another step in the wrong direction
by
tokki
·
· Score: 1
You say we're deluding ourselves, but yet you do absolutely nothing to back up your claim.
I've done nothing but back up my claim, pointing out the various problems with X and the reasons they are affecting open source desktop proliferation. Now you back up yours.
Re:Another step in the wrong direction
by
Wdomburg
·
· Score: 2
>There are so many things wrong with X that it >would take alot more than a slashdot post to list >them.
Give even a cursory summary of what you think the biggest issues are.
>Please, go ahead and list any benefits to X to the >consumer, I've never heard anyone from the X camp >list any, so if there are, I'd love to hear them.
It displays graphics. What do you want it to do? Perform oral sex?
You're the one who claimed it was a detriment in the first place, so the burden of evidence is on you.
>I've heard thus far are either knee-jerk rhetoric >damning my anti-X heresy, or benefits of X that >regular computer users could care less about.
And you're not going to hear anything more until you stop talking as if its a given fact that "X sucks" and present a well reasoned argument backing it up.
Re:Another step in the wrong direction
by
Wdomburg
·
· Score: 2
>I've done nothing but back up my claim, pointing >but the various problems with X and the reasons >they are affecting open source desktop >proliferation. Now you back up yours.
Um, where? You've only said "the problems are too numerous to list on a Slashdot post". I reread the thread to be sure I didn't miss anything, and no, you still haven't provided a SINGLE concrete explanation of what you think is wrong in X, much less proven that it can't be solved without a complete rewrite.
Re:Another step in the wrong direction
by
fault0
·
· Score: 2
> While not totally X-related, the split between KDE and Gnome is only making things more difficult. Competition generally benefits all, but it's creating a rift between an already niche market.
Agreed. It's UNIX Wars II. Before it was CDE versus OpenLook. Now it's KDE versus GNOME. There will be a winner in about 4 years, but by that time, the winner will be dead. History has a point of repeating itself, huh?
Re:Another step in the wrong direction
by
fault0
·
· Score: 2
> Now they want a plug-n-pray config....
plug-n-pray^H^H^Hlay is actually good in modern versions of Windows (XP) and MacOS (X). It's already been adopted by some of the major distros, and even partially by the kernel, but it needs to be seemlessly integrated.
The linux desktop really needs this.
Re:Another step in the wrong direction
by
StillAnonymous
·
· Score: 1
So just keep using an older version of XFree86 that supports the older chipset that you have. It's not like that card could really take advantage of many new features anyways.
Re:Another step in the wrong direction
by
tokki
·
· Score: 1
Sorry, check my other posts in this semi-thread. There are numerous reasons and responses listed against reasons for X.
Re:Another step in the wrong direction
by
tokki
·
· Score: 1
I've listed several reasons in other posts for other articles, hence my claim to knee-jerk reactions and my own reasons for not liking X. I don't want to be too redundant here.
Bascially, my main beefs with X are lousy fount control, KDE versus Gnome, lack of a standardized widget set and environment for developers to develop on (part of the Gnome/KDE issue), poor performance, the patchy, hacked nature of X11 (band aid upon band aid), the fact that it was developed with engineers in mind and is now being attempted to sold to consumers, lack of any kind of ease of configuration for things like adding fonts, upgrading packages, utterly poor performance, even with extensive band-aids (it's network based, which is great for sysadmins, but consumers don't care).
I got tired of ugly fonts, poor performance, battling environments, the need for tinkering, and at the same time pretending it was somehow better than Windows, so I stopped using it.
Re:Another step in the wrong direction
by
rseuhs
·
· Score: 2
Everytime I bring this up and people come up with knee-jerk reactions to defend X, I've yet to see anyone actually come up with a compelling reason why X is as good as or better than the other GUIs out there (Mac OS X, BeOS, MS Windows) as far as a consumer-oriented desktop goes.
Well, let's see: It can run 2d-applications (windows, menus, mouse - you know.) and it can run games (and faster than Windows, BTW).
So it's as good as MacOSX and Windows for consumers.
For power-users it offers nifty features like network-transparency and modularity.
I've yet to hear a compelling reason what's wrong with X and you also don't seem to know one.
Re:Another step in the wrong direction
by
Wumpus
·
· Score: 1
It's a simliar issue with Mac OS X and Mac OS 9
I've seen a definition of similarity in mathematics once. It said that two things are similar when a layman can't tell the difference between them, and a mathematician will immediately see that they're unrelated. Your example of "similarity" falls under that definition.
Mac OS ceased to be adequate many many years ago. Apple recognized that, and tried to rewrite it from scratch - twice. Both attempts were disasters. Then, Apple ended up buying a new OS, not writing one.
Thanks for helping me prove my point.
All great leaps in innovation in the operating system world required abanding old code and old systems [...] Linux itself has several such milestones, such as LibC, VM code, packet filtering, and more.
These are all great examples of evolutionary change. The kernel was never ditched, and rewritten from scratch with the vague excuse that "it's broken and stops the proliferation of Linux".
And, I'm disappointed to note, you still haven't pointed to a single, unfixable problem with X that's big enough to justify starting from scratch.
Re:Another step in the wrong direction
by
rseuhs
·
· Score: 2
There are so many things wrong with X that it would take alot more than a slashdot post to list them.
Translation: I don't know what I am talking about and don't want to admit it.
[Goddamn, who has invented this 2-minute limit on slashdot?]
Re:Another step in the wrong direction
by
Wumpus
·
· Score: 1
Please, go ahead and list any benefits to X to the consumer,
1. It works. 2. It's universally supported by Unix desktop applications.
I've never heard anyone from the X camp list any, so if there are, I'd love to hear them.
One word: Q-tips.
Re:Another step in the wrong direction
by
tokki
·
· Score: 1
1. It works.
But not in a way that consumers like.
2. It's universally supported by Unix desktop applications.
In other words, it's established. That doesn't mean it's good, and that certainly (and hasen't) meant it's an attractive alternative for the desktop.
Re:Another step in the wrong direction
by
Wumpus
·
· Score: 1
But not in a way that consumers like.
That's a non-sequitur. X is the functional equivalent of GDI, which hasn't changed that much since Windows 1.0. GDI has absolutely NO impact on the Windows UI. By the same token, X has no impact on the Unix GUI. Therefore, there's nothing for a user to like or not to like about X.
If you think otherwise, prove it. Use complete sentences of the form "X is broken because ". I'm still waiting for you to state what exactly is wrong with X.
Re:Another step in the wrong direction
by
Wumpus
·
· Score: 1
Take a look at this response: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=40190&cid=4284 363
Looked at it. Your argument is full of inaccuracies, (for example, the Mozilla developers did not "develop their own widget sets"), enough to make it completely nonsensical.
Let's dissect it, since we have nothing more entertaining to do at the moment:
personally I'd like to see something done with OpenBeOS. BeOS was a wonderfully full featured and elegant GUI, as well as very easy to use.
And users just flocked to it! You're also missing the point: X is not a GUI. Repeat after me: X is not a GUI.
While that is useful for the corporate and geek environment, it is absolutely useless for a consumer.
Where's the proof? What is it that makes it "useless" Spit it out, buddy! Don't keep us guessing!
X by itself might be fast, but to get it to anywhere near the usability and even asthetic qualities of other GUIs, it becomes slow.
Oh, so X is fast now. Interesting.
What gets X "near the usablitiy and even asthetic (sic) qualities of other GUIs" is software like KDE and GNOME. These are not X.
I can only guess how you draw your extraordinary conclusion that "[X] becomes slow". I'm assuming that you mean that KDE is slow, or that GNOME is slow. You'd be right, of course - they are slow.
Unfortunately, your failure to understand why they are slow leads you to the wrong conclusion. You can do much more to speed up KDE by fixing Linux's dynamic linking mechanism than by replacing X. In fact, you could replace X completely, port KDE to your spiffy new X replacement, and KDE would still be slow.
[In response to somebody saying that the XFree86 project is working on hardware autodetection] That's a major step, but how will it handle driver updates? Will grandma have to recompile her kernel? That's a straw man. Nobody needs has to compile the kernel to replace X drivers right now, but you're implying that your grandmother would have to, for some reason.
Make your grandmother proud, sonny - start making sense.
these flaws I've listed and many others need to be addressed by X or by a new GUI.
What many others? And you haven't actually listed any flaws.
What's more, you acknowledge that whatever flaws you imagine exist in X can actually be fixed. In light of that, why ditch X?
You also say:
I got tired of ugly fonts,
...One word: XRender
poor performance,
...Not an X issue
battling environments,
...Get a decent distribution
the need for tinkering,
... Get a decent distribution
and at the same time pretending it was somehow better than Windows, so I stopped using it.
Finally You make a coherent point! I thought I'd never see the day.
There's absolutely no point in pretending that a product is superior if it doesn't work for you. You can do one of several things - keep using the product, hoping that it will eventually get better, stop using it, and find something else to use, or fix it. Seems like you've made your decision, and you're happy enough with it. Good for you - you've obviously made the right decision.
The interesting question, for the rest of us, is "will the Linux desktop ever be good enough for the likes of Picky Tokki?"
I've seen indications that some companies are determined to drag Linux, kicking and screaming, and place it square on the desktop. RedHat's most recent beta impressed the hell out of me, for example, precisely because even after installing it, I still have no idea what its XF86Config file looks like, or even where it is. Out of the box, the fonts look nice, the system administration tasks I had to do (Setting up networking with DHCP) didn't require dropping to the command line, most error messages made sense... At this rate, they'll have something solid in a couple of releases.
And they didn't have to replace X with "something better" to pull this off.
Re:Another step in the wrong direction
by
BrookHarty
·
· Score: 2
The only complaint I have about X, and have not been able to solve, is non "Anti-Aliased" fonts. After seeing/using cleartype on XP, its very annoying to switch back to X, even with advanced render exentensions... Fonts are a major problem on every distro ive seen, even KDE/Gnome anti-aliasing features can not compare to XP/OSX.
If anyone has any good links on anti-aliasing font support, and how to tweak X for the best quality, please post the urls.
Re:Another step in the wrong direction
by
spitzak
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
A lot of people here are saying "you don't have to replace X, you can fix it". And this is true, so in fact the original poster is wrong. But what is correct is that I don't see any sign of anybody "fixing" X. And it very much needs it.
Want some examples:
1. "Extensions" should not be allowed without a library that detects the extension and simulates (however crudly) the extension when it is not there. The purpose is not to make your program work on older systems, but to make it so you don't have to put any "if" statements in there when writing software that uses the extension. Becasue of the lack of this, NO extensions since about 1986 have ever been successful, all the ones that anybody uses are assummed to be there by the software (shared memory, shape). The only example I know of a correctly-written extension is Xft, which does emulate itself on old X11 servers, and you will notice that it is being used quite a lot!
2. Get rid of colormaps. I mean totally, they are GONE. The server should not report any "visuals" other than a single "true color" visual. If the hardware is not true color then it simulates it by using a color cube, the contents of this cube cannot be accessed or queried by an application and it cannot tell this is being done.
3. Absolute guaranteed support of every image format of 1, 3, and 4 channels with any number of bits that is a power of 2 from 1 to 32. Currently a library that wants to do this has to make an NxM set of translations, from an arbitrary input image format to an arbitrary one depending on the X server. If this crap was moved to the server it would only be an Nx1 set of transformations, vastly less, because the server knows exactly what the output format is. Also do alpha mixing of 4 channels images. I don't care how freaking slow it is, just do it so we don't have to do something even slower in the program. While you are at it, you should be able to read back an arbitrary image format from the screen and the server does the conversion. And it should use shared memory or whatever the fastest possible communication is *automatically*, not by me setting up the shared memory extension!
4. Keith, if you are writing Xrender extension, please try to make the interface so it is not confusing! I have a window id, I want to say "draw_into(window)" and then "moveto(x,y); lineto(x,y),... fill()". The main thing is that there is no reason for a "context" argument. OpenGL has worked without one forever, even in multithreaded, and you will notice that OpenGL is portable between systems and toolkits.
Re:Another step in the wrong direction
by
Luyseyal
·
· Score: 2
and since X is network transparent and all, and rather unlikely to become grotesquely incompatible, you can run the app on the fancy server and display on the old workstation.:)
-l
-- Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
Re:Another step in the wrong direction
by
FooBarWidget
·
· Score: 2
Try this: http://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~dchest/xfthack/ The result looks great!
I believe the changes are incorporated into Xft2 and became a configuration option. At least, that's what I think when I look at the screenshot of RedHat Null's font configuration utility.
Re:Another step in the wrong direction
by
FooBarWidget
·
· Score: 2
"It's a simliar issue with Mac OS X and Mac OS 9. They made a decision to drop the old system in favor of the new. It was the right thing to do, the old system wasn't allowing Mac OS to evolve anymore and offer features that consumers wanted. But at the same time they knew they couldn't completely abandon the older Mac OS, so they made the Classic environment, which allowed them to run old apps on top of. "
But that's the difference between MacOS 9 and the X Window System! X *is* designed to evolve. It's designed to be extensible. The creators of X knew that the core of X will be obsolete one day, so they designed X with extensibility in mind.
Re:Another step in the wrong direction
by
tokki
·
· Score: 1
That's a non-sequitur. X is the functional equivalent of GDI, which hasn't changed that much since Windows 1.0. GDI has absolutely NO impact on the Windows UI. By the same token, X has no impact on the Unix GUI. Therefore, there's nothing for a user to like or not to like about X.
Yet still Windows is a much more elegant and easy to use environment than X with KDE or Gnome. Issues like configuration, font control, performance, media, two completely different APIs built on even older APIs, dozens of required package installations and libraries, and overall plumbing are all areas where X is behind Windows. And that's not a compliment to Microsoft. When Windows was just coming out with Windows 95, there were other GUIs/windowing environments that can compete today even years ago.
Take NeXT. I worked at a company where everyone had a NeXT workstation, everyone from the receptionist to the sysadmins to the CEO. Despite their expense, the graphical environment on these workstations were fast, all on technology almost 10 years old.
Everyone loved using them, from the receptionist to the hardcore sysadmins. They were easy to use, easy to configure, and easy to manage and install applications. At the same time, they provided all the flexibility and power that us techies needed.
They ran on 68040's running at 25 Mhz; 33 Mhz if you were lucky, on a wopping 32 MB of RAM. Yet still, the NeXTSTEP environment was elegant, easy to develop for, powerful, and fast, and with 12-bit video when most everyone, except perhaps high-end Apple and SGI, was runing 8-bit video at most. Window movements, redraws, where all amazingly fast on antiquated hardware, and it still had all the bells and whistles of a modern GUI. You could drag a file from your home directory and place it in an email, and it'd attach automatically. This is common place today of course, but this was before Microsoft could even get Windows 95 out the door.
All of this was on a modified BSD 4.3 underpinning running on a Mach kernel. Everyone claims X is light and fast, but NeXTSTEP puts it to shame on the same hardware in both speed, functionality, and overall usability.
NeXT wasn't the only company with a powerful, easy, and elegant GUI around that time either, BeOS was also a system under the healm of Jean-Louis Gassee.
Both of those systems were doing full motion video, gaming, 3D, and even millions of colors years before X systems even cared or even Microsoft.
Now why can't the open source community come up with something like that? Why wouldn't a brand new windowing system, designed from the ground up, without all the complicated libraries, without the slow network-based plumbing, without the battling environments, without the technical baggage, with capabilities that other even non-MS GUIs came up years before, be good for getting open source on the desktop?
Thus far the arguments pro-X11 come down to "X is awesome you suck" which is hardly an argument, "there's nothing wrong with X" which I agree with if you're a techie, but if you're trying to get Linux and others on the desktop then I respectfully believe you to be wrong, and the argument that there is too much running on X today.
The only argument that I've heard thus far that I think holds merrit is that there are thousands of apps running on X currently. Like I've said, no great leaps in technology has come without a price, without abandoning old code and old ways. There is always resistence, everyone likes the status quo. X is the establishment in the open source world. Not because it's the best, but because it's the only thing out there right now. Remind you of any other situations?
Porting apps to a new environment wouldn't be all that difficult. Even mozilla, which is a daunting project itself, has been ported to Mac OS X's Aqua environment with Chimera. Port Mozilla, an instant messenger app like GAIM, OpenOffice, and a few other widely used X apps and you're halfway there to kicking Microsoft's ass.
Creating a legacy environment within the new environment wouldn't be that difficult, except possibly that the old environment was so complicated (X11 libs, KDE, Gnome, ugly fonts). Still, X can run atop BeOS, Windows, NeXTSTEP, and Mac OS X, making for a functional transition period.
So that issue has been addressed.
This isn't a very popular opinion, but slashdot is a place to discuss various opinions, or so I'm lead to believe.
Re:Another step in the wrong direction
by
tokki
·
· Score: 1
Oh great, another snotty slash post. Bring it on.
What is it about message boards that make normally civilized people turn into stereotypical razor-tounged neophytes? I guess the lack of needing to stare your debatee in the face removes all tracese of politeness. Snideness aside, I enjoy debaters like you, as it helps to refines one's arguments on both sides. Most people at this point have been "X rocks, you suck!" without substantiating their claims. I thank you for an intelligent debate (peppered with cheap insults as they may be).
Looked at it. Your argument is full of inaccuracies, (for example, the Mozilla developers did not "develop their own widget sets"), enough to make it completely nonsensical.
Mozilla under X has it's own font control, theme control, widget set independent of X and KDE/Gnome. It's GTK-based, but independent of Gnome or even KDE. It requires extra coding and extra bloat as opposed to developing to an environment you already know is there (Mac OS X, MS Windows).
And users just flocked to it! You're also missing the point: X is not a GUI. Repeat after me: X is not a GUI.
What's a GUI? Graphical User Interface. X is graphical, users use it, to wait for it, interface with things. Computer-related things I would imagine. You're splitting hairs on trivial matters to try to make your point look more valid. Old trick.
As per the other point, users have really flocked to the multitude of attempts at a Linux desktop, haven't they.
While that is useful for the corporate and geek environment, it is absolutely useless for a consumer.
Where's the proof? What is it that makes it "useless" Spit it out, buddy! Don't keep us guessing!
The "useless" referred to network transparency from the origional comment that I was commenting to. Millions of people use GUIs/environments/desktops (whatever you feel like calling it) without network transparency. Hence, it's useless to the average user. I agree, it's very useful in the corporate/sysadmin setting.
What gets X "near the usablitiy and even asthetic (sic) qualities of other GUIs" is software like KDE and GNOME. These are not X.
No, they aren't X. But there aren't any Linux desktop distributions that come without one or both. Without KDE or Gnome, X is unusable for consumers, even with a good window manager. Hence why I said "X environment". Perhaps "X-based environment" would be even more accurate. And thanks for pointing out my spelling error with that [sic], it also adds quite a bit of validity to your argument.
I can only guess how you draw your extraordinary conclusion that "[X] becomes slow". I'm assuming that you mean that KDE is slow, or that GNOME is slow. You'd be right, of course - they are slow.
Unfortunately, your failure to understand why they are slow leads you to the wrong conclusion. You can do much more to speed up KDE by fixing Linux's dynamic linking mechanism than by replacing X. In fact, you could replace X completely, port KDE to your spiffy new X replacement, and KDE would still be slow.
It sounds like you're the one with a failure to understand why they are slow. X isn't that efficient to begin with, it sacrificed speed for network transparency by choice because of the specific requirements to be flexible for things like X-terms and other engineering-related applications. Processor speeds are now fast enough that X by itself is relatively fast despite this inefficiency. But what consumer is going to use X with twm?
KDE and Gnome are both bloated attempts to get X to do what it wasn't designed to do, at least not efficiently. You can fix linking systems all you want, Linux's dyanmic linking system has nothing to do with it. It's still slow on FreeBSD, and plenty slow on other operating systems.
Take any other windowing system on the same hardware, on hardware years old, and X will always be slower when you include modern features such as widget/theme control, centralized font control, docs, etc. (that bascially require KDE and Gnome). BeOS, NeXTSTEP, Windows, Mac OS, Mac OS X, all beat X in the speed game.
What many others? And you haven't actually listed any flaws.
I've listed plenty of other flaws in plenty of other posts, but for your sake, I'll list a few:
The X windowing system was designed to a completely different set of specifications than what consumers want and need. It's got ugly fonts, lack of configuraiton, splintered distributions, splintered environments, splintered specifications, and more. These aren't problems in the server realm. They aren't even problems in the geek desktop realm, but they are issues with the consumer desktop realm. And that's what we're discussing here, isn't it?
Various distributions and projects are addressing some of these issues, but not all. You say X is slow really because KDE and Gnome are slow. Well, it's hard to imagine a consumer-grade desktop without one of them. So again, that makes it an X-based issue.
KDE and Gnome are at war and casualty is Linux on the desktop. Kill one off, and you've still got a slow desktop that is at least can be universally developed for. Not in-itself an X problem, but X's lack of features necessitates some sort of all-encompasing environment, which then does make it an X problem.
There is a lack of any kind of unifying software installation. Lindows took care of that, quite nicely in fact. But you're stuck with the Lindows distribution to get it. Other distributions have the same issue. More splintering. Not an X issue? Perhaps not directly, but as X doesn't have a unified graphical software installation specification, leaving a void that has never been adequately filled.
What's more, you acknowledge that whatever flaws you imagine exist in X can actually be fixed. In light of that, why ditch X?
Maybe they can fix X, but with more and more and more hacks, patches, and extra addons. You've already got half a dozen graphics libraries, layer upon layer of innefficiency piling up and slowing things down. In there end, there are so many add ons to X that aren't X or close to X, why use X to begin with? Because it was there?
I say stop the madness. X had a good run, it's great for engineers and sysadmins, but it's just too much to try to get it patched up to modern specs, and even then, it's slow. Why not just start over?
BeOS, NeXTSTEP, OS X, all fast, modern, elegant, graphical environments: Everything that X and Gnome/KDE are not. It's been done before, it can be done again, and with open source, be done even better.
You also say:
I got tired of ugly fonts,
...One word: XRender
Yet another hack on top of X
poor performance,
...Not an X issue
Ahh, but since X isn't any good as a consumer desktop without KDE or Gnome, it does become and X issue.
battling environments,
...Get a decent distribution
How is any distribution going to solve the Gnome versus KDE issue? You're not making any sense there.
the need for tinkering,
... Get a decent distribution
Distributions now install beautifully, but deveating from the narrow scope of any distribution will most likely require tinkering.
and at the same time pretending it was somehow better than Windows, so I stopped using it.
Finally You make a coherent point! I thought I'd never see the day.
I'm sure it was a lapse of stupidity on my part, I apologize.
The interesting question, for the rest of us, is "will the Linux desktop ever be good enough for the likes of Picky Tokki?"
Nope, the real question for those that care about the future of open source on the desktop is will there ever be a Linux desktop good enough for the likes of the general masses. Obviously there is nothing out there now, and I don't see anything, even fancy Red Hat and Lindows betas, coming close anytime soon. The entire setup of X/KDE/Gnome/extra hacks is incredibly cumbersome. Geeks might tolerate it because they've got the time and experience, but I doubt consumers ever will.
I've seen indications that some companies are determined to drag Linux, kicking and screaming, and place it square on the desktop. RedHat's most recent beta impressed the hell out of me, for example, precisely because even after installing it, I still have no idea what its XF86Config file looks like, or even where it is. Out of the box, the fonts look nice, the system administration tasks I had to do (Setting up networking with DHCP) didn't require dropping to the command line, most error messages made sense... At this rate, they'll have something solid in a couple of releases.
Indications? Are you referring to outright statements from CEOs and advocates to get Linux kicking and screaming onto the desktop? For years pundits have been claiming that mainstream consumer-grade Linux desktops are right around the corner, a single Red Hat beta away, but it's never come. Keep on hoping.
There is so much out there that's more efficient, elegant, and easy to use than the X/Gnome/KDE/Whatever solution. Let's at least explore moving forward in another direction.
Re:Another step in the wrong direction
by
Seeker5528
·
· Score: 1
Maybe people have what you consider to be a knee jerk reaction because:
You point out features of X as not being necessary on a consumer desktop, but make no case as to why they should not be there.
The shortcomings you point out are being addressed.
Your claim about X being slow does not match what others are experiencing on their boxen.
Later, Seeker
Re:Another step in the wrong direction
by
WWWWolf
·
· Score: 1
Linux and open source needs to just drop X as the GUI, and come up with something new.
The problem is that X is here (and stable - X is at version 11, XFree86 dist at 4.2, for God's sake), and the supposedly better GUIs are not easily implemented.
Usually, it's something like this: "Hey, X doesn't support transparent windows [or whatever high-tech you want] and sucks anyway, let's make a better GUI." (6 months later) "Aww fwek it, let's just make an X extension." =)
Re:Another step in the wrong direction
by
Wdomburg
·
· Score: 2
>I've listed several reasons in other posts for
>other articles, hence my claim to knee-jerk
>reactions and my own reasons for not liking X. I
>don't want to be too redundant here. Take a look
>at this response:
Okay, lets go through your list of "reasons" in order.
>That's hardly ever been a reason not to make a
>change. If that was the reasoning years ago, open
>source and Linux and FreeBSD never would have
>come to be.
This has nothing to do with whether X sucks or no. No reason here.
>While that is useful for the corporate and geek
>environment, it is absolutely useless for a
>consumer.
Until you can argue why network transparency is DETRIMENTAL to the consumer experience this is irrelevant. No reason here.
>X is proven in the sysadmin and engineering
>environments. However, it has failed in the
>desktop realm.
This is merely restating your supposition. No reason here.
>Developers still have to choose whether to
>develop in KDE, Gnome, or X by itself, or develop
>their own widget sets (ala Mozilla).
Those aren't shortcomings of X itself. No reason here. (On a side note, it should be pointed out that under Windows a developer has to choose between the Windows API, MDI, QT, WxWindows, etc, etc. On Mac OS X, a deveeloper has to decide between Classic, Carbon, or Cocoa. And on both, you can make the decision to develop your own widget set, just like Mozilla did, on those platforms as well.)
>X by itself might be fast, but to get it to
>anywhere near the usability and even asthetic
>qualities of other GUIs, it becomes slow.
This is anecdotal, and fails to show how X would be the bottleneck. No reason here.
>Just another example of how X was designed with
>a completely different set of requirements than
>those that apply to a consumer desktop.
Again, this in no way proves that it is not also suitable for a consumer desktop. You haven't even deigned to list what you imagine the different requirements to be yet. No reason here.
>That's a major step, but how will it handle
>driver updates?
This is an implementation issue, not a design issue. Regardless, driver updates can be handled like they have been for years - as packages. Virtually all distributions can install these just by clicking on them. No reason here.
>Will grandma have to recompile her kernel?
Since X drivers are userspace, I'd give that a big no. No reason here either. As an aside, "grandma" hasn't had to upgrade a kernel for any reason for years. We have distributors for a reason.
>While not totally X-related, the split between
>KDE and Gnome is only making things more
>difficult. Competition generally benefits all,
>but it's creating a rift between an already niche
>market.
This is not an issue with X either, as you admit. No reason here. (BTW, if anything, the Unix desktop has been CONVERGING on KDE and Gnome. Not too far in the past things were a mishmosh of Xt, Athena, XForms, Motif, Tk, etc, etc.)
>If the desire is to keep X and open source
>desktops in the realm of the geek, then these
>steps are fine. But if there is really a desire
>to get them onto the desktop and bust the
>Microsoft monopolies, these flaws I've listed and
>many others need to be addressed by X or by a new
>GUI.
Nice how you've suddenly changed what you're arguing for without admitting you were wrong. Don't think you got away with changing from a straight "we need to ditch X" to "well, we need to ditch it, or address its problems" without notice.
Noone has stated that X shouldn't be improved, just that we shouldn't throw the baby away with the bathwater. Now, getting back to the rest of your current reply:
>I got tired of ugly fonts, poor performance,
>battling environments, the need for tinkering,
>and at the same time pretending it was somehow
>better than Windows, so I stopped using it.
The ugly fonts issue has two contributing factors - lack of quality free typefaces, which isn't an X issue, and lack of anti-aliasing (for some people, I hate AA fonts), which is already addressed.
Poor performance is more a function of the hardware you're running and the quality of your driver than X itself. Remember that high end graphics workstations have been running X for well over a decade without performance issues, and on much more modest hardware to boot.
The "battling environments" thing is largely a moot point. You don't have to use more than one if you don't want to. Simple.
Modern distributions require no "tinkering" to get it working. I haven't touched an XF86Config,.xinitrc,.xresources, etc file in YEARS, and I've done dozens of installations in that time.
As for "pretending it's better than windows"... It may not have been for what you use it for, but it is for a large number of us. And with ongoing development, it is becoming suitable for more and more people.
Re:Another step in the wrong direction
by
FooBarWidget
·
· Score: 2
"While that is useful for the corporate and geek environment, it is absolutely useless for a consumer."
So you're saying "fuck corporations and geeks"? Why? The consumer won't even notice the difference between a network- and non-network transparent windowing system.
"However, it has failed in the desktop realm."
Define "failed". Linux on the desktop is just started.
"Nearly all of X's shortcomings perhaps, but not all. Developers still have to choose whether to develop in KDE, Gnome, or X by itself, or develop their own widget sets (ala Mozilla). They have little idea of what type of environment a consumer would have."
NOW you show your ignorance. These AREN'T shortcomings of X! In fact, they are beyond X!
"developers have to choose" This is because of the lack of a standard toolkit, not because of X.
It's simple: if you prefer C, write for GNOME. If you prefer C++, write KDE. For the consumer, there is no difference. GNOME apps can run in KDE and vice versa. They can even run in WindowMaker or whatever! Yes, they look different, but that can be fixed by using the same theme. That's what RedHat did in their latest beta. The user won't notice any difference!
A solution would be to standardize on one toolkit. But that is not possible, because everybody has a different opnion. Some like GTK+, others like QT. Nobody can force everybody to use one single toolkit. Now you might think "more reason to switch to a new windowing system with a standard toolkit!", but that isn't the answer. Yes, we will have a standard toolkit. But then what? There's nothing that stops people from porting QT and GTK+ to the new windowing system. Face it: there WILL be people who don't like the standard toolkit and will continue to use QT or GTK+ instead. Now we have 3 popular toolkits instead of 2.
"X by itself might be fast, but to get it to anywhere near the usability and even asthetic qualities of other GUIs, it becomes slow. Thus I still say "X is slow", or perhaps more accurately, "the X environment is slow"."
GNOME and KDE are build on top of X! They are not part of it! If the environment is slow, then speed up the environment, not the underlying windowing system!
"Just another example of how X was designed with a completely different set of requirements than those that apply to a consumer desktop."
But why is it a bad thing? The consumer doesn't care, because it works.
"That's a major step, but how will it handle driver updates? Will grandma have to recompile her kernel?"
Oh please, since when do we have to recompile the kernel to update XFree86 drivers?
"While not totally X-related, the split between KDE and Gnome is only making things more difficult. Competition generally benefits all, but it's creating a rift between an already niche market."
What you want is one unified desktop. This is not an X problem, this is beyond X.
Re:Another step in the wrong direction
by
FooBarWidget
·
· Score: 2
"Yet still Windows is a much more elegant and easy to use environment than X with KDE or Gnome."
You're blaming the wrong thing! Blame GNOME and KDE, not X!
I will say this loudly: GNOME and KDE are the problems, not X!
Re:Another step in the wrong direction
by
FooBarWidget
·
· Score: 2
"What's a GUI? Graphical User Interface. X is graphical, users use it, to wait for it, interface with things."
NO NO NO!
X is a windowing system! You hear me? A windowing system!
- X provides an interface for creating windows. - X provides an interface to draw lines, rectangles, dots, graphics, etc. on those windows. - X provides interprocess communication.
That's basically it! X is like a paper and a pencil, nothing more!
Usability problems are beyond X.
I will ask you this. Imagine X as the pencil and paper, and GNOME/KDE as the artist. If the artist draws something that looks horrible, who will you blame? 1) the pencil and the paper 2) the artist WHO WILL YOU BLAME? WHO WILL YOU BLAME? WHO WILL YOU BLAME?
If you still don't understand what X truly is after this, then you're doomed...
Re:Another step in the wrong direction
by
tokki
·
· Score: 1
What is your problem with the word GUI. You're splitting hairs, it's condescending geek snobbery.
Usability problems are beyond X.
WRONG. All usability issues, whether they are from KDE/Gnome, or one of the numerous hacks and libraries sitting atop X, it's still an X issue because X doesn't provide the functionality and requires these hacks and environments. This makes X slow and therefore is an X problem.
Take a look at the other windowing systems available and you'll see they provide all the functionality required without being huge, cumbersome, bloated, and slow.
The environment is slow because X requires all this crap, so hence X is the problem.
It's very simple logic here.
Re:Another step in the wrong direction
by
FooBarWidget
·
· Score: 2
Rest in ignorance and unbelief.
Re:Another step in the wrong direction
by
tokki
·
· Score: 1
I will ask you this. Imagine X as the pencil and paper, and GNOME/KDE as the artist. If the artist draws something that looks horrible, who will you blame? 1) the pencil and the paper 2) the artist WHO WILL YOU BLAME? WHO WILL YOU BLAME? WHO WILL YOU BLAME?
Horrible example! Artist? Paper?
Try this: X is like priming a canvas with oil paints when you're doing acryilics. You're going to have to pile on layer after layer just to get it decent. If you still don't understand what X truly is after this, then you're doomed...
I understand X just fine, and dismissing my arguments through attacks on loose terminology doesn't help that fact that X is a poor foundation upon which to build a desktop environment.
Re:Another step in the wrong direction
by
tokki
·
· Score: 1
Is that you're final retort? Nothing on my terminology? Nothing on the issues I've raised?
Re:Another step in the wrong direction
by
Wumpus
·
· Score: 1
What is it about message boards that make normally civilized people turn into stereotypical razor-tounged neophytes?.
I read my post again this morning, and you're right - it (and therefore I) was impolite. I apologize for that. There's rarely a good reason for such impoliteness, and in this case there was none. I'll be good from now on, I promise...
I think we both agree that all the desktop offerings available on Linux aren't good enough for human consumption at this point.
I do have two problems with your argument, though: You're basing it on a list of X's shortcomings (bad font support, for example), but then brush aside the solutions available now (XRender, for example) as "hacks", ignoring the fact that applications use those extensions now, and therefore don't suffer from the problems you're basing your argument on.
The second problematic argument is that the extra libraries X applications use are somehow respobsible for KDE and GNOME's bad performance. Having looked at the problem myself, I know that's not the case.
Since KDE relies on separate applications to present the user with a UI (Konqueror to browse the file system, various control center applets to configure things, etc.) it introduces significant delays when trying to do everyday tasks that should be fast. Those delays are caused by having to wait for the system to load the application, and dynamically link it into the many libraries that it needs to do anything. This is perceived as GUI slowness by the user, but is in fact a more fundamental problem. Replacing the GUI and the desktop won't solve that problem, and fixing it will make the overall user experience better. Look here for information on some work being done to address that. To be honest, I don't know how far along any of this work is, and whether it will find its way to people's desktops anytime soon.
You could make the argument that having all those libraries loaded impacts system performance because you have to start swapping sooner. I'd agree, but I won't pick that area as the first thing to optimize.
Even if X imposes a constant slowdown on every call to a graphics primitive, it still doesn't explain why some X applications are so slow, and therefore, replacing X with something that's faster by a constant won't make a difference.
We should keep in mind that there are very few examples in this industry where a clean break with the past and a complete rewrite didn't end in disaster. It would take at least three years for anyone to come up with a compelling replacement for X and its desktop environments, and Linux needs something sooner. That's assuming that whoever is going to take on this enormous task will actually succeed in shipping anything.
Indications? Are you referring to outright statements from CEOs and advocates to get Linux kicking and screaming onto the desktop?
No, I'm referring to actual code I can download and run. RedHat Null is an example. And, I don't think a decent Linux desktop is a single Red Hat beta away - it's more like two major versions away, which is still faster than starting from scratch. It looks like RedHat's next version is going to be OK, for some people, and if they refine it for the next release, it'll be a decent product.
battling environments,...Get a decent distribution
How is any distribution going to solve the Gnome versus KDE issue? You're not making any sense there.
My mistake - I thought you were referring to the user having to battle the desktop environment when trying to get anything done. Now, if I wanted to weasel out of this one without admitting to making a mistake, I could say that distributions could smooth the differences between desktop environments by having their respective control panels modify parameters of the other environment, so keep things consistent, but I won't say that. Even though it's true.
BeOS, NeXTSTEP, OS X, all fast, modern, elegant, graphical environments: Everything that X and Gnome/KDE are not. It's been done before, it can be done again, and with open source, be done even better.
Assuming, of course, that GNOME and KDE can't be fixed. I believe they can be fixed, if somebody cared enough to do it, and that they can be fixed before a from-scratch alternative hits beta.
It's not that I'm saying it can't be done - it can. It's only code, and we know how to write code (well, at least I do - that's how I make my living). I'm saying that the economics of your propositions won't work. The X/KDE/GNOME combo is good enough for some people now, and is actively being made better for more and more people, through a series of small, low-risk changes. Any alternative you can come up with will be of no use to anybody for several years, and then it will have to fight for acceptance, with no application base to speak of, and with competition from a better X/GNOME/KDE desktop. (better, because I don't think it can get worse...)
And, last, but not least:
I'm sure it was a lapse of stupidity on my part, I apologize.
Just to make it clear: I don't think you're stupid. Now, that' you've read it on Slashdot, you know it's true.:-)
Re:Another step in the wrong direction
by
FooBarWidget
·
· Score: 2
Many people have already tried that. I tried it too. In the end, you don't believe any of us. And you expect me to continue?
Re:Another step in the wrong direction
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Developer have to choose....
Unlike windows, in which developers can choose to develop with Microsoft GUI, or write their own.
Now this problem isn't with X, it is with the GUIs and I don't think that choice is a problem (if you complain about space that the libraries take, check how much space they do and come back)
Re:Another step in the wrong direction
by
tokki
·
· Score: 1
You say X isn't the problem, that KDE/Gnome are slow, then tell me how X is going to get those extra features without being slow and bloated and convoluted? I'm offering the problems here, and in stead of solutions you seem to the be one deflecting the issues or ignoring them altogeher. You appear to be the one wallowing in ignorance, or perhaps more accurately, with your head in the sand.
You know, with all this defending of the status quo and playcating it's numerous problems. Have you considered employment at Microsoft?
Re:Another step in the wrong direction
by
FooBarWidget
·
· Score: 2
"then tell me how X is going to get those extra features without being slow and bloated and convoluted?"
X doesn't get those features. GNOME and KDE get those features. Windows is no different. If the user interface in Windows is not consistent, then Microsoft fixes the applications, not the Graphics Device Interface. If there's a bug in the Common Controls, then MS fixes the Common Control Library, not the Graphics Device Interface.
"I'm offering the problems here, and in stead of solutions you seem to the be one deflecting the issues or ignoring them altogeher."
Because I think you're offering the wrong solution to the problem. I'm not the only one, check out the other posts.
Re:Another step in the wrong direction
by
FooBarWidget
·
· Score: 2
Xft is a library, not an extension. XRender is the extension.
- 15 MOD PARENT UP posts - 1 all your base reference, even though the joke's been dead for well over a year and a half - 5 "Stephen King Dead at 54" posts - 8 "First Post" posts.
what about the inevitable "Imagine a beowolf cluster of these"?
Re:You forgot:
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
-Alan Thicke found dead in his home, we'll miss him.
Something else to consider...
by
ZxCv
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
...is that a good percentage, if not a majority, of the people that are the targets for these Lindows machines won't ever buy any software at all. Nearly all members of my extended family have bought a cheap machine like this in the past couple years, whether it is HP or Emachines or no-name, and not a single one has added on any software. They're using the web browser, email client, and word processing software that came with the computer. And when they want to play 'games', they're either playing solitaire on that PC, or they're out in the living room playing on the Xbox or PS2. And while I know my extended family isn't exactly a perfect cross-population on which to base any kind of decision, I still think they represent the majority of people that buy these cheap PCs.
Re:Something else to consider...
by
rseuhs
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Exactly, there is certainly a market for these things, even though it's not perfect for everybody.
Another example is the kiosks at our campus. All they do is run all day and display one webpage (the institute's webpage) to let students subscribe to lessions.
Or I saw a laptop in a bar whose sole purpose is to play mp3s all day long.
Nobody can tell me that these machines have to run Windows.
Re:Something else to consider...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I hope you meant "subscribe to lessons" not "subscribe to lesions". If you meant the latter, please let me and everyone else know where your campus is so that I may avoid the area.
Re:Forgot One Thing
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Informative
Yes, Lindows.com has always made source available to those who they distribute the bianaries to. The GPL does NOT require them to make source available to just anyone, only those they distribute the bianaries to, which they do.
Because most of the sources are available elsewhere, and aren't much use to anybody not running Lindows? Because bandwidth costs money? Because nobody feels like it?
Re:Forgot One Thing
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I think the GPL says that the sources must be availble to anyone for a reasonable delivery fee. On the linows site you must pay a $99 registration fee to get the source. This doesn't sound reasonable to me.
Can you indicate which clause of the GPL you believe obliges making the source available to anyone?
Does Lindows have a deathwish?
by
FyRE666
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I have to wonder if the guys behind this Linux distro are actively trying to attract court cases. Firstly the name, including the font is more than a little similar to another well known distro (they even have the L broken up into boxes, much like the flag logo).
Now their site appears to have striking similarities to Another well know OS/hardware manufacturer. I mean, come ON!
Re:Does Lindows have a deathwish?
by
grytpype
·
· Score: 2
If I recall correctly, Microsoft has actually sued Lindows on trademark grounds, but failed to get a preliminary injunction against Lindows because the judge thought "windows" could be a generic or descriptive term.
Re:Does Lindows have a deathwish?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
dude, it looks nothing like apple.com. you're just paranoid.
Re:Does Lindows have a deathwish?
by
fault0
·
· Score: 2
The only thing similiar between lindows' page and apple's is the tabs at the top. However, that's not that uncommon. They aren't even the style. Lindows' looks like a blend of aqua, luna, and kde3.1's keramik styles.
Re:Does Lindows have a deathwish?
by
AlXtreme
·
· Score: 1
Not that I'm saying it's not funny though;-)
Like duh, you didn't think this was serious, did you? I mean, come on, it's all a practical joke just to annoy every OS-maker out there to stick billions of cash in lawyers to fight it out. While they are busy, we'll just take over the world with Gentoo and emacs... no one will stop us now Blinky ! No one! [insert very haunting evil laugh here]
greetings,
the Brain
And you're right about that Apple thingy... next release (Lindows 95) will be renamed to OS-XXX, we can't leave all those Mac converts out there in the cold, our next innovation will be click-and-cum!
Arg, gotta stop watching all that cartoon pr0n, it gets to ya...
Man, you are seriously bleeding edge, aren't you! I like to stick to the boring old 2.4.x stable tree, but each to his own, I guess. Is 4.x the kernel series that includes support for USB 3 and Firewire 6? I hear it also has Duke Nukem Forever available as a loadable module (try "modprobe duke" and let me know what comes up).
--
Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
Introduction The operating system and the different components available in the Mandrake Linux distribution shall be called the "Software Products" hereafter. The Software Products include, but are not restricted to, the set of programs, methods, rules and documentation related to the operating system and the different components of the Mandrake Linux distribution.
1. License Agreement Please read carefully this document. This document is a license agreement between you and MandrakeSoft S.A. which applies to the Software Products. By installing, duplicating or using the Software Products in any manner, you explicitly accept and fully agree to conform to the terms and conditions of this License. If you disagree with any portion of the License, you are not allowed to install, duplicate or use the Software Products. Any attempt to install, duplicate or use the Software Products in a manner which does not comply with the terms and conditions of this License is void and will terminate your rights under this License. Upon termination of the License, you must immediately destroy all copies of the Software Products.
2. Limited Warranty The Software Products and attached documentation are provided "as is", with no warranty, to the extent permitted by law. MandrakeSoft S.A. will, in no circumstances and to the extent permitted by law, be liable for any special, incidental, direct or indirect damages whatsoever (including without limitation damages for loss of business, interruption of business, financial loss, legal fees and penalties resulting from a court judgement, or any other consequential loss) arising out of the use or inability to use the Software Products, even if MandrakeSoft S.A. has been advised of the possibility or occurance of such damages.
LIMITED LIABILITY LINKED TO POSSESSING OR USING PROHIBITED SOFTWARE IN SOME COUNTRIES
To the extent permitted by law, MandrakeSoft S.A. or its distributors will, in no circumstances, be liable for any special, incidental, direct or indirect damages whatsoever (including without limitation damages for loss of business, interruption of business, financial loss, legal fees and penalties resulting from a court judgement, or any other consequential loss) arising out of the possession and use of software components or arising out of downloading software components from one of Mandrake Linux sites which are prohibited or restricted in some countries by local laws. This limited liability applies to, but is not restricted to, the strong cryptography components included in the Software Products.
3. The GPL License and Related Licenses The Software Products consist of components created by different persons or entities. Most of these components are governed under the terms and conditions of the GNU General Public Licence, hereafter called "GPL", or of similar licenses. Most of these licenses allow you to use, duplicate, adapt or redistribute the components which they cover. Please read carefully the terms and conditions of the license agreement for each component before using any component. Any question on a component license should be addressed to the component author and not to MandrakeSoft. The programs developed by MandrakeSoft S.A. are governed by the GPL License. Documentation written by MandrakeSoft S.A. is governed by a specific license. Please refer to the documentation for further details.
4. Intellectual Property Rights All rights to the components of the Software Products belong to their respective authors and are protected by intellectual property and copyright laws applicable to software programs. MandrakeSoft S.A. reserves its rights to modify or adapt the Software Products, as a whole or in parts, by all means and for all purposes. "Mandrake", "Mandrake Linux" and associated logos are trademarks of MandrakeSoft S.A.
5. Governing Laws If any portion of this agreement is held void, illegal or inapplicable by a court judgement, this portion is excluded from this contract. You remain bound by the other applicable sections of the agreement. The terms and conditions of this License are governed by the Laws of France. All disputes on the terms of this license will preferably be settled out of court. As a last resort, the dispute will be referred to the appropriate Courts of Law of Paris - France. For any question on this document, please contact MandrakeSoft S.A.
Deja Vu all over again
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Substitute Unix for Linux and Windows 3.0 for Lindows. If you're old enough, you'll get it.
Windows never went anywhere, did it?
Re:Deja Vu all over again
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
In fact, you should substitute Windows 2.0 for Lindows 2.0.
Lindows 3.11 will be kick-ass (relativly), Lindows 95 will be great. Lindows 98 will have tons of bugs, but Lindows 98SE will be nice. Lindows ME is not worth using. Lindows 2000 will be great, and Lindows XP will be sorta fruity.
Re:Deja Vu all over again
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Lindows 3.11 will be kick-ass (relativly)
I'll let you get away with that one because you said "relatively", but:
Lindows 95 will be great / Lindows 98SE will be nice
Boy, do you ever have low standards - why isn't Lindows Bob included?
Lindows 2000 will be great
Yeah, 20,000 bugs in the first release sounds "great" to me. Want bug fixes? Just accept terms that allow them to root your box and to install digital rights management. No thanks.
Re:The use of obscurity is environment dependant
by
daddymac
·
· Score: 1
Only to find out that, two weeks later, their new version of The Sims just won't run.
I wonder if they get a lot of returns?
Probably not as many returns as people borrowing their friend's Windows CD.
-- If something I said can be interpreted two ways, and one of the ways makes you sad or angry, I meant the other one.
Where's the code?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
What I'd like to know is "Where's the code" ?
I can't find any links to the source code of the GPLed software in Lindows on their site...
Under the GPL they only have to release the source to the people that they release the binaries to. If you pay the $99 then you get the binaries and the source, but without paying the $99 you don't get anything.
They don't have to offer it to you unless you fork 99$ for membership. Even then, they don't have to give a link to it in their page. They only have to do it upon request. Even then, they don't have to put the source on the internet. They could charge you $5 (or more) for distribution and shipping fees.
Point is, read the GPL:)
what advantage does Lindows have?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
For $89 I can get Windows XP Home edition with a nice proven desktop interface that can run ALL of the windows software and see windows network shares also, what advantage does this have?
Re:what advantage does Lindows have?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
For $89 I can get Windows XP Home edition with a nice proven desktop interface that can run ALL of the windows software and see windows network shares also, what advantage does this have?
It doesn't have an advantage. If you feel tempted to use Lindows, just keep your MS products instead. Lindows is fundamentally flawed.
If you decide to run a real Free OS like just about any other BSD or Linux, then go ahead.
Re:what advantage does Lindows have?
by
JonTurner
·
· Score: 1
That's an easy one -- it's not Microsoft! And that's appealing to many, including, I suspect, a few of the Slashdot crowd.
Sometimes, it's worthwhile to spend a little more, wait in a line, drive a little further, shop on the other side of town, etc., just for the principle of the matter. Have you ever refused to shop somewhere because you were displeased with the service or product? Same thing. I think that may earn Lindows more than a few sales. For example, I prefer visiting the local hardware store for housewares rather than the Big Box Hardware Superstore down the street. I feel like a valued customer, the owner greets me when I arrive, he helps me with advice, etc. Yes, I pay more for my purchase, but shopping on price isn't always the most important thing to me.
If Lindows can provide good service and a seamless OS experience, I think they'll survive.
Besides, most computers only run three apps anyway -- a word processor, an email client, and a web browser. If it does these things well, it's "good enough" for the majority of users.
are you a typical m$ user?
by
w1r3sp33d
·
· Score: 1, Flamebait
"i'm a Microsoft(tm) user, could i use... " Let's see; lower case on all three i's (pulling away from your own identity?), got both the capital on the "M" and the (tm) to show proper respect and willie worship, yep good m$ user. No Linux for you, sorry you have been assimilated... In all seriousness my life has been better since I converted (at least I sleep well now...), I did RedHat 7.3 last time around and I find it an acceptable alternative 99% of my workday.
So when does LindowsOS actually become "release" version software? Currently the only way to get it is to become a LindowsOS "insider" with a $99 membership. See here. Is this just crafty marketing?
It is VERY different from any Windows. Lindows is a perty simple Linux distrobution but there are a TON of differences.
Examples:
By default it does not use FAT16/32. That means that normal partioning(FDISK) will not work if you decide to remove.
Most of you new Linux toys will need to be compiled. How well do you know C++?
Got Quicktime?
Everything is either compiled or mounted.
Linux is a great server product. Lindows is great stride for the desktop market. Download the ISO, when the server opens up, and give it a try on an old machine.
Just remember its not the wnd all and be all of Linux or Windows API.
-- You say things that offend me and I can deal with it. Can you?
Still Waiting for Lindows 3.1.1
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Funny
We all know that's when Lindows will really take off.
Did they release the source this time? I remember earlier there were complaints that Lindows had taken GPL code and said they would only release the modified code after it came out of beta. And here we are at 2.0.
Re:Source?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Informative
It's all here. It's been out for a long time... where you been?
Re:Source?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Lovely thought but having an ftp site available but not putting a link to it on their site... seems a bit shady... Be nice if they have the ftp site to tell people about it on their website..
Besides, I've been trying that ip for the last 10 minutes and I get no connection...
I want to buy my copy from CheapBytes, but I don't see it there yet.
What about dual-boot ?
by
Geekonomical
·
· Score: 1
Installation information on the site says they currently do not support dual-boot install if you have Windows 2000 and NTFS file system. To bad:-(
I was waiting to give it a shot in my desktop. If they are really interested in a smooth migration path for the Windows users...supporting dual boot is a must.
Re:What about dual-boot ?
by
dontkillme
·
· Score: 1
They have support for dual booting on a seperate partition with Win2k/whatever on NTFS, just not using a "Friendly" install, which puts lindows inside the fat32 partition (this requires umsdos, to which equivalent there is none for ntfs)
I heard something about how Lindows doesn't quite comply with many linux standards. Does anyone know about this? Bascially, I have heard that Lycoris, a linux distrobution that is incredebly similar to Lindows is a better choice because it is a lot closer to standard linux. Course, I could be very wrong.
--
This page was generated by a Barrel of Circus Midgets, and that is the way I like it!!!
Use Linneighborhood, this isn't news.
by
fuqqer
·
· Score: 1
I think there are too many cooks in the distro kitchen...
Why not use Linneighborhood (http://www.bnro.de/~schmidjo/) with Gentoo, Slack, or Redhat?
It seems like this shouldn't be news.
Not if you don't have broadband
by
yerricde
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Why don't you find out yourself?
Download it? High-speed Internet access isn't available in my area, and in order to get to another area, I'd have to move house. That has its own drawbacks. And even if it is available, it may be capped so that it takes a week to download a distribution.
Get the CD? How can I know the quality of a product I'm purchasing sight unseen? No, I don't want to have to spend $30 each on 10 distributions of free operating systems every release cycle.
No need to buy 30$ on distros.
Linux CDs can be distributed by anyone.
checkout
Linux Central.
There are more cheap CD selling shops a google search Cheap linux cd may help
All the best.
-- for the last time people, I am "frodo from middle eaRTH", not "middle eaST".
Some things to consider
by
lordcorusa
·
· Score: 5, Informative
i'm a Microsoft(tm) user, could i use lindow [sic] with my ms experience without too much trouble? how different are they?
I'm assuming when you say you are a Microsoft user you mean that you have only ever used Microsoft products. At this stage, any Unix-based operating system, be it a Linux distribution, Lindows (I do not personally count Lindows as a true Linux distribution), FreeBSD, or whatever, will be like jumping into a cold swimming pool. That is to say, it will be a shock at first, but if you are reasonably intelligent and you have picked a newbie distribution (Mandrake, Lycoris, Lindows, ELX), you should be able to adjust.
Some things to keep in mind:
1. You will not have perfect compatibility with Windows apps like MSOffice. You can use OpenOffice and most of your docs will look fine, but some will have visible display glitches (although I have never seen one that was unreadable). You can also download browser plugins for Mozilla (the best Linux web browser) which give it virtually all the worthwhile functionality of IE. Ximian Evolution is an excellent replacement for Outlook. OpenOffice, Mozilla, and Evolution all come with most new Linux distributions today. Another solution is Codeweavers Crossover Office and Crossover Plugin, which let you use Windows office apps and browser plugins. However, this option requires a subscription fee.
2. Many/most Windows games will not work at all, or without a good deal of tinkering. If you are a hardcore gamer, check out Transgaming WineX which can let you play some of the most popular Windows games with a minimum of glitches. This option also requires a subscription fee.
3. A Linux installation needs either its own hard drive, a free partition of space on a Windows drive (at least a few gigabytes) or its own machine. If you have only one machine with one partition on one hard drive, and that is for Windows, then you *might* damage your Windows installation installing Linux. Your best bet if you don't know what I am talking about is to ask a friend who knows more for some help in the installation.
4. While most hardware I have ever purchased is supported, some things just don't have support yet. One example is the "winmodem". Most modems sold today are sneakily designed to work only with Microsoft Windows. Yes, this is a conspiracy between Microsoft and the manufacturers of those modems. If your modem doesnt work, you will probably have to buy a new modem which specifically says it is a "hardware modem". As someone in [your local computer/electronics store] for help.
**Aside from all that, a tonne of things are different in the actual underlying operating system, but if you aren't a developer, you proably won't be intersted in those details. (Feel free to continue this thread if you are, I will be happy to answer more questions.)
With all this, I was trying to provide full disclosure of pitfalls to migrating, not to discourage you. I definately think the switch to Linux is worthwhile in the long term.
If as you implied you have only ever used Microsoft products, the best path you could take is to switch to OpenOffice and Mozilla running on Windows, then if you are comfortable with them, try to dual-boot with a newbie distribution like the ones mentioned above.
-- The preceding comments reflect the author's personal opinion and are public domain, unless explicitly stated otherwise.
Re:Some things to consider
by
IamTheRealMike
·
· Score: 2
3. A Linux installation needs either its own hard drive, a free partition of space on a Windows drive (at least a few gigabytes) or its own machine. If you have only one machine with one partition on one hard drive, and that is for Windows, then you *might* damage your Windows installation installing Linux.
The only problem might be if your drive is entirely NTFS (ie win2k or xp). FAT32 drives can be seamlessly resized by any good Linux installer. SuSE 8 will even intelligently figure out smart partition sizes and advise you on what to do. We NEED good NTFS drivers though, and they're not coming:(
4. While most hardware I have ever purchased is supported, some things just don't have support yet. One example is the "winmodem". Most modems sold today are sneakily designed to work only with Microsoft Windows. Yes, this is a conspiracy between Microsoft and the manufacturers of those modems. If your modem doesnt work, you will probably have to buy a new modem which specifically says it is a "hardware modem". As someone in [your local computer/electronics store] for help.
Not entirely true that. There is support for HCF/HSF based WinModems, as an italian guy signed an NDA with the chipset manufacturers. The drivers aren't as good as the standard modem drivers, but they DO work and are easy to install as long as you're not afraid of following instructions that involve typing things in. I used them myself for many months.
Another solution is Codeweavers [codeweavers.com] Crossover Office and Crossover Plugin, which let you use Windows office apps and browser plugins. However, this option requires a subscription fee.
This also isn't true. You don't have to subscribe to get CrossOver, you just buy it for about $50. As CrossOver is just a "distro" of Wine, you can go to WineHQ.com and get it yourself. I've done this, it worked fine. Be aware that if you muck about with Wine internals though it might damage Windows. CodeWeavers contribute all their code back to the Wine project, so you get the same functionality, but CrossOver has a nice installer etc and tech support.
Re:Some things to consider
by
aquarian
·
· Score: 2
While most hardware I have ever purchased is supported, some things just don't have support yet. One example is the "winmodem".
Not so, or at least not completely so. Some of these modems do have Linux support. All it took was for someone to write Linux drivers for them. And it has been done, at least for a few. I don't have a list of which ones- do a web search.
Most modems sold today are sneakily designed to work only with Microsoft Windows. Yes, this is a conspiracy between Microsoft and the manufacturers of those modems.
Not really. It was an attempt by hardware manufacturers to cut costs, by eliminating modem chips. Winmodems use the computer's main processor and soundcard to do the work, by emulating the modem chip in software.
If your modem doesnt work, you will probably have to buy a new modem which specifically says it is a "hardware modem".
Maybe, maybe not. That's the easiest way to go, though. Here's a hint- all serial port modems are "hardware" modems. Buy a well-known brand of one of these, and it's likely to work fine.
Re:Some things to consider
by
Xoid629
·
· Score: 1
"Not entirely true that. There is support for HCF/HSF based WinModems [...] as long as you're not afraid of following instructions that involve typing things in.
Yes, I've got a Conexant chipset winmodem with Linux drivers. It works pretty well, although from what I remember it did take a bit of work to get the drivers installed properly. Not particularly newbie friendly, but not too bad...
Also, on the (off:-)) topic of winmodems, speed is theoretically an issue, but on fast machines isn't really. However, the difference between the download speed I got with a 56k winmodem on a P233 and a XP1700+ is enormous. I think that the P233 simply couldn't handle the full speed, at least not at the same time as doing anyhing else. Anyway, becasue the drivers are a major part of a winmodem, I suppose the quality of the drivers could affect connection speed and stability, but as far as I know, this hasn't been a problem for Linux drivers so far.
Also, there is a subspecies of "WinModem" that dates back to the DOS era (and some didn't work in Windows at all): these work in DOS *if* your comm application has a Rockwell driver (QModem 4.6 did). About the only way to ID these horrible modems up front, is that they come with some version of BitCom. I doubt they'd work in linux. (I have one of these wretched modems in my old 286, and someday I will give it to someone I really dislike.)
-- ~REZ~
#43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Re:Some things to consider
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
FYI There is winmodem support to HCF/HSF and LT windmodems. I have used both, and they work great. find out more at www.linmodem.org
I just took a look at the screen shots, and it's scary how it looks almost exactly like my home computer running Mandrake with KDE. They are obviously using a modified KDE destop, and their file browser is definately Konquerer.
Main difference? - - Mandrake packaged distro with all the goodies cost me $24.88 - Lindows costs $99.00
They are in it for the quick bucks, not the long haul. Remember, the guy who started Lindows is the same guy who started MP3.COM then sold out to Universal.
"All applications in the Click-N-Run Warehouse (www.lindows.com/warehouse) are licensed on a per-person or family basis and can be downloaded, installed and run with just one-mouse click."
They can't restrict software use in this way for most of the packages in their free software archive. The software simply isn't theirs.
I've already emailed lindows about this lie/mistake on their website.
* A $99 membership fee (a great value since you get LindowsOS and TWO years of Click-N-Run, a $228 value!) * Your feedback about our plans, our products and our future direction
On the IDE page Click-N-Run Warehouse > Software Development > Development Environments
4 out of seven was IDLE (for different py versions), that is the python IDE that is included in tkinter, witch is normaly installed if you select python on any desktop distro anyhow, so it should already be on your system if you have python
There are a few quite good IDEs for python out there for instance WingIDE. Why not try to license one of them (there are even a few free ones), if they wanted to offer some kind of value-added service for py devel.
When it comes to C++ they only have Anjuta, even KDevelop is missing, but for some reason they offer "Gideon - data" and "Gideon -doc" - why not offer all of KDevelop?
why mix parts of KDevelop and Anjuta?
Or Maybe ...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
it's going to be in Lindows 3.0 - do you know for a fact that it won't be? Could they be playing their cards very close to their chests? Gnome wasn't built in a day - what makes you think that Windows compatability can be?
Or maybe the lawyers are preventing it. Michael has tilted at some pretty big windmills in the past and had his head clipped pretty badly.
A newbie user isn't going to care about disk partitioning, and there are plenty of partitioning tools that can take care of ext2 partitions, fdisk included.
You do not need to compile most linux programs. Almost all are distributed with binaries, and, from the looks of it, the new click-n-run interface will make software installation a snap. Even if you did have to compile a program you don't need to know a programming language.
By Quicktime I assume you mean Sorenson Quicktime. Unless you are big on watching movie trailers this is not an issue for most people. If you do need to decode this format, though, there are beginnings of support for it in Xine, and until it is fully developed there is Crossover. A commercial Lindows may even come bundled with it.
Your last statement has no bearing on the issue whatsoever. The compiling issue has already been addressed, but who cares if everything is mounted? The GUI takes care of this for you transparently if you are talking about removable media or remote volumes. You don't have to mount anything manually.
My advice to the Windows user is to give it a try. Wait for the commercial version, though, and don't delete your Windows partition. If you have specific Windows needs, you probably won't be able to find support on Linux, yet. There are suitable office and groupware replacements. There are also some basic software packages for financing and image editing which aren't up to par with what professionals need, but are great for dabblers and/or home users. Games and CAD-like programs are still largely unsupported.
Linux can do all that stuff for about a year now. I don't understand. Even if wine could run MS apps, really, who cares anymore? Just for the games? Don't get me wrong, wine is a wonderfull piece of software, but to ME it's useless (at last).
Re:What's the fuss about?
by
xswl0931
·
· Score: 1
Obviously neither Lindows nore Wine is targetting you as a consumer. I should no longer be surprised to see these types of comments on Slashdot where every geek thinks every product that comes out is for them when in fact 99.9% of the time they aren't even close to being in the demographic.
You are right about wine. Not about Lindows. Lindows IS targeting me as a consumer. And my point is that at this point they have nothing to offer me. That is,nothing more than (let's say) RedHat. Linux for desktop is here,has been here for at least a year ( at least for me and my users) and it's very good actually. And as i said i really admire the work done in the wine project. I just feel they are heading the wrong way, taking valuable resources with them.
Maybe I haven't looked closely enough, but I can't find where they're encouraging me to download the ISO.
Every place I look they want me to Act Fast And Send In $99 Now!
Good business model, bad product?
by
hendridm
·
· Score: 2
I think it's clever how they are basically reducing the price of the computer by delaying the $99 registration fee that any novice would probably need to subscribe to if they hoped to have any applications.
However, this doesn't seem like a good deal. I mean, you are basically paying $99 for a version of Linux that is available for free (Xandros). It's roughly the same price as Windows with next to no compatibility with their favorite applications! I might as well buy Windows and get 100% compatibility.
I realize the average lay-person isn't going to know how to install Xandros for free, but Walmart is already bundling Mandrake with their cheap PCs and Xandros would be just as easy to bundle.
I really don't see ANY benefit from running Linux unless you merely want to promote open-source and/or free software. My hat's off to you.
Hooray for another Aqua ripoff
by
pythas
·
· Score: 1
Wow.
Another Aqua ripoff.
Their site, their screenshots, everything.
I guess it's not just MS that steals from Apple anymore.
Re:Hooray for another Aqua ripoff
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Whine whine whine. Who gives a shit? If something looks nice and works well, why reinvent the wheel?
Re:Hooray for another Aqua ripoff
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Because it makes you look like a no-talent theiving scum. And normally that's something you want to try and avoid. But in the typical Linux case, it's the best they can come up with.
If all the work done on writting drivers for Linux had been put into writting an API layer to reuse Windows drivers, we would all enjoy more, better, faster drivers.
You're kidding, right?
A large part of Windows instability comes from buggy drivers. Using these drivers would do Linux no favours stability-wise.
The API requirements of both operating systems are also different at a very fundamental level. A Windows driver exposes device features in the way that Windows wants/expects/needs. Wrapping something this different would give you a very slow driver that wouldn't have all of the features Linux applications and OS functions use.
A driver also generally messes with many structures in OS space. You'd have to provide emulated hooks where hooks are used, and build fake memory structures where direct access is used. This, too, is slow.
In summary, trying to use Windows drivers under Linux (or any other *nix) is a just plain Bad Idea.
Re:Wrapping Windows drivers.
by
JesseL
·
· Score: 2
Agreed, and in addition most linux drivers are portable between different architectures. Since all those windows drivers are only compiled for x86 they wouldn't do anything for people running linux on alpha, ppc, sparc, arm, etc...
-- "Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
Migration is a piece of gateau
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I just saved the jpg of the wallpaper from the screenshot, touched it up a bit to get rid of the icons, converted it to a bmp and installed it as the wallpaper on my Win2K machine. I now have Windows apps running on top of Lindows. That was easy. I agree about the Dolly bit - very um, inspirational.
u r 2 l33t
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
but everytime I see an XP desktop I want to put on a red nose and join the circus.
'cause your unemployed ass cant make a dime living the open source PIPE DREAM bi0tch!
"Linux users couldn't see Windows shares...?"
by
tlambert
·
· Score: 2
This is going to be labelled a troll, but I don't care; someone has to set you straight on the fact that the reason Lindows exists in the first place is usability.
"So does this mean that Linux users couldn't see Windows shares until just now?"
No, it just meant that non-geeks couldn't use them without a lot of hand-holding or obnoxious manual reading, logging in as root, and never forget, The Typing Of The Arcane Commands ("Can't I have just a *little* peril?")....Until now.
I guess they could always have done The Abasement To And Begging Of The Smarmy Elitist Linux Weenies, Keepers Of That Which Is Tediously Arcane For No Good Reason.
But then, who really has the time to travel to the retro gothic temple in Finland?
I guess you really don't get the idea that most people not only don't know about computers, but they would just as soon not have to learn any more than they have to to get by?
-- Terry
Re:"Linux users couldn't see Windows shares...?"
by
cybermace5
·
· Score: 2
1. Most Lindows users are going to be home users, without much knowledge of networking anyway, and not likely to have many computers.
2. In corporate environments, there usually is someone readily available who can help.
3. People really need to get their heads out of the sand and learn a little bit about computers. I'm not comfortable creating a huge gap between those who have technical knowledge and those who don't. Once it's basic for the techies, it should at least exist to everyone else.
-- ...
Re:"Linux users couldn't see Windows shares...?"
by
zelbinion
·
· Score: 1
Er, um.... You've been able to do this since KDE 3.x (maybe earlier??) Bring up Konqueror, type in: smb://[netbiosname]/[sharename]
Example: smb://computer12/sharedfolder
If you get it wrong, konqueror kindly promts you to go the KDE control panel -> network -> windows shares to set up your defaults. If your default username/password doesn't work, it pops up a window so you can enter a different one. You DO NOT have to be root to make this work. If you look at the screen shots, this is exactly what you are seeing in Lindows.
This is not news. This feature has been available for at least 6 months (since KDE 3.0 came out) and it's free... (as in beer)
Re:Let's bash X & KDE & GNOME
by
javahacker
·
· Score: 1
Something that doesn't require KDE or Gnome to patch it's many shortcomings I know this is the mandatory blast directed towards the desktop as currently implemented on Linux. I see it happening here fairly often, maybe even from you, I haven't tracked who generates them.
The combination of X and a window manager (like KDE or GNOME) is the user interface. KDE doesn't "patch" X any more than the window manager in windows patches the GDI, they perform different functions, at different levels, in the user interface.
I believe you are really saying that you wish the setup process for the user interface was simpler. That is a matter of the software used to configure it, more than a function X and KDE. If you look at the current versions of Linux that are about to be released, I think you will find things are rapidly improving.
As far as X, there are reasons why many people like having X around. Corporate support people probably like being able to open X on their desktop and bring up what's happening on a server at the other side of the country, just like they were there. The next big expansion of Linux is going to be on Corporate desktops, rather than on home users machines. Linux, with X, KDE, GNOME, and everything else included, is a relatively easy system for the support people to deal with, even remotely. This is what will sell Linux on the corporate level, not yet another GUI interface.
If you don't like things the way they are now, go organize a project to create a new Linux desktop. If all you have to say is the current one is bad, with no reasons as to why it is, then maybe you should keep quiet.
Which distro should I install?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I'm currently running Windows XP and Suse 7.2. It has KDE 2 and Gnome 1-something. I'd like to install a more recent Linux distro (Suse or otherwise). I'm a fairly new Linux user. I'd also like to download it for free.
Which one should I choose?
Re:Which distro should I install?
by
L1nUx+h4x0r
·
· Score: 0
I'm currently running Windows XP and Suse 7.2. It has KDE 2 and Gnome 1-something. I'd like to install a more recent Linux distro (Suse or otherwise). I'm a fairly new Linux user. I'd also like to download it for free.
I'm glad you asked that question, Tommy. You see, there are many distributions of Linux, and although all of them suck, they all suck in different ways.
You see, Red Hat Linux is a 'baseline' Linux distribution. This is what a lot of other companies base their distribution off of because they're too lazy to think for themselves. The programs are relatively recent, but still stable.
Mandrake, is based off of the Red Hat standard. This distribution is at the bleeding edge of what sucks (x86 only though). If you like to use experimental code and have a new version of an rpm released as your downloading what was once the latest version, this distro is for you.
Debian is another base distro. This is a more relaxed pace. The people who gather the software that make this distro suck are very into the GPL and only Free Software is included in it. It is generally considered the most conservative of the various distros, meaning that you'll use stuff that everyone else has been complaing about for a few weeks already.
Storm is based off of Debian, and besides being from Vancouver, BC, it has nothing going for it. Use it for fun and profit, however.
Lindows Linux is now on version 2.0, as you see. Lindows Linux sucks in much the same way as all the others, except they make you pay to download aps that you can get for free under other distros. Maybe the artwork makes up for it. Maybe it's the wine (red, nicely aged. A bit fruity) they include.
Redmond Linux is the best Linux except for Lesbian Linux.
I hope that's helped you, Tommy. Now run along and remember, if it's not Linux, it doesn't suck.
-- The GPL makes software more like your mom. Free and open to all.
I used OS/2 for years. IT was a nightmare. I had a service contract with IBM (extra but cheap). I set up dual monitor which OS/2 supported (poorly) - when the VGA screen came up the 8514 froze. IBM never did fix that problem.
XGA apparently solved dual screen. I was never able to find XGA video cards that would work in my clone dispite several calls to IBM tech support.
The single message queue problem was to the best of my knowledge never solved - hense the machine locked up quite often.
There were dosen's of trouble calls for this that and the other. Most of this I could have fixed myself if it was documented. Little things - like changing the domain of the system.... I even have the red books for OS/2 and subscribed to the OS/2 developers network. Nothing in there how to change even a domain name. I gave up and just used the numerical IP address. Well - the HDD crashed about 2 years ago and good riddence.
Now - those trouble calls. I lost HOURS on hold. The intake operators asked the same stupid questions over and over for 3 years. These people were not even able to set up a database with a phone number index. Even Sears can do that - but apparently not IBM.
How much memory - how much disk - what make of disk - what kind of video card and so on. Stoopid questions that had nothing to do with the problem. 3/4 of what was in config.sys was a mystery including the "undocumented" video configuration I ran with "undocumented" parameters that brought my dual head system up - complements from a senior tech from Boca Raton.
Oh the nightmare. I offered to WRITE a utilty for them to spin through the HDD and spit out version numbers and config info so we didn't have to wait on hold. This _could_ have been popped into an email. Nope - sit and wait on hold. Arrghh.
OS/2 failed because IBM never fixed the problems. OS/2 failed because IBM spent huge sums of money on intake operators that wasted people's time. A simple little file in the machine that the installer created that carries config and version info - simple things like placing the amount of memory, HDD size, drivers loaded and so on - things that could be emailed to the response tech were never done.
When I switched to NT4.0 (which has its own problems) it was like a breath of fresh air. NT even runs the text mode OS/2 apps (like Breif for OS/2) better than OS/2 ever did.
*OMG* are they still around!?
by
Idaho
·
· Score: 1, Flamebait
How long will it last...I bet they will be gone in half a year or so (but I said this before - maybe they have too much money to burn before they die?)
WOW, so they offer SMB access now!! Oh wait, that is a screenshot of KDE 3.something - any recent Linux installation has that out of the box - I just checked and even mine has it (it works out of the box if you have samba+kde-base installed!)
They managed to compile wine as well!! Great! I mean, maybe my mother couldn't do that, but I bet Mandrake/Redhat/SuSE all have some easy 'install Wine' button somewhere around in their package tool.
Then I'm not even beginning to talk about their continuing blatant and I mean like *B-L-A-T-A-N-T* GPL violations.
As someone else remarked already: this company is a lawsuit (or rather: a lot of lawsuits) waiting to happen. If they don't die all by themselves first, that is - so far it looks like noone takes them seriously enough to even sue them.
-- Every expression is true, for a given value of 'true'
Re:*OMG* are they still around!?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Then I'm not even beginning to talk about their continuing blatant and I mean like *B-L-A-T-A-N-T* GPL violations.
What GPL violations? The GPL only requires that they distribute source to those individuals that receive binaries from them. If you haven't received binaries from them you don't have any rights to the source.
Have you actually read the GPL? Have you even bothered to read the FAQ? Do you even know what you are talking about?
If you want the source, just ask someone who has bought the product to give it to you. They certainly give it to you. They may say no, though, because unless they themselves distribute the binaries to you they don't have to give the source to you.
IANAL, but my lawyer is.:)
Re:KDE has allowed windows browsing for a LONG TIM
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
It's easy to browse Windows shares in Gnome too. You can just type 'SMB:' as a location into Nautilus and you'll get a view of the Windows 'Network Neighborhood'.
They should have included Gaim. It supports almost every IM protocol out there and it has a minimal interface making it simple to use.
And where is...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
...the source code?
Re:And where is...
by
4/3PI*R^3
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Those who have received from Lindows.com the binaries for any GPL'd software can also find the source code available for download in their my.lindows.com account.
You have to pay Lindows for a license before you get the source code. Doesn't this violate the GPL?
Re:And where is...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
No you don't. The GPL only requires that they give source to those to whom they give binaries.
No it doesn't. But the GPL says that anybody who has bought the binaries has the right to get the source and is allowed to put it all on a website for free download if they want. You just have to find that website.
I bought a $299 Lindows PC from walmart.com when my old computer got fried. I have been unable to find any way to obtain the source code from lindows.com's website. Also I couldn't find any phone number or any way to reach a real person at lindows to ask my questions. Finally, lindows.com (the website) swears that I'm not using lindows because I upgraded my browser (and kde in general) via apt-get.
-- I love Kimmy!
"Distinguishing" factor
by
fireboy1919
·
· Score: 2
They charge for access to their suppository. $99, actually.
Sounds like a good reason not to use them.
I looked all over their website. The fact that this is true is only mentioned IN PASSING in a section NOT related to their suppository (which they call Click-N-Run). Its also mentioned here. Also, from what I've read, their support sucks, and they don't have any available downloads. They have an explaination here. While legal (I think?), these seem like dirty tricks; they're more expensive than any other distribution with these additions. Its like they're trying to become the next Microsoft, but with the upgrade system that Microsoft wish it used.
I was hoping to switch recommended brands, but I guess I'll keep telling all the newbies to start with Mandrake until they could be weaned to more solid food.
-- Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
Re:"Distinguishing" factor
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
> They charge for access to their suppository. $99, actually.
$99 for one suppository? Somebody's gotta do something about these darned medication prices!;-)
Re:"Distinguishing" factor
by
fireboy1919
·
· Score: 1
Yeah...quite Freudian, that slip. Post tired, and your subconscious may add a thing or to itself. Obviously I mean REpository.
-- Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
Re:"Distinguishing" factor
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
> Yeah...quite Freudian, that slip. [...] Obviously I mean REpository.
Happened to me, too. But at least your typo made me laugh, thanks;)
most of their code is non-GPL, closed and proprietary. the reason this isn't for public consumption yet (i.e. free) is that they haven't figured out a legal loophole yet that will allow them to break the GPL to ship their crap.
at least this is my understanding, from what i've read on their site only. if i'm wrong, please correct. otherwise, someone please tell me how they're selling this legally outside their "beta testers" in the group thing?
interesting. I was thinking of downloading knoppix to burn and give out to people. I have an HP internal 8x IDE burner (8100i or something like that). Got it in summer 2000. Would that be too old and unable to burn it?
(Lest someone just say "download it and try it", it would be nice to save the bandwidth if it won't work!)
I imagine you would be just fine with that drive. Your CD-R drive documentation should say somewhere whether or not you can burn the larger 700MB/80min. CD's, or just the 650MB/74min kind. I imagine that knoppix isn't some sort of 700+ on a cd distro - that would be silly.
Just check your hardware spec's - or go to HP's site. I could do it all for you, but then you wouldn't learn much, would you. It's self-reliance, you know?
--
Who is this Anonymous Coward character, how does he post so much, and why is he always such a whore?
Knoppix is just under 700 MB so it fits comfortably on an 80-minute CD. The interesting thing, though, is that it uses compression to fit more stuff onto the CD. You get the equivalent of 1.8 GB, with all the decompression on the fly completely transparent to you. So you get everything from OpenOffice.org to Pingus;-)
Linux can replace Windows as long as it talks to and behaves just like it.
Call me a troll if ya like, but I think this is exactly the right thing to do in order to dethrone Windows.
However, be warned: Linux can't endlessly play catch-up to Windows. In order to make Linux PREFERRED over Windows it'll have to evolve to a point that it is substantially different. Wish I had an answer as to what direction to take there, but I don't. (hey! At least I'm honest!)
Here's a thought, though: Why not make a simple distro of Linux designed specifically for making a PVR out of an old computer? That alone would get me started playing with, and I'm about as hard core of Windows user as anybody can be!
-- "Derp de derp."
Re:Yep...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Linux can replace Windows as long as it talks to and behaves just like it.
Imagine... a comment like this from a 'hard core windows user'
everyone is entitled to their own opinion of course, but that's just like saying 'that blue shirt could replace my red shirt if only it were red'
not to mention you suggest Linux should be different... right after you say it should change to become the same!
honestly, i'm not trying to insult you but your post had so many paradoxes and redundancies i'm afraid my head is about to explode
"not to mention you suggest Linux should be different... right after you say it should change to become the same!"
Actually, what he's saying isn't a paradox. (Though I think he could have communicated it better.) He's saying that the only way that Linux can take a bite out of MS's marketshare is if people can switch to it easily. But from there, it's sort of like a 'Windows clone', and will seem inferior.
Eventually, it'll need to split away from Windows. That's where being different comes in. Think about Mac, for example. You can buy a Mac, use it for some of what Windows does, but what there? I mean, I personally would like one of their Titanium laptops because then I can hook up my DV camera to it and poop out DVD's later. But how many people would buy a laptop just for that?
Basically, he left out that there needs to be a huge benefit to using Linux that Windows doesn't share. Linux doesn't have that today, which is really slowing it's adoption. Once it can do what Windows does, and just as well I might add, then it can afford to be different and cooler and so on.
However, be warned: Linux can't endlessly play catch-up to Windows. In order to make Linux PREFERRED over Windows it'll have to evolve to a point that it is substantially different.
Would the price not make it substatially different? If people are constantly seeing PC's at $399 and the same PC at $899 w/windows, don't you think someone's going to get the picture?
I mean, alot of these people are the kind that wouldn't know the OS from a hole in the ground. But they do know money.
"Would the price not make it substatially different? If people are constantly seeing PC's at $399 and the same PC at $899 w/windows, don't you think someone's going to get the picture?"
The uninformed will get the picture that Windows is a better OS since they're charging more.
Re:Yep...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The informed would realise this after using it.
Someone explain...
by
Jezral
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Someone explain to me how they can do a v2.0 release without adhering to the GPL and making a free download?
-- Tino Didriksen
Re:Someone explain...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Sure. The GPL states that you must make sources available to those you distribute binaries to. To get the binaries, you have to pay 99$ (become an "insider") or get it bundled with your spiffy new Walmart PC. Get it? The GPL doesn't say that binaries have to be be free.
Re:Someone explain...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Informative
Simple. If they don't release binaries to you they don't have to give the source to you.
Read the gpl faq:
"Does the GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted to the public?
The GPL does not require you to release your modified version. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them. This applies to organizations (including companies), too; an organization can make a modified version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the organization.
But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the users, under the GPL.
Thus, the GPL gives permission to release the modified program in certain ways, and not in other ways; but the decision of whether to release it is up to you."
(italics added)
You are only required under the GPL to release GPL'd code (including your revisions) to those to whom you release binaries.
Just because most ppl are more liberal with the GPL by making everything readily available (which is what I believe should be the case generally) doesn't mean that everyone has to do the same.
Re:Someone explain...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Does this mean that people who purchase a copy have access to the source code?
If they do, are they allowed to re-release the source code to Lindows undeer the terms of the GPL?
However there may be parts of it that are not under the GPL, you will have to seperate these. By the time you are done you will have your own Linux distribution that may have little to do with Lindows.
Well said. Thanks for sustaining my faith in humanity.
Lindows computers are great.
by
usurper_ii
·
· Score: 1
> I love the idea, but not educating new > users about what exactly they are > buying seems very misleading. I can > see the mindless drones going: > > "Windows computer, $899" > > "Lindows computer, $399" > > Lindows says it runs some >"Microsoft Windows Compatible" > software, and it is cheaper... > I'll go for that one.
Yeah, but after you figure out that Lindows sucks, you can format the drive and install Win 98 SE on it. Your total savings: $500.00.
And yes, that savings price did figure in the price of Windows, too.:)
The screenshots don't sell the product well
by
ShieldWolf
·
· Score: 2
I counted 4(!) different widget sets in the screenshots; no two applications look anything alike.
I see differnt ones for QT, StarOffice and XUL, and a custom one for the MP3 player.
How can you sell something so inconsistent?
-ShieldWolf
-- just = (My)Opinion.toCents();
Re:The screenshots don't sell the product well
by
4/3PI*R^3
·
· Score: 1
Lindows is competing with Windows. Have you seen new windows applications?
I'm sitting at my desktop and every window (IE, Word, Outlook, Mozilla, Opera) and each one has a differnt set of "widgets"
Looks to me like Lindows is doing exactly what Windows is doing. Windows has 95% of the market. When in Rome do as the Romans.
Re:The screenshots don't sell the product well
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
No, you don't mean inconsistant, you mean exciting and diverse. Variety is the spice of life. These are features not bugs.
Re:The screenshots don't sell the product well
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
If it were limited to button graphics you might be right. But memorizing 4 different cut and paste key commands, window close commands and everything else is just stupid.
Lindows.. they sure seem like the Microsoft of the linux world
bah
--
I'm never going to achieve Nirvana with my Karma
Re:HAHAHA Laserjet is so FUNNY! HAHAHA!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Fuck you!
No, fuck YOU!!
NO, FUCK YOU!!!
NOOO, FUCK YOOOOUUU!!!!!
Give me a fuckin' break, you losers, and get back to lookin' for a fuckin' job!!!!!!!
three words
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Read the GPL.
GPL Violations
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
OMG they're violating the GPL! How dare they!
Of course, you would only say that if you knew little if anything about the GPL.
Can lindows not release the source to ppl who haven't bought their product? Yes.
From the GPL faq:
'If I distribute GPL'd software for a fee, am I required to also make it available to the public without a charge? No. However, if someone pays your fee and gets a copy, the GPL gives them the freedom to release it to the public, with or without a fee. For example, someone could pay your fee, and then put her copy on a web site for the general public. '
So by FSF's own admission, lindows is not violating their GPL agreement. They're only required to give source to those individuals to whom they destribute binaries.
Lindows surpassing Debian?
by
timeOday
·
· Score: 4, Funny
Wow, version 2.0 after just a few months. Debian only just made it to 3.0 after, what, 5 years? So I predict Debian will soon be rendered obsolete by Lindows:)
Re:Lindows surpassing Debian?
by
jhoger
·
· Score: 1
Version numbers are arbitrary.
I guess Debian should have skipped straight from 2 to 7...
lindows site looks like apples site
by
nempo
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Compare the two =)
-- --- No, english is not my mother tongue.
Re:lindows site looks like apples site
by
L1nUx+h4x0r
·
· Score: 2, Funny
I think they should change the name to LOSX.
Think about it. OS X mounts Windows shares, Lindows mounts windows shares. Lindows wants to make people use it by giving it away for free and charging you for updates. OS X is $99 with free updates.
It's almost as if they were run by the same company...
-- The GPL makes software more like your mom. Free and open to all.
Re:lindows site looks like apples site
by
micq
·
· Score: 1
Lindows wants to make people use it by giving it away for free and charging you for updates. OS X is $99 with free updates.
Umm... no, they charge you $99 for it, and $99 a year to access free software.
And Apple just released 10.2 (upgrade from 10.1) of their OS X and it cost me $69 (student discount)...
HAHAHA this is so funny HAHAHA
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
eat shit you balogne eater
Consider it a Milestone
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Every heard of MS SFU? it allows you to browse windows NFS shares. you can also get clients for filesystems like AFS.
purely amazing
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
wow these people just keep lowering their standards. last i checked samba mapped your entire window network.
Lindows a sham
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Caveat, I have only used a beta version of Lindoews. That said the 'based on Xandros' logo was part of the splash screen. Xandros is the code from Corel Linux, once thought to be ver 3.0. AFAIKT Lindows has packaged existing code into a package they 'market' as something visionary. It is only marketing. If you want the real Samba integration with KDE, for example, it is copyrighted by Corel/Xanros. Wine integration, to expensive since Lindows can't do the work themselves & would have to pay CodeWeavers for a 'better version'.
IMHO I don't see any contribution to GNU/Linux from this offering.
Sun StarOffice 6.0* can view and edit Microsoft Excel®, Word®, and PowerPoint® documents - and save them in their native format.
Really? If you're writing a grocery list maybe. This kind of hair-splitting is the source of "irrational exuberance".
Windows share browsing and "mapping"
by
alexborges
·
· Score: 1
.... Has been in kde for sometime now using the klisa thingie which bases in the smbclient idea (userspace samba client, no mounting required)....
If its the mapping "feature" (utterly stupid i think), you have allways been able to bookmark a smb share from nautilus (with the VFS support) or klisa+konqueror.
I'm downloading the ISO now and I didn't have any problems and don't remember seeing any adverts along the way.
Still under root?
by
NaveWeiss
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I was hoping they would find a better way to run the system rather than running under root... is it still like that in version 2.0? I submitted a question to their FAQ..
-- Slashdot community, please notice: I am looking for a girlfriend.
Nave H. Weiss
Re:Amazing!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Why would Microsoft want to implement something that so few people would use, from their competition no less?
Re:HAHAHA Laserjet is so FUNNY! HAHAHA!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Fuck you!
No, fuck YOU!!
NO, FUCK YOU!!!
NOOO, FUCK YOOOOUUU!!!!!
Give me a fuckin' break, you losers, and get back to lookin' for a fuckin' job!!!!!!!
NOOO, FUCK YOOOOUUU!!!!!
:-)
You already can with most distros
by
Nailer
·
· Score: 3, Informative
KDE already comes with a neally nice browser for SMB, NFS, FTP and web shares called lisa. It seems none of the distribution makers have removed it, but non of them have bothered writing an initscript for it and turning it on.
You can already browse the network easily in, say, Red Hat 7.3 if you create your own initscript - its really slick. But most people who need these kinds of apps won't do that because they can't be bothered (and why should they have to be?).
If you want this to be fixed, then maybe add a supporting comment to Bug 72114 - Reslisa needs an initscript
Re:You already can with most distros
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Yes, but Lisa does not show the NetBIOS name, just the IP (or DNS name, but only if you have reverse DNS setup for your local domain). A big list of IP address is not very useful.
Re:You already can with most distros
by
smeat
·
· Score: 1
I am using Mandrake 9.0 RC2 and it has an init script for lisa.
smeat!
-- "Let's not bicker about who killed who." Monty Python
The only thing I know of is MOL. Mac On Linux is actually not an emulator but a Virtual Machine like VMWare.
you're a troll, get over it
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Please, don't do the "whine whine I'm not a troll" line if you aren't even going to bother to check your facts. The combination of being intentionally inflammatory and forgetting to check your facts makes you a troll whenther you like it or not.
Allow me to correct your ignorance: I saw this functionality for the first time in a KDE installation in 1999. That's right, it's been around for _three_ _years_. If you really don't know anything about Linux, comment on it _carefully_.
And as a little reminder, the command line exists so that system functions can be automated through scripts. Also note that command-line access to SMB shares has been a part of Windows since WFW 3.11. The Lan Manager syntax is a lot less flexible, though.
Ok. I've been against Lindows for, well, as long as I've known about them. They seem to me to be a wolf-in-sheep's clothing, and I'm more than sick of hearing about that stupid rebranded apt-get, as well as the rebranded KDE software.
But, those screenshots look nice. I would not recommend this distro to any of my buddies, but I'm thinking about trying to grab some of that artwork from the ISO... In particular, the Netscape theme is good in that neon-ish sort of way, and the kicker icons are nice too.
sudo
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I was able to solve all my mounting problem using sudo. One can set things up so that a normal user can mount particular drives, etc., with one click of the mouse (or one command).
Microsoft did sue OpenGL because they claimed that OpenGL included some things in OpenGL 2.0 that appear in DirectX, some very generic things too (sorry, I can't quite remember them).
--
This page was generated by a Barrel of Circus Midgets, and that is the way I like it!!!
By default it does not use FAT16/32. That means that normal partioning(FDISK) will not work if you decide to remove.
What does the file system have to do with partitioning?
This is true, but so is the original poster's comment (essentially). Have you ever tried to delete Linux partitions with DOS Fdisk? It doesn't work. You either have to snag yourself a copy of BigFdisk, or boot into Linux to get rid of them.
-- "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
LindowsOS 2.0 w/ Built in Browser!!!
by
Tony.Tang
·
· Score: 1
One of the screenshots is titled: "LindowsOS 2.0 with built-in Netscape 7.0 Web Browser"
Dammit. I hope they don't get sued for building a browser into the OS!
99$ to -download- a system that is 99.9% based on free software ?:) give me a break:)
Quit using Windows as the golden reference...
by
aquarian
·
· Score: 2
Why are we all deluding ourselves into thinking that X11 and it's KDE/Gnome companions are viable desktop environments for consumers when they really aren't.
I disagree wholeheartedly. KDE and Gnome are at least as good as Windows from a usability standpoint. If a user finds them more difficult to use, it's usually due to simple unfamiliarity, not genuine usability. Users are often just accustomed to Windows (or Mac), and run into trouble when something isn't where they expect it to be. But working from a clean slate, Windows *is not* better, just different. In tests I've done (clean slate), I've found KDE has a slight but real usability edge over Windows. And if a distribution has included some nice admin tools, like Mandrake has, users find it easier navigating Linux for the first time, than Win 2k for the first time. That's a much fairer comparison. So quit using Windows as the golden reference implementation for everything. There are better ways of doing things, so let's break our old habits, instead of perpetuating them.
Re:Quit using Windows as the golden reference...
by
tokki
·
· Score: 1
I have to disagree with you whole-heartadly. If you're a geek, and use to.xinitrc files and loading up the latest GTK libraries, sure X is easy for you and it's got great usability. But if you're a regular consumer, the slightest deviation from most distributions (such as Mandrake or Red Hat), then it's a nightmare. There is just too much that requires a command line, and not even an easy command line.
Personally, I prefer Mac OS X and BeOS as my preferred desktops. They are elegant, clean, and easy to use, so no, Windows isn't my golden rule. It is, however, better than X in many, many, many respects.
Re:Quit using Windows as the golden reference...
by
FooBarWidget
·
· Score: 2
"There is just too much that requires a commandline"
How exactly is this an X problem? Clearly, this is a *desktop* problem. In such case, the solution is to *create more GUI tools*, not to ditch the windowing system. You're looking for the wrong solution.
Your non-usability problem only occurs if the user is a newbie and tries to install Linux himself! Yes, then he'll encounter things like the commandline. But for the average user, a preinstalled Linux setup is good enough. Want to read email? Click on the KMail/Evolution icon. Want to browse the web? Click on the Konqueror/Galeon/Mozilla icon. Want to write letters? Click on the OpenOffice icon. What more does an average user want? No, he won't look for ways to modify system settings, because everything is already configured!
I setup Linux on my parents' computer. I adapted the configuration to fit their needs. And now, they are happily using Linux and don't even know what the commandline is.
Not the best marketing scheme-
"Lindows. The Wal-Mart operating system."
This isn't the future of Linux - programmers bending over backwards for Microsoft in their barely open-source operating system. It won't last.
Anyone else notice that this popped up right after the article about Sun selling Linux PCs? Given how quickly the Lindows brand name is establishing itself, I think Sun would do well to drop Red Hat and move to Lindows for their PCs.
One *other* thing
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Could you please also explain what to do after the install is finished with, say, Mandrake? I mean by that security. With Windows, there's antivirus stuff and firewalls and things you just learn to do. Every time I have tried RedHat or Mandrake, I have been hacked into within hours or, my longest, days. So I end up going back to Windows. Then I try again, because I just love Linux...
Your explanations were so clear, if you don't mind explaining that part, I'll leap off the boat one more time and try to stay afloat.
I am using Lindows
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I use Lindows. Got 2.0.0 installed today.
It finally got me off Microsoft. Sorry, there are just some apps for me that won't run in Linux so I have to reboot sometime. =
If anyone has a bible program with Greek support, NAU version, and all the study tools of BibleWorks or similar tools that is open source, let me know.
BibleWorks runs under Lindows. And I know all of you think that I should be able to run it under wine on mandrake or whatever, but I don't have time to mess with configuring Mandrake or Redhat or whatever all the time.
I can compile, I compile for work all the time. I do IDS on Linux, I maintain Bind on HPUX, etc...I don't want to spend my time at home going through trying to compile the software I want. I'd rather pay 99 bucks to have someone do it for me and get it working.
That is why Lindows appeals to me.
Lindows may succeed where others have failed.
by
lexus99
·
· Score: 1
Lindows may not be the ultimate Linux users OS (I for one would never use it), but for a Linux newbie, it may be just what the doctor ordered.
1. They are obviously commited to getting PC manufacters to install it on store bought PeeCees, hence the Walmart deals. I'm certain we'll see many others doing the same thing, like Staples and CC.
2. They seem to have beaten almost everyone else to the punch with their desktop friendliness and usability (this is an assumption, as I have not used it).
3. They seem to have a better marketing dept. than the other Linux dists combined.
All these factors will eventually add up to success. The other Linux dists had better start concentrating on building a desktop that a five year old could use, or Lindows may very well take this market.
Lindows is just a way of making money off of linux. It is basically a linux with KDE. You can do everything in Red Hat 7.3 that you can with lindows 2...I would prefer the Red Hat as they have worked on it longer...blah lindows, just another way to spell microsoft.
Last I heard, it's called "learning from other peoples mistakes". Agreed, this is probably the wrong place to be asking opinions, but playing the "Gee which OS should I pick today" game isn't something you just want to take potshots at or 'hop straight over to'. I mean really, I'd be asking questions too, especially if Windows were my only background. I've heard of some of the fun you can have installing Linux and it's variants, ranging from fairly easy to extra gooey, let alone some other OS that 90% of the public probably hasn't even heard of. Cut the guy some slack.
Nothing like a primadonna attitude to start the day off right. Of course, another name for primadonnas of any sort, whether they be sysadmins, software engineers or Linux fanboys is "bitch" which seems to fit aptly.
Troll? Flame? No doubt you'll be modding parent down as well, right? Oh... I see...
This is the kind of response a newbie to the platform needs, not some dribbling shit like "go back and worship Gates" or "I think I'll indirectly imply that since you use M$ products you can't be intelligent enough to make the switch". I think for most people it's a "time versus effort" issue-- "Do I want to take the time out of my already busy life to learn an entirely new OS and is it really worth the effort to do so?", not "Duh, what's a floppy disk and why can't i fit Quake 3 onto it?"*Lordcorusa, you deserve every one of those mod points for that genuinly intelligent response.
*We actually had a 'tech' (who had gotten his job through a good-ol-boy connection) that didn't know the first thing about anything. how to drag and Drop, copy and paste, etc. At one point, he was actually dragging game icons onto the floppy disk drive, thinking he was getting the entire thing to play at home... We suffered.
Right on. This is what I've been rant^H^H^H^H saying hereabout for some time. "RTFM" or "Go back to Windoze, you luzer" are not appropriate responses to a newbie's inevitable woes when they try a new OS! And it is indeed an issue of "time vs effort". MOST Real People[tm] have lives that don't revolve around techie stuff.:)
As to your so-called tech.. I used to get a lot of calls to clean up after one local "tech" whose notion of how to fix any system was to dump his standard tape backup onto the HD, whether the existing setup was compatible or not. What a mess!!
-- ~REZ~
#43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
What for?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
OK, let us count:
1. "LindowsOS(TM) has been optimized to run certain Microsoft® Windows "bridge" programs. So far, Microsoft® Office 2000 applications like Microsoft® Word, Microsoft® Excel and PowerPoint® have been certified to run under LindowsOS." OK, so we CAN run MSO on Lindows. But:
2. "Even if you don't have a copy of Microsoft Office, (...) To edit Microsoft Office compatible files (...) such as StarOffice(TM) or OpenOffice."
Just great. Of course we are stupid enough to not to use StarOffice or OpenOffice on Windows, or we are so stupid, that we cannot figue out we can have some other distro and Star/Open-Office FOR FREE. Because now there is not so many other Windows Sims^H^H^H^Happs we can run on Lindows.
Of course, opinion is like ass - everyone has its own one.
-- Slashdot community, please notice: I am looking for a girlfriend.
Nave H. Weiss
lessee, where have i seen that site design before?
by
cyberdog6
·
· Score: 1
this product turned out to be a big disapointment. it was supposed to run Windows apps. actual apps like Office.
but it instead it is just another linux distro with it's only differentiating factor being that it looks like windows(and the website was downloaded from apple.com and slightly edited for content).
it has a cadre of windows-like apps that sound like basically using stripped down versions of the originals. it does include StarOffice, but that is the work of others, does not apply to whether Lindows itself is any good.
it is not the project it started out to be, but the company is trying to pretend that this is just a change of the business plan and not the failure to meet most of it's goals that it really is.
i'd just as soon use KDE and Open, or Star, Office. I can't see a reason for it to exist other than it is a pretty good package of some alternative technologies to windows.
but that app subscription thing sounds lame, and is this thing going to match LSB standards?
Such as retraining all your employees to use StarOffice or OpenOffice. If you think they'll just adapt, you obviously don't spend enough time with ordinary people.
About the same amount of money/time it took me to get them retrained on Office 2000 as opposed to Office 95. About the same it took to retrain all the Wordperfect people onto Office 2000.
Ditto for Office XP.
Training is an ongoing expense, and this type of stuff goes on all the time. Yes, they will adapt. OpenOffice is configurable -- set the shortcut keys to match the ones in MS Word/Excel, and configure the menus/toolbars to look the same.
--
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Slashdot Mirror
Is walmart going to upgrade their low-end machines now?
first?
i'm a Microsoft(tm) user, could i use lindow with my ms experience without too much trouble? how different are they?
Being able to easily mount share drives is a big plus.
I hope someone pulls all this into the free distributions.
User space mounting would be very nice, as it is mounting my digital camera and various nfs/samba directories makes quite a mess of my fstab
ummmmmm.... i've been using KDE to browse the windows network here at work and at home for quite a long time. I don't think Lindows should be given credit for what konqueror, not to mention LinNeighborhood, has done.
I have to admit, the screenshots look pretty good, but I don't see any Windows support. It seems to be that if this is supposed to be a merged environment, they would do better to shop MS Office running rather than StarOffice. For the current time being, Lindows seems to be just YALD (Yet Another Linux Distribution).
Does anybody else realize how confusing buying a cheap 'lindows' PC might be for a non tech-savvy user? Their website alludes to running standard windows software, and hinting that software 'might' be compatible... but they never really come out and say:
This is what will run.
Everything else will not.
I wonder how busy their 800 number is. If they are stupid enough to provide one.
I love the idea, but not educating new users about what exactly they are buying seems very misleading. I can see the mindless drones going:
"Windows computer, $899"
"Lindows computer, $399"
Lindows says it runs some "Microsoft Windows Compatible" software, and it is cheaper... I'll go for that one.
Only to find out that, two weeks later, their new version of The Sims just won't run.
I wonder if they get a lot of returns?
-S
We Apprentice Developers and Designers
We've heard a lot about Lindows, but as far as I know, it was always only a beta.
Maybe they just went straight to 2.0 to make it sound like they are somewhat stable.
10 minutes working on a sig. What a waste.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Anyone who buys a PC from WalMart....
Poor folks used to buy eMachines....
WAY back they bought Packard Bell
Lindows 2.0.0 is out, and features, among other things, the ability to browse Windows network shares and map them as you would on a Windows machine.
All this for the same price as Windows!
Do Redhat, Debian, Mandrake, etc. require accepting a EULA before installation?
(I have no memory of my Linux install - very strange.)
Well let's see, when Windows can browse and map drivers hosted on linux, we'll considering a milestone also.
I'm just waiting for the day when some jackbooted BSA thug comes knocking on my door with a "legal in 30 days or DIE" ultimatum, and 30 days later I can yell "kiss my fanny you fascist bastard, I GOT no licensing to worry about!"
WITHOUT the peasants showing up at my door with torches and pitchforks, that is. Most of mine could care less what they use, as long as their documents open properly and their e-mail moves around.
AMCGLTD.COM. Where cats, science fictio
Lindows discovers Samba. Amazing.
Seriously...the more we make a big fuss about things like this, the worse Linux looks. Anyone not familiar with Linux would think "So does this mean that Linux users couldn't see Windows shares until just now? What else does Linux not have?"
...
The only novel idea I've seen Lindows use is the package download. Brilliant idea that more linux distros should make available to Windose converts. Who knows, Lindows users may figure out that other linux distros can do just about anything they want.
Namaste
Someday I'll be able to do everything Windows can do and I won't have to use Windows!
Mod this one sideways please, you can't and won't ever understand it.
Thanks
XWindow system's been around for god-knows how long... Why, if they're already using UNIX, is it so traumatic to get X up and running?
Karma: Non-Heinous
If you want a free version, you'll need to wait for the LindowsOS General Release later this year.
FAQ's may be found at: http://help.lindows.com/cgi-bin/visitors.cfg/php/e nduser/std_alp.php
Then go with Mandrake, Redhat, Suse or Debian. Not this junk.
I was scrolling along and first shock - able to connect to Windows NT Server
Lindows:
lookie here suckers - this wont run MS-Office well and we hate MS and so does Sun - so why dont u pay for StarOffice for Lindows (hyukhyuk) although you can pirate MS-Office for free.
User: Hey thats a great idea!
As of 1.0, Mike (the CEO) replied to my email that games wasnt high on their list and they would consider it soon.
Where is my pack of cards?
While our main development has always been done on Win2k workstations and HP-UX servers, we've long used Linux (since version 4, IIRC) for low-priority office work,...
Are you sure you're a cheif admin or whatever? As far as I know there's no linux version 4.
-- Note: If you don't agree with me, don't bother replying. I won't read it.
In his picture, Michael Robertson looks uncannily like Conan O'Brien. Does Triumph have a page?
Excellent work, tps12...
Okay, time to predict the responses.
In this discussion, there will be:
13 posts about how it dumb it is that this looks so much like Windows.
5 of which will also predict the death of Linux on the desktop.
21 responses to those posts about how looking like Windows is a good thing.
18 posts suggesting alternate desktop-oriented distros, including Mandrake, Red Hat, Lycoris, and Xandros.
7 responses to those posts claiming that Debian is far better.
5 responses to the Debian posts about source based distributions like Gentoo and Source Mage being far more up-to-date and superior.
14 posts will praise Lindows for being easy-to-use and with plans (that will not actually happen) to install it for their parents.
8 of those will commend the new networking setup and resolution switcher and wonder why other distros haven't done these things yet.
5 people will explain that other distros HAVE done that.
3 posts will make fun of the name Lindows.
6 will ask about if the Windows emulation actually works (nobody will have a supported answer).
5 posts will question if this release is truly worthy of being called "version 2.0.0".
4 posts will point out that you can buy computers with Lindows preinstalled from Wal-mart.
6 posts will offer mirrors of the screenshots/article.
Of the 17 posts modded up to 4 or 5, at least 13 will begin with the phrase "I'll probably get modded down for this, but..."
And finally, there will be THIS post, which tries to redeem itself for being dumb with a self-deprecating final statement.
The first ever Ultimate Frisbee video game: here (now
...here at work. I work for a corporation that sells everything from distributed fax databasing software to cameras. The only Linux stuff around is the few servers that I have set up for rumedial intranet and inter-departmental data management tasks. So when Lindows came along I thought that maybe it could be used to demonstrate how easy Linux really is (thus gaining some support for driver writing and new software projects, et cetera).
Boy were we (me and the other two Linux users in this company of thousands) when we sat down with Lindows to set it up as a workstation running a few printers, a scanner, some software through Wine, etc. We quickly realized that it was nothing more then a really bad, ugly, poorly concieved, library lacking Linux distribution. It offerred nothing more then your conventional Mandrake or Redhat boxed sets (in fact far, far, far less) and innovated nothing. It was laughed at by the few managers that saw it. Lindows failed us, as it will hordes of other people.
you may want winblows touching your linux box's privates, but not me!!!
My point was user space mounting is cumbersome.
That works if you're root.
It does not work if you are a user.
Doesn't solve the problem.
when I look at the Lindows desktop wallpaper in the screen shots?
Do we like lindows today?
I do not read or respond to AC's. If you want a discussion, log in. Otherwise, don't waste your time.
Where is Enlightenment or how is it run through lindows and does it even work with lindows
Extraordinary Vacations. Exceptional Prices
There are interesting release notes for 2.0
2.0 cannot install to a secondary slave drive yet - Can't get a new hard drive after Lindows is installed
Advanced Install options needs improvement in drive labeling and drive order - If you have more than one drive, good luck installing and setting up your drives
Due to problems it was causing, we had to turn off the "Restore session" option when rebooting. We'll work on getting this fixed and back in. - If it crashes, your out of luck
No support for DSL (PPPOE) - Well, there goes DSL users
Originally everyone was excited because they believed you would be able to run native 32-bit windows applications, previous screenshots showed MS Word running.
Now they seemed to have moved away from that, is there anything to distinguish this distro from another now?
The one click warehouse is great for a feee I'd imagine, but that software is already available free for the most part.
Lindows is forging forward on the desktop Linux "market" trying to be the best it can be.. with much publicity, like the other day, for example their deal with Earthlink .. While others are already using earthlink with pppd! Their low-cost PC's at walmart are pretty good deals tho.. for a little more then the cost of WindowsXP Professional, you can get an 800mhz celery with no floppy or modem.
Linux and open source needs to just drop X as the GUI, and come up with something new. Something developed with the general consumer in mind. Something that doesn't require KDE or Gnome to patch it's many shortcomings.
Why are we all deluding ourselves into thinking that X11 and it's KDE/Gnome companions are viable desktop environments for consumers when they really aren't. It does the open source movement a disservice to constantly hype up an inferior platform while ignoring it's many shortcomings, simply because it says "open source" or "Linux".
- 15 MOD PARENT UP posts
- 1 all your base reference, even though the joke's been dead for well over a year and a half
- 5 "Stephen King Dead at 54" posts
- 8 "First Post" posts.
Karma: Non-Heinous
...is that a good percentage, if not a majority, of the people that are the targets for these Lindows machines won't ever buy any software at all. Nearly all members of my extended family have bought a cheap machine like this in the past couple years, whether it is HP or Emachines or no-name, and not a single one has added on any software. They're using the web browser, email client, and word processing software that came with the computer. And when they want to play 'games', they're either playing solitaire on that PC, or they're out in the living room playing on the Xbox or PS2. And while I know my extended family isn't exactly a perfect cross-population on which to base any kind of decision, I still think they represent the majority of people that buy these cheap PCs.
Perl - $Just @when->$you ${thought} s/yn/tax/ &couldn\'t %get $worse;
LOL!!!
Wheres the link to the source? Has Lindows released any source yet? I recall they had issues with this before. Anyone know?
$_='while(read+STDIN,$_,2048){$a=29;$b=73;$c=142;
I have to wonder if the guys behind this Linux distro are actively trying to attract court cases. Firstly the name, including the font is more than a little similar to another well known distro (they even have the L broken up into boxes, much like the flag logo).
;-)
Now their site appears to have striking similarities to Another well know OS/hardware manufacturer. I mean, come ON!
Not that I'm saying it's not funny though
Code, Hardware, stuff like that.
Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
Introduction
The operating system and the different components available in the Mandrake Linux distribution
shall be called the "Software Products" hereafter. The Software Products include, but are not
restricted to, the set of programs, methods, rules and documentation related to the operating
system and the different components of the Mandrake Linux distribution.
1. License Agreement
Please read carefully this document. This document is a license agreement between you and
MandrakeSoft S.A. which applies to the Software Products.
By installing, duplicating or using the Software Products in any manner, you explicitly
accept and fully agree to conform to the terms and conditions of this License.
If you disagree with any portion of the License, you are not allowed to install, duplicate or use
the Software Products.
Any attempt to install, duplicate or use the Software Products in a manner which does not comply
with the terms and conditions of this License is void and will terminate your rights under this
License. Upon termination of the License, you must immediately destroy all copies of the
Software Products.
2. Limited Warranty
The Software Products and attached documentation are provided "as is", with no warranty, to the
extent permitted by law.
MandrakeSoft S.A. will, in no circumstances and to the extent permitted by law, be liable for any
special, incidental, direct or indirect damages whatsoever (including without limitation damages
for loss of business, interruption of business, financial loss, legal fees and penalties resulting
from a court judgement, or any other consequential loss) arising out of the use or inability to
use the Software Products, even if MandrakeSoft S.A. has been advised of the possibility or
occurance of such damages.
LIMITED LIABILITY LINKED TO POSSESSING OR USING PROHIBITED SOFTWARE IN SOME COUNTRIES
To the extent permitted by law, MandrakeSoft S.A. or its distributors will, in no circumstances, be
liable for any special, incidental, direct or indirect damages whatsoever (including without
limitation damages for loss of business, interruption of business, financial loss, legal fees
and penalties resulting from a court judgement, or any other consequential loss) arising out
of the possession and use of software components or arising out of downloading software components
from one of Mandrake Linux sites which are prohibited or restricted in some countries by local laws.
This limited liability applies to, but is not restricted to, the strong cryptography components
included in the Software Products.
3. The GPL License and Related Licenses
The Software Products consist of components created by different persons or entities. Most
of these components are governed under the terms and conditions of the GNU General Public
Licence, hereafter called "GPL", or of similar licenses. Most of these licenses allow you to use,
duplicate, adapt or redistribute the components which they cover. Please read carefully the terms
and conditions of the license agreement for each component before using any component. Any question
on a component license should be addressed to the component author and not to MandrakeSoft.
The programs developed by MandrakeSoft S.A. are governed by the GPL License.
Documentation written by MandrakeSoft S.A. is governed by a specific license. Please refer
to the documentation for further details.
4. Intellectual Property Rights
All rights to the components of the Software Products belong to their respective authors and are
protected by intellectual property and copyright laws applicable to software programs.
MandrakeSoft S.A. reserves its rights to modify or adapt the Software Products, as a whole or in
parts, by all means and for all purposes.
"Mandrake", "Mandrake Linux" and associated logos are trademarks of MandrakeSoft S.A.
5. Governing Laws
If any portion of this agreement is held void, illegal or inapplicable by a court judgement, this
portion is excluded from this contract. You remain bound by the other applicable sections of the
agreement.
The terms and conditions of this License are governed by the Laws of France.
All disputes on the terms of this license will preferably be settled out of court. As a last
resort, the dispute will be referred to the appropriate Courts of Law of Paris - France.
For any question on this document, please contact MandrakeSoft S.A.
What you said is true, in my experience.
Windows never went anywhere, did it?
If something I said can be interpreted two ways, and one of the ways makes you sad or angry, I meant the other one.
What I'd like to know is "Where's the code" ?
I can't find any links to the source code of
the GPLed software in Lindows on their site...
Is it just me... or is the source missing?
For $89 I can get Windows XP Home edition with a nice proven desktop interface that can run ALL of the windows software and see windows network shares also, what advantage does this have?
"i'm a Microsoft(tm) user, could i use... " Let's see; lower case on all three i's (pulling away from your own identity?), got both the capital on the "M" and the (tm) to show proper respect and willie worship, yep good m$ user. No Linux for you, sorry you have been assimilated... In all seriousness my life has been better since I converted (at least I sleep well now...), I did RedHat 7.3 last time around and I find it an acceptable alternative 99% of my workday.
So when does LindowsOS actually become "release" version software? Currently the only way to get it is to become a LindowsOS "insider" with a $99 membership. See here. Is this just crafty marketing?
It is VERY different from any Windows. Lindows is a perty simple Linux distrobution but there are a TON of differences.
Examples:
How well do you know C++?
Linux is a great server product. Lindows is great stride for the desktop market. Download the ISO, when the server opens up, and give it a try on an old machine.
Just remember its not the wnd all and be all of Linux or Windows API.
You say things that offend me and I can deal with it. Can you?
We all know that's when Lindows will really take off.
By default it does not use FAT16/32. That means that normal partioning(FDISK) will not work if you decide to remove.
What does the file system have to do with partitioning?
Most of you new Linux toys will need to be compiled.
How well do you know C++?
Since when do you need to be a programmer to compile something?
Got Quicktime?
Yes, the crossover plugin cost me like $10.
Everything is either compiled or mounted.
I think you forgot to mount your brain.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
A Windows like OS with an Apple like web-site.
Ahhh.....the creative juices are flowing now !!
God damn. You are such an arselicking shiteater.
All slashbots are. Perens makes a "Gee, he's been nice to me" comment, and gets modded all the way up to 5.
Did they release the source this time? I remember earlier there were complaints that Lindows had taken GPL code and said they would only release the modified code after it came out of beta. And here we are at 2.0.
Remember "Bring 'em on"? *sigh
Installation information on the site says they currently do not support dual-boot install if you have Windows 2000 and NTFS file system. To bad :-(
I was waiting to give it a shot in my desktop. If they are really interested in a smooth migration path for the Windows users...supporting dual boot is a must.
It's up to 7.3 now. There had to have been a 4.
I heard something about how Lindows doesn't quite comply with many linux standards. Does anyone know about this? Bascially, I have heard that Lycoris, a linux distrobution that is incredebly similar to Lindows is a better choice because it is a lot closer to standard linux. Course, I could be very wrong.
This page was generated by a Barrel of Circus Midgets, and that is the way I like it!!!
I think there are too many cooks in the distro kitchen...
Why not use Linneighborhood (http://www.bnro.de/~schmidjo/) with Gentoo, Slack, or Redhat?
It seems like this shouldn't be news.
Why don't you find out yourself?
Download it? High-speed Internet access isn't available in my area, and in order to get to another area, I'd have to move house. That has its own drawbacks. And even if it is available, it may be capped so that it takes a week to download a distribution.
Get the CD? How can I know the quality of a product I'm purchasing sight unseen? No, I don't want to have to spend $30 each on 10 distributions of free operating systems every release cycle.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Why bother to pay for betas?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I'm assuming when you say you are a Microsoft user you mean that you have only ever used Microsoft products. At this stage, any Unix-based operating system, be it a Linux distribution, Lindows (I do not personally count Lindows as a true Linux distribution), FreeBSD, or whatever, will be like jumping into a cold swimming pool. That is to say, it will be a shock at first, but if you are reasonably intelligent and you have picked a newbie distribution (Mandrake, Lycoris, Lindows, ELX), you should be able to adjust.
Some things to keep in mind:
1. You will not have perfect compatibility with Windows apps like MSOffice. You can use OpenOffice and most of your docs will look fine, but some will have visible display glitches (although I have never seen one that was unreadable). You can also download browser plugins for Mozilla (the best Linux web browser) which give it virtually all the worthwhile functionality of IE. Ximian Evolution is an excellent replacement for Outlook. OpenOffice, Mozilla, and Evolution all come with most new Linux distributions today. Another solution is Codeweavers Crossover Office and Crossover Plugin, which let you use Windows office apps and browser plugins. However, this option requires a subscription fee.
2. Many/most Windows games will not work at all, or without a good deal of tinkering. If you are a hardcore gamer, check out Transgaming WineX which can let you play some of the most popular Windows games with a minimum of glitches. This option also requires a subscription fee.
3. A Linux installation needs either its own hard drive, a free partition of space on a Windows drive (at least a few gigabytes) or its own machine. If you have only one machine with one partition on one hard drive, and that is for Windows, then you *might* damage your Windows installation installing Linux. Your best bet if you don't know what I am talking about is to ask a friend who knows more for some help in the installation.
4. While most hardware I have ever purchased is supported, some things just don't have support yet. One example is the "winmodem". Most modems sold today are sneakily designed to work only with Microsoft Windows. Yes, this is a conspiracy between Microsoft and the manufacturers of those modems. If your modem doesnt work, you will probably have to buy a new modem which specifically says it is a "hardware modem". As someone in [your local computer/electronics store] for help.
**Aside from all that, a tonne of things are different in the actual underlying operating system, but if you aren't a developer, you proably won't be intersted in those details. (Feel free to continue this thread if you are, I will be happy to answer more questions.)
With all this, I was trying to provide full disclosure of pitfalls to migrating, not to discourage you. I definately think the switch to Linux is worthwhile in the long term.
If as you implied you have only ever used Microsoft products, the best path you could take is to switch to OpenOffice and Mozilla running on Windows, then if you are comfortable with them, try to dual-boot with a newbie distribution like the ones mentioned above.
The preceding comments reflect the author's personal opinion and are public domain, unless explicitly stated otherwise.
I just took a look at the screen shots, and it's scary how it looks almost exactly like my home computer running Mandrake with KDE. They are obviously using a modified KDE destop, and their file browser is definately Konquerer.
Main difference? - - Mandrake packaged distro with all the goodies cost me $24.88 - Lindows costs $99.00
They are in it for the quick bucks, not the long haul. Remember, the guy who started Lindows is the same guy who started MP3.COM then sold out to Universal.
From: http://www.lindows.com/lindows_news_pressreleases. php
"All applications in the Click-N-Run Warehouse
(www.lindows.com/warehouse) are licensed on a per-person or family basis
and can be downloaded, installed and run with just one-mouse click."
They can't restrict software use in this way for most
of the packages in their free software archive. The software
simply isn't theirs.
I've already emailed lindows about this lie/mistake
on their website.
Where is the free download. I want the iso files. Thanks.
Journal
I checked out the click-n-run offerings
not to impressive
On the IDE page
Click-N-Run Warehouse > Software Development > Development Environments
4 out of seven was IDLE (for different py versions), that is the python IDE that is included in tkinter, witch is normaly installed if you select python on any desktop distro anyhow, so it should already be on your system if you have python
There are a few quite good IDEs for python out there for instance WingIDE.
Why not try to license one of them (there are even a few free ones),
if they wanted to offer some kind of value-added service for py devel.
When it comes to C++ they only have Anjuta, even KDevelop is missing, but for some reason they offer "Gideon - data" and "Gideon -doc" - why not offer all of KDevelop?
why mix parts of KDevelop and Anjuta?
it's going to be in Lindows 3.0 - do you know for a fact that it won't be? Could they be playing their cards very close to their chests? Gnome wasn't built in a day - what makes you think that Windows compatability can be?
Or maybe the lawyers are preventing it. Michael has tilted at some pretty big windmills in the past and had his head clipped pretty badly.
Redhat != Linux
Dude, what the hell are you talking about?
A newbie user isn't going to care about disk partitioning, and there are plenty of partitioning tools that can take care of ext2 partitions, fdisk included.
You do not need to compile most linux programs. Almost all are distributed with binaries, and, from the looks of it, the new click-n-run interface will make software installation a snap. Even if you did have to compile a program you don't need to know a programming language.
By Quicktime I assume you mean Sorenson Quicktime. Unless you are big on watching movie trailers this is not an issue for most people. If you do need to decode this format, though, there are beginnings of support for it in Xine, and until it is fully developed there is Crossover. A commercial Lindows may even come bundled with it.
Your last statement has no bearing on the issue whatsoever. The compiling issue has already been addressed, but who cares if everything is mounted? The GUI takes care of this for you transparently if you are talking about removable media or remote volumes. You don't have to mount anything manually.
My advice to the Windows user is to give it a try. Wait for the commercial version, though, and don't delete your Windows partition. If you have specific Windows needs, you probably won't be able to find support on Linux, yet. There are suitable office and groupware replacements. There are also some basic software packages for financing and image editing which aren't up to par with what professionals need, but are great for dabblers and/or home users. Games and CAD-like programs are still largely unsupported.
Linux can do all that stuff for about a year now. I don't understand. Even if wine could run MS apps, really, who cares anymore? Just for the games?
Don't get me wrong, wine is a wonderfull piece of software, but to ME it's useless (at last).
Washington bullets will simply be known as the "Bulle
Download the ISO, when the server opens up
Maybe I haven't looked closely enough, but I can't find where they're encouraging me to download the ISO.
Every place I look they want me to Act Fast And Send In $99 Now!
I think it's clever how they are basically reducing the price of the computer by delaying the $99 registration fee that any novice would probably need to subscribe to if they hoped to have any applications.
However, this doesn't seem like a good deal. I mean, you are basically paying $99 for a version of Linux that is available for free (Xandros). It's roughly the same price as Windows with next to no compatibility with their favorite applications! I might as well buy Windows and get 100% compatibility.
I realize the average lay-person isn't going to know how to install Xandros for free, but Walmart is already bundling Mandrake with their cheap PCs and Xandros would be just as easy to bundle.
I really don't see ANY benefit from running Linux unless you merely want to promote open-source and/or free software. My hat's off to you.
Wow.
Another Aqua ripoff.
Their site, their screenshots, everything.
I guess it's not just MS that steals from Apple anymore.
If all the work done on writting drivers for Linux had been put into writting an API layer to reuse Windows drivers, we would all enjoy more, better, faster drivers.
You're kidding, right?
A large part of Windows instability comes from buggy drivers. Using these drivers would do Linux no favours stability-wise.
The API requirements of both operating systems are also different at a very fundamental level. A Windows driver exposes device features in the way that Windows wants/expects/needs. Wrapping something this different would give you a very slow driver that wouldn't have all of the features Linux applications and OS functions use.
A driver also generally messes with many structures in OS space. You'd have to provide emulated hooks where hooks are used, and build fake memory structures where direct access is used. This, too, is slow.
In summary, trying to use Windows drivers under Linux (or any other *nix) is a just plain Bad Idea.
I just saved the jpg of the wallpaper from the screenshot, touched it up a bit to get rid of the icons, converted it to a bmp and installed it as the wallpaper on my Win2K machine. I now have Windows apps running on top of Lindows. That was easy. I agree about the Dolly bit - very um, inspirational.
but everytime I see an XP desktop I want to put on a red nose and join the circus.
This is going to be labelled a troll, but I don't care; someone has to set you straight on the fact that the reason Lindows exists in the first place is usability.
...Until now.
"So does this mean that Linux users couldn't see Windows shares until just now?"
No, it just meant that non-geeks couldn't use them without a lot of hand-holding or obnoxious manual reading, logging in as root, and never forget, The Typing Of The Arcane Commands ("Can't I have just a *little* peril?").
I guess they could always have done The Abasement To And Begging Of The Smarmy Elitist Linux Weenies, Keepers Of That Which Is Tediously Arcane For No Good Reason.
But then, who really has the time to travel to the retro gothic temple in Finland?
I guess you really don't get the idea that most people not only don't know about computers, but they would just as soon not have to learn any more than they have to to get by?
-- Terry
Something that doesn't require KDE or Gnome to patch it's many shortcomings
I know this is the mandatory blast directed towards the desktop as currently implemented on Linux. I see it happening here fairly often, maybe even from you, I haven't tracked who generates them.
The combination of X and a window manager (like KDE or GNOME) is the user interface. KDE doesn't "patch" X any more than the window manager in windows patches the GDI, they perform different functions, at different levels, in the user interface.
I believe you are really saying that you wish the setup process for the user interface was simpler. That is a matter of the software used to configure it, more than a function X and KDE. If you look at the current versions of Linux that are about to be released, I think you will find things are rapidly improving.
As far as X, there are reasons why many people like having X around. Corporate support people probably like being able to open X on their desktop and bring up what's happening on a server at the other side of the country, just like they were there. The next big expansion of Linux is going to be on Corporate desktops, rather than on home users machines. Linux, with X, KDE, GNOME, and everything else included, is a relatively easy system for the support people to deal with, even remotely. This is what will sell Linux on the corporate level, not yet another GUI interface.
If you don't like things the way they are now, go organize a project to create a new Linux desktop. If all you have to say is the current one is bad, with no reasons as to why it is, then maybe you should keep quiet.
I'm currently running Windows XP and Suse 7.2. It has KDE 2 and Gnome 1-something. I'd like to install a more recent Linux distro (Suse or otherwise). I'm a fairly new Linux user. I'd also like to download it for free.
Which one should I choose?
Majority of US college students on the Net
I used OS/2 for years. IT was a nightmare. I had a service contract with IBM (extra but cheap). I set up dual monitor which OS/2 supported (poorly) - when the VGA screen came up the 8514 froze. IBM never did fix that problem.
XGA apparently solved dual screen. I was never able to find XGA video cards that would work in my clone dispite several calls to IBM tech support.
The single message queue problem was to the best of my knowledge never solved - hense the machine locked up quite often.
There were dosen's of trouble calls for this that and the other. Most of this I could have fixed myself if it was documented. Little things - like changing the domain of the system.... I even have the red books for OS/2 and subscribed to the OS/2 developers network. Nothing in there how to change even a domain name. I gave up and just used the numerical IP address. Well - the HDD crashed about 2 years ago and good riddence.
Now - those trouble calls. I lost HOURS on hold. The intake operators asked the same stupid questions over and over for 3 years. These people were not even able to set up a database with a phone number index. Even Sears can do that - but apparently not IBM.
How much memory - how much disk - what make of disk - what kind of video card and so on. Stoopid questions that had nothing to do with the problem. 3/4 of what was in config.sys was a mystery including the "undocumented" video configuration I ran with "undocumented" parameters that brought my dual head system up - complements from a senior tech from Boca Raton.
Oh the nightmare. I offered to WRITE a utilty for them to spin through the HDD and spit out version numbers and config info so we didn't have to wait on hold. This _could_ have been popped into an email. Nope - sit and wait on hold. Arrghh.
OS/2 failed because IBM never fixed the problems. OS/2 failed because IBM spent huge sums of money on intake operators that wasted people's time. A simple little file in the machine that the installer created that carries config and version info - simple things like placing the amount of memory, HDD size, drivers loaded and so on - things that could be emailed to the response tech were never done.
When I switched to NT4.0 (which has its own problems) it was like a breath of fresh air. NT even runs the text mode OS/2 apps (like Breif for OS/2) better than OS/2 ever did.
How long will it last...I bet they will be gone in half a year or so (but I said this before - maybe they have too much money to burn before they die?)
WOW, so they offer SMB access now!! Oh wait, that is a screenshot of KDE 3.something - any recent Linux installation has that out of the box - I just checked and even mine has it (it works out of the box if you have samba+kde-base installed!)
They managed to compile wine as well!! Great! I mean, maybe my mother couldn't do that, but I bet Mandrake/Redhat/SuSE all have some easy 'install Wine' button somewhere around in their package tool.
Then I'm not even beginning to talk about their continuing blatant and I mean like *B-L-A-T-A-N-T* GPL violations.
As someone else remarked already: this company is a lawsuit (or rather: a lot of lawsuits) waiting to happen. If they don't die all by themselves first, that is - so far it looks like noone takes them seriously enough to even sue them.
Every expression is true, for a given value of 'true'
It's easy to browse Windows shares in Gnome too. You can just type 'SMB:' as a location into Nautilus and you'll get a view of the Windows 'Network Neighborhood'.
Has anyone read the eula? Since when did CPU stand for "Computer Processing Unit"?
Lindows EULA(Section 1.1.b regarding per seat licencing)
You'd think people trying to make Linux more mainstream would know what a damn CPU is!
-snevine
Yes sir! I agree I will install this software to my CPU and only to my CPU!
They should have included Gaim. It supports almost every IM protocol out there and it has a minimal interface making it simple to use.
...the source code?
They charge for access to their suppository. $99, actually.
Sounds like a good reason not to use them.
I looked all over their website. The fact that this is true is only mentioned IN PASSING in a section NOT related to their suppository (which they call Click-N-Run). Its also mentioned here.
Also, from what I've read, their support sucks, and they don't have any available downloads. They have an explaination here.
While legal (I think?), these seem like dirty tricks; they're more expensive than any other distribution with these additions. Its like they're trying to become the next Microsoft, but with the upgrade system that Microsoft wish it used.
I was hoping to switch recommended brands, but I guess I'll keep telling all the newbies to start with Mandrake until they could be weaned to more solid food.
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
the reason this isn't for public consumption yet (i.e. free) is that they haven't figured out a legal loophole yet that will allow them to break the GPL to ship their crap.
at least this is my understanding, from what i've read on their site only. if i'm wrong, please correct.
otherwise, someone please tell me how they're selling this legally outside their "beta testers" in the group thing?
interesting. I was thinking of downloading knoppix to burn and give out to people. I have an HP internal 8x IDE burner (8100i or something like that). Got it in summer 2000. Would that be too old and unable to burn it?
(Lest someone just say "download it and try it", it would be nice to save the bandwidth if it won't work!)
Linux can replace Windows as long as it talks to and behaves just like it.
Call me a troll if ya like, but I think this is exactly the right thing to do in order to dethrone Windows.
However, be warned: Linux can't endlessly play catch-up to Windows. In order to make Linux PREFERRED over Windows it'll have to evolve to a point that it is substantially different. Wish I had an answer as to what direction to take there, but I don't. (hey! At least I'm honest!)
Here's a thought, though: Why not make a simple distro of Linux designed specifically for making a PVR out of an old computer? That alone would get me started playing with, and I'm about as hard core of Windows user as anybody can be!
"Derp de derp."
Someone explain to me how they can do a v2.0 release without adhering to the GPL and making a free download?
-- Tino Didriksen
Well said. Thanks for sustaining my faith in humanity.
> I love the idea, but not educating new
:)
> users about what exactly they are
> buying seems very misleading. I can
> see the mindless drones going:
>
> "Windows computer, $899"
>
> "Lindows computer, $399"
>
> Lindows says it runs some
>"Microsoft Windows Compatible"
> software, and it is cheaper...
> I'll go for that one.
Yeah, but after you figure out that Lindows sucks, you can format the drive and install Win 98 SE on it. Your total savings: $500.00.
And yes, that savings price did figure in the price of Windows, too.
Usurper_ii
Ron Paul
I counted 4(!) different widget sets in the screenshots; no two applications look anything alike.
I see differnt ones for QT, StarOffice and XUL, and a custom one for the MP3 player.
How can you sell something so inconsistent?
-ShieldWolf
just = (My)Opinion.toCents();
Lindows.. they sure seem like the Microsoft of the linux world bah
I'm never going to achieve Nirvana with my Karma
Fuck you!
No, fuck YOU!!
NO, FUCK YOU!!!
NOOO, FUCK YOOOOUUU!!!!!
Give me a fuckin' break, you losers, and get back to lookin' for a fuckin' job!!!!!!!
Read the GPL.
OMG they're violating the GPL! How dare they!
Of course, you would only say that if you knew little if anything about the GPL.
Can lindows not release the source to ppl who haven't bought their product? Yes.
From the GPL faq:
'If I distribute GPL'd software for a fee, am I required to also make it available to the public without a charge?
No. However, if someone pays your fee and gets a copy, the GPL gives them the freedom to release it to the public, with or without a fee. For example, someone could pay your fee, and then put her copy on a web site for the general public. '
So by FSF's own admission, lindows is not violating their GPL agreement. They're only required to give source to those individuals to whom they destribute binaries.
Wow, version 2.0 after just a few months. Debian only just made it to 3.0 after, what, 5 years? So I predict Debian will soon be rendered obsolete by Lindows :)
Compare the two =)
--- No, english is not my mother tongue.
eat shit you balogne eater
Every heard of MS SFU?
it allows you to browse windows NFS shares.
you can also get clients for filesystems like AFS.
wow these people just keep lowering their standards. last i checked samba mapped your entire window network.
Caveat, I have only used a beta version of Lindoews. That said the 'based on Xandros' logo was part of the splash screen. Xandros is the code from Corel Linux, once thought to be ver 3.0. AFAIKT Lindows has packaged existing code into a package they 'market' as something visionary. It is only marketing. If you want the real Samba integration with KDE, for example, it is copyrighted by Corel/Xanros. Wine integration, to expensive since Lindows can't do the work themselves & would have to pay CodeWeavers for a 'better version'.
IMHO I don't see any contribution to GNU/Linux from this offering.
Greg
Sun StarOffice 6.0* can view and edit Microsoft Excel®, Word®, and PowerPoint® documents - and save them in their native format.
Really? If you're writing a grocery list maybe. This kind of hair-splitting is the source of "irrational exuberance".
.... Has been in kde for sometime now using the klisa thingie which bases in the smbclient idea (userspace samba client, no mounting required)....
If its the mapping "feature" (utterly stupid i think), you have allways been able to bookmark a smb share from nautilus (with the VFS support) or klisa+konqueror.
NO SIG
You're not looking very hard.
I'm downloading the ISO now and I didn't have any
problems and don't remember seeing any adverts
along the way.
I was hoping they would find a better way to run the system rather than running under root... is it still like that in version 2.0? I submitted a question to their FAQ..
Slashdot community, please notice: I am looking for a girlfriend.
Nave H. Weiss
Why would Microsoft want to implement something that so few people would use, from their competition no less?
Fuck you! No, fuck YOU!! NO, FUCK YOU!!! NOOO, FUCK YOOOOUUU!!!!! Give me a fuckin' break, you losers, and get back to lookin' for a fuckin' job!!!!!!!
:-)
NOOO, FUCK YOOOOUUU!!!!!
KDE already comes with a neally nice browser for SMB, NFS, FTP and web shares called lisa. It seems none of the distribution makers have removed it, but non of them have bothered writing an initscript for it and turning it on.
You can already browse the network easily in, say, Red Hat 7.3 if you create your own initscript - its really slick. But most people who need these kinds of apps won't do that because they can't be bothered (and why should they have to be?).
If you want this to be fixed, then maybe add a supporting comment to
Bug 72114 - Reslisa needs an initscript
Is there any emulator that can run OSX? Anything?
Slashdot community, please notice: I am looking for a girlfriend.
Nave H. Weiss
Please, don't do the "whine whine I'm not a troll" line if you aren't even going to bother to check your facts. The combination of being intentionally inflammatory and forgetting to check your facts makes you a troll whenther you like it or not.
Allow me to correct your ignorance: I saw this functionality for the first time in a KDE installation in 1999. That's right, it's been around for _three_ _years_. If you really don't know anything about Linux, comment on it _carefully_.
And as a little reminder, the command line exists so that system functions can be automated through scripts. Also note that command-line access to SMB shares has been a part of Windows since WFW 3.11. The Lan Manager syntax is a lot less flexible, though.
( ) Johnkatz
(**) Taco
( ) Micheal
( ) Timothy
( ) Hemos
( ) Pudge
( ) ChrisD
( ) Roblimo
( ) Jamie
( ) Cowboyneal
Muhahhahaha !!!!
No wonder Linux isn't ready for the desktop. Only a few more development branches to go..
Ok. I've been against Lindows for, well, as long as I've known about them. They seem to me to be a wolf-in-sheep's clothing, and I'm more than sick of hearing about that stupid rebranded apt-get, as well as the rebranded KDE software.
But, those screenshots look nice. I would not recommend this distro to any of my buddies, but I'm thinking about trying to grab some of that artwork from the ISO... In particular, the Netscape theme is good in that neon-ish sort of way, and the kicker icons are nice too.
I was able to solve all my mounting problem using
sudo. One can set things up so that a normal user
can mount particular drives, etc., with one click of the mouse (or one command).
Microsoft did sue OpenGL because they claimed that OpenGL included some things in OpenGL 2.0 that appear in DirectX, some very generic things too (sorry, I can't quite remember them).
This page was generated by a Barrel of Circus Midgets, and that is the way I like it!!!
By default it does not use FAT16/32. That means that normal partioning(FDISK) will not work if you decide to remove.
What does the file system have to do with partitioning?
This is true, but so is the original poster's comment (essentially). Have you ever tried to delete Linux partitions with DOS Fdisk? It doesn't work. You either have to snag yourself a copy of BigFdisk, or boot into Linux to get rid of them.
"...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
Dammit. I hope they don't get sued for building a browser into the OS!
99$ to -download- a system that is 99.9% based on free software ? :) give me a break :)
I disagree wholeheartedly. KDE and Gnome are at least as good as Windows from a usability standpoint. If a user finds them more difficult to use, it's usually due to simple unfamiliarity, not genuine usability. Users are often just accustomed to Windows (or Mac), and run into trouble when something isn't where they expect it to be. But working from a clean slate, Windows *is not* better, just different. In tests I've done (clean slate), I've found KDE has a slight but real usability edge over Windows. And if a distribution has included some nice admin tools, like Mandrake has, users find it easier navigating Linux for the first time, than Win 2k for the first time. That's a much fairer comparison. So quit using Windows as the golden reference implementation for everything. There are better ways of doing things, so let's break our old habits, instead of perpetuating them.
Not the best marketing scheme- "Lindows. The Wal-Mart operating system." This isn't the future of Linux - programmers bending over backwards for Microsoft in their barely open-source operating system. It won't last.
Anyone else notice that this popped up right after the article about Sun selling Linux PCs? Given how quickly the Lindows brand name is establishing itself, I think Sun would do well to drop Red Hat and move to Lindows for their PCs.
Could you please also explain what to do after the install is finished with, say, Mandrake? I mean by that security. With Windows, there's antivirus stuff and firewalls and things you just learn to do. Every time I have tried RedHat or Mandrake, I have been hacked into within hours or, my longest, days. So I end up going back to Windows. Then I try again, because I just love Linux...
Your explanations were so clear, if you don't mind explaining that part, I'll leap off the boat one more time and try to stay afloat.
I use Lindows. Got 2.0.0 installed today.
It finally got me off Microsoft. Sorry, there are just some apps for me that won't run in Linux so I have to reboot sometime. =
If anyone has a bible program with Greek support, NAU version, and all the study tools of BibleWorks or similar tools that is open source, let me know.
BibleWorks runs under Lindows. And I know all of you think that I should be able to run it under wine on mandrake or whatever, but I don't have time to mess with configuring Mandrake or Redhat or whatever all the time.
I can compile, I compile for work all the time. I do IDS on Linux, I maintain Bind on HPUX, etc...I don't want to spend my time at home going through trying to compile the software I want. I'd rather pay 99 bucks to have someone do it for me and get it working.
That is why Lindows appeals to me.
1. They are obviously commited to getting PC manufacters to install it on store bought PeeCees, hence the Walmart deals. I'm certain we'll see many others doing the same thing, like Staples and CC.
2. They seem to have beaten almost everyone else to the punch with their desktop friendliness and usability (this is an assumption, as I have not used it).
3. They seem to have a better marketing dept. than the other Linux dists combined.
All these factors will eventually add up to success. The other Linux dists had better start concentrating on building a desktop that a five year old could use, or Lindows may very well take this market.
It's netscape who is comming with AIM, and Lindows comming with NS, not Lindows comming with AIM.
GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
Lindows is just a way of making money off of linux. It is basically a linux with KDE. You can do everything in Red Hat 7.3 that you can with lindows 2...I would prefer the Red Hat as they have worked on it longer...blah lindows, just another way to spell microsoft.
The Monkey Man Speaks!
"Why don't you find out yourself?"
Last I heard, it's called "learning from other peoples mistakes". Agreed, this is probably the wrong place to be asking opinions, but playing the "Gee which OS should I pick today" game isn't something you just want to take potshots at or 'hop straight over to'. I mean really, I'd be asking questions too, especially if Windows were my only background. I've heard of some of the fun you can have installing Linux and it's variants, ranging from fairly easy to extra gooey, let alone some other OS that 90% of the public probably hasn't even heard of. Cut the guy some slack.
You need a FREE iPod Nano
Nothing like a primadonna attitude to start the day off right. Of course, another name for primadonnas of any sort, whether they be sysadmins, software engineers or Linux fanboys is "bitch" which seems to fit aptly.
Troll? Flame? No doubt you'll be modding parent down as well, right? Oh... I see...
You need a FREE iPod Nano
This is the kind of response a newbie to the platform needs, not some dribbling shit like "go back and worship Gates" or "I think I'll indirectly imply that since you use M$ products you can't be intelligent enough to make the switch". I think for most people it's a "time versus effort" issue-- "Do I want to take the time out of my already busy life to learn an entirely new OS and is it really worth the effort to do so?", not "Duh, what's a floppy disk and why can't i fit Quake 3 onto it?"* Lordcorusa, you deserve every one of those mod points for that genuinly intelligent response.
* We actually had a 'tech' (who had gotten his job through a good-ol-boy connection) that didn't know the first thing about anything. how to drag and Drop, copy and paste, etc. At one point, he was actually dragging game icons onto the floppy disk drive, thinking he was getting the entire thing to play at home... We suffered.
You need a FREE iPod Nano
OK, let us count:
1. "LindowsOS(TM) has been optimized to run certain Microsoft® Windows "bridge" programs. So far, Microsoft® Office 2000 applications like Microsoft® Word, Microsoft® Excel and PowerPoint® have been certified to run under LindowsOS." OK, so we CAN run MSO on Lindows. But:
2. "Even if you don't have a copy of Microsoft Office, (...) To edit Microsoft Office compatible files (...) such as StarOffice(TM) or OpenOffice."
Just great. Of course we are stupid enough to not to use StarOffice or OpenOffice on Windows, or we are so stupid, that we cannot figue out we can have some other distro and Star/Open-Office FOR FREE. Because now there is not so many other Windows Sims^H^H^H^Happs we can run on Lindows.
Of course, opinion is like ass - everyone has its own one.
Yes, but it won't run on x86.
Slashdot community, please notice: I am looking for a girlfriend.
Nave H. Weiss
this product turned out to be a big disapointment. it was supposed to run Windows apps. actual apps like Office.
but it instead it is just another linux distro with it's only differentiating factor being that it looks like windows(and the website was downloaded from apple.com and slightly edited for content).
it has a cadre of windows-like apps that sound like basically using stripped down versions of the originals. it does include StarOffice, but that is the work of others, does not apply to whether Lindows itself is any good.
it is not the project it started out to be, but the company is trying to pretend that this is just a change of the business plan and not the failure to meet most of it's goals that it really is.
i'd just as soon use KDE and Open, or Star, Office. I can't see a reason for it to exist other than it is a pretty good package of some alternative technologies to windows.
but that app subscription thing sounds lame, and is this thing going to match LSB standards?
i think we have enough Linux distros.
Evil is the money of all root....
Such as retraining all your employees to use StarOffice or OpenOffice. If you think they'll just adapt, you obviously don't spend enough time with ordinary people.