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!"
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?"
-- ...
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: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: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.
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.
Slashdot Mirror
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?"
...
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...
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.
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.
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.