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!"
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?
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
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.
> 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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Re:Misleading?
by
pete-classic
·
· Score: 4, Funny
I've always wanted to see something like "Absolutely, positively 100% compatible. Only better."
*cough* OS/2 *cough*
And before that DR-DOS.
-Peter
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.
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.
>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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Someone please mod me down off topic and mod the AC above up!
-Peter
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
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: 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
Eloquence
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
1) What's your relationship with Michael Robertson, given that you are working together on the Sincere Choice project?
2) Have you talked to him about the "always running as root" issue? That's a big security risk that puts Lindows on the same level as Windows 95.
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 `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.
PS. You're a rude fuckwit.
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.
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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;]
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
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
moonbender
·
· Score: 2
Yep, 3 out of those 4 would make installing this a pain or even impossible. Fortunately, I didn't even try.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
FooBarWidget
·
· Score: 2
Rest in ignorance and unbelief.
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
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.
-- Karma: Non-Heinous
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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!"
"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.
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.
"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!
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?
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?
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!
"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.
"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.
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?
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.
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?
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: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?
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:)
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:)
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.
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".
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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!!
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
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
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.
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?"
...
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
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.
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.
Extraordinary Vacations. Exceptional Prices
Everything has a EULA, these days.
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
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
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;
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.
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.
What you said is true, in my experience.
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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?
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.
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 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();
You have to pay Lindows for a license before you get the source code. Doesn't this violate the GPL?
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
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.
WindowsXP Home OEM is actually what most consumers have.
It's what, for example, Dell, Compaq/HP, IBM, gateway, etc.. bundle with their consumer line of PC's.
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".
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
Yes, Lindows.com has always made source available to those who they distribute the bianaries to.
And now I start wondering. Why haven't any of these persons made the sources available for download on some website?
Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?
Doesn't this violate the GPL?
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.
Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?
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
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 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.
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.
"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
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.