Slashdot Mirror


Which Desktop Distro Will Die First?

Over at NewsForge, Roblimo asks the musical question of which of the several recently released "desktop oriented" Linux distributions won't survive the coming year. It's nice to see user-centric distributions at all, but it really is a niche market for now. Apropos that, psykocrime writes "The fine folks at UnitedLinux have issued a Press Release announcing UnitedLinux 1.0. Should be interesting to see whether this sinks or swims, considering the general ambivalence (at best) or even outright hostility (at worst) that most of the talk about United Linux has met, from the Linux community. Questions about GPL compliance, per-set licensing terms, etc... is this the future or Linux or just another albatross?" And J. J. Ramsey writes "BeyondUnreal reviews not only Xandros Desktop's installation, but also shows what this distro's $99 price tag actually gets you. Read more here. LinuxPlanet also has an in-depth review of its own."

512 comments

  1. Easy answer by Adam9 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Lindows. If they have any success in 2003, Micro$oft will just sue them into oblivion. If they fail during 2003, Micro$oft will just laugh at them and label them as the Open Source failure. If they break even.. they'll probably just sue anyways to get it over with.

    1. Re:Easy answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      If Lindows is successful, look for other innovative Linux distros like "Smindows" and "Blindows".

    2. Re:Easy answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah!

    3. Re:Easy answer by bstadil · · Score: 5, Informative
      Micro$oft will just sue them into oblivion

      They already did and lost so far, what more as a result the name Windows as a trademark for MS' OS might not be protected. Lindows might be doing us all a favor.

      --
      Help fight continental drift.
    4. Re:Easy answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      If any of those distributions are successful, then we might start seeing Linix, Jinux, and Minix... oh wait.

    5. Re:Easy answer by GravySkin · · Score: 0

      Oh, and you forgot. If they actually make money, the OSS community will disown them.

      --
      "never met a Microsoft zealot"
    6. Re:Easy answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, I have a question for all you open source nuts out there. If I take an open source project and modify it and sell it for money without releasing the source for my changes, what is going to happen?

      A) Would anybody try to sue me. If so, who, and how the hell do they get the money to.

      Or...

      B) Would RMS take me to court himself? If so, I like my odds because no judge is going to take that guy seriously when they see him in person in the courtroom.

    7. Re:Easy answer by e_n_d_o · · Score: 3

      Micro$oft will just sue them into oblivion

      They already did and lost


      Did they acutally lose the case or just their request for injunctive relief?

    8. Re:Easy answer by bleckywelcky · · Score: 3, Insightful


      Does anyone else notice that Lindows is trying to get around the "free" idea of the GPL by citing the section that states:

      "You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee."

      And then proceding to charge you the entire retail cost for the product (that you would normally have to pay in order to get the full package with support and everything)? Everytime you end up at some FAQ or help portion of their site talking about the GPL, they always refer you to the page that sells the "Insider" version of Lindows for a $299 membership fee. Unless there is someplace buried further down in their site where you can download Lindows, I see them as ruining the idea of having the software freely available. I can't hardly imagine that it costs them $299 for the bandwidth you use to download Lindows, or the $129 at the regular retail subscription page.

      Where is the page to order and download a $5 version in order to pay their bandwidth and server upkeep costs? I don't see it. Where is the page to order just the CDs for $10/$15? I don't see it.

    9. Re:Easy answer by MoThugz · · Score: 2

      Hell Yeah! Lindows will die because it will be replaced by (guess what) Microsoft Linux.

      ph33r M$!

    10. Re:Easy answer by dwtinkle · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I believe that Lindows is charging for some of their own technology, including their Win32 implementation. Actually the most cost efffective way to obtain a copy would be to buy a Wal-Mart PC with a version full version of the OS.

    11. Re:Easy answer by rknop · · Score: 5, Informative

      Where is the page to order and download a $5 version in order to pay their bandwidth and server upkeep costs? I don't see it. Where is the page to order just the CDs for $10/$15? I don't see it.

      The GPL doesn't require them to provide it. They're perfectly fine under the GPL only selling it for $299.

      What they can't do is stop you from giving away (or selling for $5) the copy you bought from them for $299. The GPL doesn't say anything about you having to give away your software, or about charging only what it costs to physically transfer the copy. It just says that you cannot then place any restrictions on further distribution of that GPLed software.

      -Rob

    12. Re:Easy answer by llamaluvr · · Score: 1

      haha! They keep updating that site- last year, it was coming out in November 2002 if I'm not mistaken.

      --
      Insightful: 76, Off-Topic: 379, Flamebait: 24, Funny: 152, Interesting: 201, Underrated: 55, Troll: 9, Total: 896
    13. Re:Easy answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't believe the source was included on my Walmart PC. I think there is just one OS CD.

      So how do I get the source?

    14. Re:Easy answer by dschl · · Score: 2

      From Lindows, of course. The GPL only requires that they make a copy of the source available to people to whom they distributed the software.

      Try the FSF in case you had any other questions about the GPL.

      --
      Slashdot - the place where you can look like a genius by restating the obvious
    15. Re:Easy answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course windows is not a protected trademark. Otherwise, when building a house, you would have to buy "transparent doors".

      Besides, there never was a trademark for "Windows", only for "Microsoft Windows".

    16. Re:Easy answer by i_am_nitrogen · · Score: 1

      Think about this... Michael Robertson sold MP3.com to Vivendi for a few hundred million. Even if only 10% of that went to him personally, even at as high as one million dollars a month consumed by Lindows (a very high estimate for a small company), he could fund the company out of his pocket for three years. Lindows is the least likely distribution to go first.

    17. Re:Easy answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      -1 Overrated, because this isn't insightful any way, it's once again not understanding the GPL at all. You MAY charge for copies, you may not charge beyond carrier costs for the _source code_ (many misunderstand that paragraph) and to those only who bought a binary copy from you. You may not hinder somebody to redistribute at any price he sees fit. Understand now?

    18. Re:Easy answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There has to be a link or reference in the user manual, where to get the source, thats all what the GPL requires...

    19. Re:Easy answer by Ringlord · · Score: 1

      So does this mean that I can download any distribution from their FTP server, burn it on a CD, and then sell it for $15 (or any other price)?

    20. Re:Easy answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      What they can't do is stop you from giving away (or selling for $5) the copy you bought from them for $299. The GPL doesn't say anything about you having to give away your software, or about charging only what it costs to physically transfer the copy. It just says that you cannot then place any restrictions on further distribution of that GPLed software.

      Sure they can. What they can't do is prevent you from redistributing the GPL'ed portions of their distro for any price that you want. But, they can stop you from redistributing their proprietary components, and as such, copies of the CDs.

    21. Re:Easy answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly so long as you don't abuse their trademark. If you download Mandrake and burn it, you can't sell it as Mandrake. You have to call it something else and replace the logos and Trademarks that included. In fact RedHat has made it easier with Version 8 of their software to replace the branding by using a single RPM file with all their logos and Trademarks which you can easiy replace.

    22. Re:Easy answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Exactly so long as you don't abuse their trademark. If you download Mandrake and burn it, you can't sell it as Mandrake.

      Sure you can. Cheapbytes sells a set of Mandrake distribution CDs for $6.99. Certainly a lot less than the "official" Mandrake boxed set at Best Buy. They used to sell Red Hat the same way but now it seems they renamed their pressed copies to Pink Tie. Weird. I guess Red Hat put pressure on them for cutting into their overpriced distribution and showing they could sell the exact same thing for $5. ;-) All hail the GPL!!! Mirror Red Hat or Mandrake and offer it for free for all they care.

    23. Re:Easy answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because they do it and get away with it does not mean that it is legal

    24. Re:Easy answer by ReelOddeeo · · Score: 2

      So does this mean that I can download any distribution from their FTP server, burn it on a CD, and then sell it for $15 (or any other price)?

      Maybe.

      It depends on what is on that CD.

      The GPL also allows you to put GPL software and non-free software onto the same CD. (Mere aggregation of GPL'ed works on a medium of distribution does not bring the other works on the medium under the scope of this license. Or some similar wording as I recall from reading the GPL in the previous century.)

      Therefore, if Lindows puts some proprietary work on the CD they can keep you from copying that part of the CD. Now if the proprietary work is critical to functioning of the overall distribution, then you have a problem.

      SuSE for instance has YaST. You get source, but under a restrictive license. YaST is absolutely critical to the distribution. If you didn't have YaST, then you might as well just settle for some other distribution. (Seriously.) Because of YaST, you can't sell SuSE's CD's. SuSE also does not offer downloads of their CD images. You can install SuSE for absolutely free by downloading a boot floppy, starting up YaST and installing from their FTP server. But you get no CD out of it. SuSE does allow you to make copies of CD's for a friend as long as no money at all changes hands. (Not even cost of materials.) While not perfect, this policy seems better than Lindows.

      --

      Those who would give up liberty in exchange for security and DRM should switch to Microsoft Palladium!
    25. Re:Easy answer by naChoZ · · Score: 1

      Don't forget Schmindows. That one would be worth it just to hear someone making an argument in court actually say "Windows Schmindows!"

      --
      "I can be self-referential if I want to," said Tom, swiftly.
    26. Re:Easy answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, no - FreeBSD. It has been dying for a long time already. Hadn't you heard?

      Oh, yeah - and Steven King died this morning too.

    27. Re:Easy answer by RDohnert · · Score: 1

      You dont have to worry about it, Lindows will be out of business long before Xandros and Desktop LX will be. I have tried Xandros and Lindows and Xandros is a much much better desktop distro than Lindows. Maybe one day Mikey will take a hint and figure out no one likes him and he will take his ball and go home

    28. Re:Easy answer by The+J+Kid · · Score: 1

      You forgot: "Winblows" ..oh wait...

      --
      Moderation: +4. Modded 70% Funny and 30% Overrated. 100% Saturated.
    29. Re:Easy answer by Steve+Hamlin · · Score: 2

      What they can't do is stop you from giving away (or selling for $5) the copy you bought from them for $299. The GPL doesn't say anything about you having to give away your software, or about charging only what it costs to physically transfer the copy. It just says that you cannot then place any restrictions on further distribution of that GPLed software.

      FALSE. Lindows sure CAN stop you from selling copies of their distribution.

      The GPL license only applies to specific pieces of GPLed software. The Lindows CD contains a number of packages of GPLed software. THOSE you can redistribute for $0 if you wish.

      However, Lindows has a copyright on their layout and packaging of the CD, and I would imagine that there is at least 1 package on the CD that is not GPL (ex. installer, Clinck-n-Run client, etc.) The copyrighted layout and the copyrighted, non-GPLed software allows them to disallow redistribution of unaltered copies of their CD.

      So no free copies of the Lindows CD.

      You could remove all non-GPLed software from their CD and give THAT away - the GPL, of course, allows that. But nothing in the GPL allows you to copy any CD JUST BECAUSE it has some GPLed software on it.

      See, for example, SuSE, OpenBSD

  2. It's like porn sites.... there are enough already by krog · · Score: 1, Funny

    ...so making a new one is a losing proposition. Of course making a new linux distro technically costs nothing, but paying for duplication, hosting, legal fees, etc can make it a financial nightmare if the users don't show up.

    For a pretty Linux desktop experience there's Debian; for the more seasoned Linux hackers there is Mandrake and SuSE; for the Linux newbies there's Slackware and Gentoo. Throw in a handful of system-on-a-disk and other special purpose Linuxes, and you've got a pretty full plate. Don't know if there's room for many more pretenders...

  3. The one that gets the fewest votes... by telstar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why? Because the one with the most votes already has widespread consumer awareness about its distro. The one that nobody knows about is the one that should be the most concerned.

    1. Re:The one that gets the fewest votes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So should I count that as a vote for it?

  4. What kills Linux distros by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    1. Bad marketing plans redolent of dot-bombs.

    2. Onerous licensing not in keeping with Linux's mission.

    3. Just plain bad distros.

    4. Unprofessional behavior.

    The latter will kill a company that deals in Linux very quickly, I've found, since the Linux community is very aware of a company's behavior, far more so than most other communities. If company X with distro Y is seen as "in bed with the enemy," they're going to get shunned faster than a sweet potato that's been up Rush Limbaugh's butt for safekeeping during the winter.

    Maybe this is why small companies like Slackware are still around: they cater to a specific need, they do it well, and they don't try to shoot themselves in the foot with pretentious We Need To Grow Our Business jargon/corporate newspeak.

    1. Re:What kills Linux distros by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      5. Profit?!?!?

    2. Re:What kills Linux distros by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This has to be the worst one yet, profit killing the business? Oi.

    3. Re:What kills Linux distros by nelsonal · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, its cash flow, or lack of it. A company can be unprofitable, but remain in business, but it won't last long with negative cash flow.

      --
      Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
    4. Re:What kills Linux distros by mla_anderson · · Score: 5, Funny

      they're going to get shunned faster than a sweet potato that's been up Rush Limbaugh's butt for safekeeping during the winter.

      Ok, that just ruined my day.

      --
      Sig is on vacation
    5. Re:What kills Linux distros by iomud · · Score: 2

      5. Over promise, underdeliver. See 3.

    6. Re:What kills Linux distros by jsse · · Score: 1

      4. Unprofessional behavior.

      Like....calling Microsoft Engineers are weenies and used it as an embedded password spelling backward?

    7. Re:What kills Linux distros by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      profit killing the business?

      Well, we are talking about Linux distros. As soon as one becomes profitable, the "community" will shun it.

    8. Re:What kills Linux distros by Rooktoven · · Score: 1

      OK, if you're counting, you must have missed me, so that's at least 17. Seriously, are you honestly trying to imply Slackware has harmed the "*nix" community? I didn't know being BSD-like was harmful.

      All I know is that the Slackware IRC channel is full of helpful people, the product is well documented, and for the most part Slack-users don't dis other distros so much as promote their own.

      Simplicity and stability-- it's a nice motto. I for one and quite grateful for the work Pat (and crew) have done over the years. I know I shouldn't feed the flamers, but if anything Slackware doesn't get the credit it deserves. (Buy a copy!)

      --

      Acquiescence leads to obliteration
    9. Re:What kills Linux distros by child_of_mercy · · Score: 1

      ok, explain to me how you can have postive cash flow (over time) and be unprofitable?

      --
      'There is a Light that never goes out.'
    10. Re:What kills Linux distros by T-Ranger · · Score: 2
      For example:
      1. Build a factory for $1million
      2. Monthly materials, labour, etc: $10,000
      3. Montly sales: $11,000
      4. Monthly cash flow: +$1000
      ... But you dont make a profit untill month 1000. Sometime in year 83.
    11. Re:What kills Linux distros by jonos · · Score: 1

      Make that 18! Subscriber since 3.1, tried others and kept going back - simplicity + stability sums it up.

    12. Re:What kills Linux distros by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 1

      A shitload of depreciation expense: cash flow = net income(loss) + depreciation...but that usually applies to industries that use lots of machinery and equipment.

    13. Re:What kills Linux distros by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Dont forget alot of the Linux users out there. When an article of a new distro get released, how many posts here on slashdot are there of people bagging it out. Comments range along the lines of:
      Not enough packages.
      Too restrictive in installing packages.
      Too simple to meet needs.
      Too complicated to meet needs.
      Forget that distro, what about RedHat/Suse/Debian etc.
      I dont like this, I dont like that..
      It didn't pick up my *some obscure video card*
      And dont forget the odd *Linux is dying* comments.

      I know these are personal comments, but if people sit back and look, each linux distribution is built for a particular market, also people wanting to try Linux will read these posts to get an opinion of which Linux distro is best for them. Yet, all they see is every Linux users fighting amongst each other over each distro.

      So of course linux distros are going to fail (especially desktop one) whilst everyone here on slashdot cuts each of them at the knees.

      So why dont people change their attitude, stop suffering from tunnel vision. There maybe only one distro that suits you, fine, but instead of taking the mickey out of a new one, why not compliment it, admire it. How can new users have faith in something when we dont believe in it ourselves?

    14. Re:What kills Linux distros by Corporate+Troll · · Score: 1

      You've got it the wrong way around .

    15. Re:What kills Linux distros by duck+'o+death · · Score: 1

      Ruined your day? Think about the sweet potato. Not so sweet any more ...

      --
      Don't put salt in your eyes.
    16. Re:What kills Linux distros by ReelOddeeo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Ruined your day? Think about the sweet potato. Not so sweet any more ...

      That all depends on whom you ask. You must not have ever met any jumping, cheering fans (shills?) who give applause on command. They would say that, on the contrary, this makes it even sweeter.

      This would MAKE their day. Such a potato would be rare indeed, and valued due to limited supply.

      --

      Those who would give up liberty in exchange for security and DRM should switch to Microsoft Palladium!
    17. Re:What kills Linux distros by kiolbasa · · Score: 1

      ...jumping, cheering fans (shills?) who give applause on command.

      For reference, I believe the correct term is "dittohead."

      --

      Beer wants to be free
    18. Re:What kills Linux distros by pmz · · Score: 2

      Those who would give up liberty in exchange for security and DRM should switch to Microsoft Palladium!

      What is sad is that there are many people who take their liberty for granted and won't realize what they are giving up until it is too late.

    19. Re:What kills Linux distros by mino · · Score: 1
      ok, explain to me how you can have postive cash flow (over time) and be unprofitable?
      1. Buy 10 widgets a month from your supplier at $1100/pop. Put them on your account.
      2. Sell 10 widgets a month for $1000/pop, cash only.
      3. ????
      4. LOSS!!!

      You're taking in $10K a month cash, with no cash outflows = $10K/month positive cash flow. You're racking up $11K a month in expenses though, which is a $1K/month loss. You're just letting debt build up, rather than cash reserves go down.

      (incidentally, three years ago, you could have IPOd on that business plan)

    20. Re:What kills Linux distros by nelsonal · · Score: 1

      Even more demoralizing is:

      Day 1. Buy 10 widgets @900 each. Terms of net 15.
      Day 5. Sell 10 widgets on credit @ 1000 each. Terms of net 30.
      Day 6. Order more 10 more widgets @ $900 each. Terms net 15.
      Day 15. Pay employees ($500) and suppliers ($9000).
      Day 17. Sell 10 more widgets @$1000 each. Terms net 30.
      Day 18. Order 10 more widgets for an additional $10,000.
      Day 21. Pay suppliers $9000.
      Day 30. Pay employees $500.
      At the end of the month you have made $1000 profit. You sold 20 widgets for $20,000 that only cost $18,000 and employee cost was only $1000. But you have paid out all of the $19,000 in expenses without collecting a dime. You are profitable, but don't have any cash flow. Think about what happens if a customer can't pay on time, you might collect some interest or penalties, but it could well bankrupt you. Its worse for most manufacturers. Just think if in the next month you sell 100 widgets. That is what kills most small businesses, they usually know enough about business to remain profitable, but because most business sales happen on credit, and you usually have to pay your suppiers first, because you have to have something to sell it, you face negative cash flow while your sales are growing.
      Besides depriciation and other non-cash expenses, the alternative way to show losses but be cash flow positive is to have declining sales, but collect on your old recievables or lower inventory levels. Lucent and Nortel both were in this situation in 2001.

      --
      Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
  5. A dozen new Corel's by altoidsman · · Score: 0

    Anyone here remember the fate of Corel linux?

    'Nuff said.

    1. Re:A dozen new Corel's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. They were purchased by another company.
      2. ????
      3. Profit?

  6. Some People Just Dont Get it by halo8 · · Score: 1

    Why Ill (almost) never switch to linux "It's nice to see user-centric distributions at all, but it really is a niche market for now"
    Yes.. your right.. it is a niche market.. one that Microsoft currently has a monopoly one

    --
    The More Knowledge you have the Luckier you Get- J.R. Ewing
    1. Re:Some People Just Dont Get it by xenode · · Score: 1

      So you'll never switch to it because currently it's a niche market?

    2. Re:Some People Just Dont Get it by halo8 · · Score: 1

      Yes.. you are correct

      I will only switch when a user-centric distribution of linux becomes the mass market

      Please see my Other Comments

      --
      The More Knowledge you have the Luckier you Get- J.R. Ewing
  7. I predict that Debian will die first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    It has far too many license issues :)
    The package quality is too high :)
    It seems to have files in sane locations :)
    You can upgrade to the latest version far too easily
    It supports far too many archs :)
    The swirl logo has lost its hypnotic appeal...

    1. Re:I predict that Debian will die first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are you, a troll?

    2. Re:I predict that Debian will die first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention that it's way overpriced

    3. Re:I predict that Debian will die first by MyHair · · Score: 2

      The swirl logo has lost its hypnotic appeal...

      I do hate that swirl. And the name "Debian" is just stupid to me. But other than that this distro keeps me happy.

      I'm afraid Xandros might be the first to fall next year. I'm completely uninformed, but Xandros is trying to make money and is not well known AFAIK. Too bad, because from what I hear this is exactly what a lot of newbies would want: some of the proprietary media add-ins included.

    4. Re:I predict that Debian will die first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I forgot that, and those Debian people don't take American Express.

    5. Re:I predict that Debian will die first by madpuppy · · Score: 0, Troll

      he's being funny, stupid......

    6. Re:I predict that Debian will die first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What kind of a name is Xandros, anyway? It sounds like a male potency supplement advertised in the back of Penthouse or something.

    7. Re:I predict that Debian will die first by morgajel · · Score: 2, Interesting

      at least debian is easy to figure out how to pronounce:)

      before you call me stupid, read this
      to quote:
      "...as Purdue undergraduate Ian Murdock flipped through a Unix magazine...[stuff]...fusing his first name with that of his girlfriend Debra, Murdock founded what would become Linux's most popular non-commercial distribution -- Debian GNU/Linux."

      so that's deb[ra]Ian...
      not Deebian..

      (and for the record, I do use debian as a desktop os for my desktop, my laptop, and my girlfriend's desktop)

      --
      Looking for Book Reviews? Check out Literary Escapism.
    8. Re:I predict that Debian will die first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sounds like a new brand of condoms or spermicidal jelly to me

    9. Re:I predict that Debian will die first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hell yeah I was. It just gets lost on some people.

  8. Re:It's like porn sites.... there are enough alrea by handsomepete · · Score: 2, Funny

    "For a pretty Linux desktop experience there's Debian; for the more seasoned Linux hackers there is Mandrake and SuSE; for the Linux newbies there's Slackware and Gentoo"

    I can't wait to see how this one turns out... if saying that Slack and Gentoo are for newbies doesn't pull people out of the woodwork, nothing will.

  9. ReiserFS by kungfuBreaks · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Hmmm...The writer of the UnrealTournament article gripes that Xandros uses ReiserFS as the default file system, instead of ext3, which is journaled. But isn't ReiserFS journaled as well, and faster to boot? I don't know much about Reiser, that's just what I heard.

    1. Re:ReiserFS by xenode · · Score: 1

      You are correct, ReiserFS is journalized.

    2. Re:ReiserFS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      They're both proven, reliable, and fast. Reiser is a bit faster and more efficient. Ext3 is good for backwards compatibility: you can switch an ext3 filesystem to ext2 and back. Reiser is based on a very advanced balanced tree algorithm, which gives it fast speeds and very efficient of small and large files. I.e., files less than a kilobyte don't use a 4k block like they would on an ext3 filesystem. They use exactly their size plus the space needed in the address tree. Reiser 4 is very incredible: files can be directories, so things like ACL's and UNIX permissions are stored in actual files! Reiser is also so efficient it can be used as a database! So it would make sense to choose ReiserFS as it is much more advanced than Ext3/2, and even JFS and XFS.

    3. Re:ReiserFS by numark · · Score: 1

      Yup, it's journalized. However, I seem to remember some issues about the fact that ReiserFS's filesystem can be easily corrupted by certain bugs in the implementation of the journalling feature. Ext3 has the advantage of being merely ext2 + a journalling layer in the form of a file. You can convert ext2 ext3 as many times as you want, and still have a valid partition. ReiserFS's only benefit to its name is that it is considered stable in the kernel, whereas ext3 is still labeled unstable (at least when I last compiled the kernel, I don't do it very often).

      --
      Want Slashdot headlines on your site? Try SlashHead
    4. Re:ReiserFS by numark · · Score: 1

      Erm...one of the last lines should read "You can convert from ext2 <-> ext3 as many times as you want."

      --
      Want Slashdot headlines on your site? Try SlashHead
    5. Re:ReiserFS by BrookHarty · · Score: 2

      I'll stick with EXT3, Too many things are EXT2 based, windows drivers for EXT2 partions and Norton Ghost can backup EXT2 partitions. EXT3 gets no respect...

    6. Re:ReiserFS by kiwi-matgar · · Score: 1

      Thats not entirely true. The problem many people had was ReiserFS and buggy chipsets, such as those from VIA.

      Having used both ext3fs, JFS and ReiserFS, stability depends not only on the quality of the code, but the hardware itself.

    7. Re:ReiserFS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
      Well yes ResierFS is journaled, but not in the same ways the ext3 can be journaled. ResierFS only journals meta-data whereas ext3 can journal data as well as meta-data.

      Ext3 actually has "four" modes to it:

      • Unjournaled (ext2)
      • full journaling (meta-data and data) which is called 'journal'
      • 'ordered' which only journals meta-data but groups meta-data and data together in ordered logical blocks which is fast than 'journal' but doesn't have the complete protection that 'journal' has
      • 'writeback' - which is what XFS, JFS, and Resiser do (meta-data only)
    8. Re:ReiserFS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, ReiserFS wasn't very stable with earlier 2.4.x kernels, but ext3 support in the stock kernel didn't even exist back then. As of now, ReiserFS is rock stable and a very good performer.

    9. Re:ReiserFS by ibennetch · · Score: 1

      It will even wash your car while you sleep!

      seriously though; what are the advantages to this statement that was made:

      Reiser 4 is very incredible: files can be directories, so things like ACL's and UNIX permissions are stored in actual files!

    10. Re:ReiserFS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How can one file system conflict with bad hardware? The block layer communicating with the hardware is still the same, so if there was a problem here, all filesystems would have problems. How about crashing hardware? Shouldn't reisers journalling feature protect you from that? So, where is the problem?

    11. Re:ReiserFS by Seeker5528 · · Score: 1

      Ext3 seems more robust to me.

      Most times I have had to reset my machine I have seen a message about replaying the journal which happens quickly the machine continues to boot and everything is fine. 1 or 2 times I have had to enter runlevel 1 and run fsck.

      On my other machine that uses ReiserFS about %20 of the time (give or take) I have to boot from my installation CD enter recovery mode and repair the file system from there.

      Later, Seeker

    12. Re:ReiserFS by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 2

      Not quite accurate. I think the ReiserFS bugs in the earlier 2.4 kernels was due to the vastly different algorithms they used exposing obscure bugs in the kernel itself, as well as buggy chipsets. Those kernel bugs seem to have largely been shaken out now, and RFS is pretty solid.

    13. Re:ReiserFS by Simon+Lyngshede · · Score: 1

      If an error in the hardware mean that the algorithms in the filesystem software, miscalculate something, all the journaling in the world is not going to save you. Because of the complexity of the algorithms in ReiserFS it becomes more vulnerable to errors in hardware or driver, or at least that how I understand it.

      One example from the namesys FAQ:
      Q: Why do I get a signal 11 when compiling the kernel using ReiserFS and not ext2?

      A:Your CPU is overheating or you have bad RAM.

      On the other hand I used ReiserFS for 3 years now, never had a problem.... Well once, I did't read the manual and thought I understood what "Rebuild Tree" did. Im not impressed with Ext3, sure you got more recovery tools and backward compability (Are you sure you want that ?). Haven't tried XFS or JFS, but for now Im sticking with ReiserFS.

    14. Re:ReiserFS by AKnightCowboy · · Score: 1

      The problem is, last I checked EXT3 is too much like EXT2, including a 2GB file size limitation which ReiserFS (or XFS, JFS for that matter) doesn't have. If you're starting to play with huge DivX movies or digital video then it becomes an issue. Especially now that drives of over 180GB are readily available this 2GB file size limit is archaic. Has that been overcome recently or are there any plans to fix this or is the limitation just too ingrained in the file system to change without breaking things?

    15. Re:ReiserFS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm, more advanced than JFS and XFS.
      I'll concede your Reiser versus EXT3
      statements, but "and even JFS and XFS"
      is the sum total of you comparison of
      them to Reiser. What is the basis for that
      conclusion?

      http://www.pingouin.org/linux/fsbench/

    16. Re:ReiserFS by puppetluva · · Score: 2

      You probably have a bad disk. I haven't had a problem like that ever, and I've run reiser on about twenty machines over the last 3 years.

    17. Re:ReiserFS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I concur.

    18. Re:ReiserFS by Laroue · · Score: 1

      don't forget the other ext3 feature.
      The lack of the undelete function.

      --
      #### ## Laroue ####
    19. Re:ReiserFS by fferreres · · Score: 2

      Unlimited directory metadata, as my naive first sight interpretation. I think it will be very usefull for Databases, security (finegrained security of directories, like telling extactly how, what and in what situation certain user has rights in the directory), amongh many other possible uses.

      --
      unfinished: (adj.)
  10. dont bother by exspecto · · Score: 0, Troll

    do you really think it matters if us end-users dislike people like United Linux? dont you realize that they only have to sell it to the corporate execs? so if its flasy enough, and at the right price, it doesnt matter what we think. raise your hand if your business' software was chosen by accounting or some other department that knows nothing about the actual need you have...

    thought so

  11. Re:It's like porn sites.... there are enough alrea by volsung · · Score: 3, Informative

    I think you swapped around all of the distro descriptions. I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to sort them out. :)

  12. Dumb... by powerlinekid · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I just want to make a couple of points here...
    #1) A linux distro doesn't die or disappear. I'll get flamed to hell for this but look at slackware. Its percentage of installed user's has dwindled and so has its development. However, the users it has are very dedicated (and vocal) and it is a good system. I'd imagine the same may spring up for any one of these "desktop" distros.

    #2) Why don't they all merge? They all are obviously trying to take on Microsoft. They all are remarkably similiar. Basically a slicked up kde system and a $99 price tag. I would think it would be in their best interest if Lindows, Lycoris and whatever that other one (Xandros or something) is if they all pulled their resources and competed with MS alone (not each other).

    #3) What the hell is wrong with Mandrake? I use Mandrake for everything (mostly cooker) and it rocks. While its not really fair to compare it to WinXP, I'd say if you compare it to WinMe it kicks the living crap out of it. Automatic hardware detection, easy network setup, kde 3.1 (mandrake 9.1... I'm using it now), etc... Walmart should focus on one of these distros and it should be Mandrake.

    #4) United Linux is crap. "We want to make a new standard/certifying brand for linux... send us money". We have Red Hat distros (Red Hat, Mandrake, Yellow Dog, etc) and we have the LSB (Mandrake, probably some others... debian?). Ransom Love screwed up in the Unix world, now hes out looking for money off of linux. As previously stated, United Linux is crap.
    *Huff*

    --

    can't sleep slashdot will eat me
    1. Re:Dumb... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      #2, #4...
      Why don't they all merge?
      United Linux is crap
      I think you answered your own question.

    2. Re:Dumb... by JoeBuck · · Score: 5, Informative

      Completely free distros do not disappear, but those that require pay-per-seat because they have proprietary components are at much greater risk of disappearing. If the company loses interest, the distro goes away, as distributing it without their permission is not legal.

      This is one of the things that puts Lindows at risk.

    3. Re:Dumb... by garcia · · Score: 5, Interesting

      this is not Insightful.

      I don't believe that they should merge. If they did I would have to put up w/the tons of shit from Mandrake and RedHat while all I want is Debian.

      What's wrong w/Mandrake? What isn't? That's my opinion and that's yours... That's why I don't want Linux distributions to merge.

      Why is UL crap? b/c they are trying to band against what they believe is an attempt by one distribution to gain too much power.

      I don't think that UL will gain much ground but that doesn't mean it's crap.

    4. Re:Dumb... by powerlinekid · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The problem with United Linux as I see it is that its a standard. Suse can release a "United Linux Conforming" distro along with their regular distro. Same thing with all the other members. When I say merge I say "don't create some kind of standard", I mean seriously merge. Become the same company, release one distro that is aimed at the desktop. Hack on wine (that seems to be the current trend, although I think its a deadend in the long run), work on improving XFree86 drivers for nvidia and ati, etc cards. Work on improving usability for kde. That kind of stuff. Pay developers to work on key projects that will benefit your distro and then put out one hell of a product.

      --

      can't sleep slashdot will eat me
    5. Re:Dumb... by nmg · · Score: 0

      So if competition between Linux distributions is bad, why is competition between Linux distributions and Microsoft good?

    6. Re:Dumb... by powerlinekid · · Score: 0, Troll

      this isn't insightful either... :p

      And if thats the case, you'll still have debian. You'll still have your precious apt. Me, I prefere Mandrake. Difference of opinion, no big deal. I would like to know an example of shit to put up with Mandrake and RedHat though. What the dependancie hell that debian users tend to throw out? I cry bullshit. I update from mandrake's cooker ftp, one rpm at at time. Mandrake's urpmi tool kicks ass. Resolves dependancies, tells you what you need and will fetch it for you. All it requires is a urpmi *. Is it a matter of free software? Mandrake is LSB certified now and tries to remain as free as friggin possible. Damn near everything is open source, and if it isn't there will be another package that does a similiar thing and is. Along with this they try to give you commericial software if you want it. RealPlayer, Blender (pre-gpl days), Star Office, Nvidia's drivers all came with the 8.2 ProSuite set and would be installed for you if you agreed that it was alright to install non-free software on your system.
      As for UL... well you're right they're not gonna gain much ground. But it really isn't like they're banding together to crush Red Hat. Ransom Love sees how well Red Hat is doing and decides "Oh no, Red Hat will become the Microsoft of Linux... I want some of that money too" and concocts this scheme. What I'm saying and explained in another post is that Xandros, Lycoris and Lindows if they all have the same goals and ideals should become one distro. Not a series of distros based off of some new standard, but one distro. One distro aimed at the desktop. By pulling their collective resources and talent I'd say they have a better chance of taking on Microsoft (not fighting for contracts from Walmart amoungst themselves). And if they merge? You don't have to fucking use it. Christ you're like the people that bitch that they're putting MacDonald's in the sims or someone is carrying a violent game. Don't fucking use it.
      As for one distro gaining too much power, theres this little thing called the GPL. So I'd say it would be damn hard for anyone to have too much power when someone else can have the complete source code for their product.

      --

      can't sleep slashdot will eat me
    7. Re:Dumb... by powerlinekid · · Score: 2

      I definitly agree and was going to get that. I think thats what makes United Linux potentially disasterous. As far as I know the LSB is free just as long as you conform. The Red Hat standard (basically RPM and the layout of the base system) is free and easily emulated (Yellow Dog and Mandrake). Having to buy a license to release a distro under some arcane standard isn't exactly something the Linux providers are going to care about.

      --

      can't sleep slashdot will eat me
    8. Re:Dumb... by Dark+Lord+Seth · · Score: 2

      Regarding nr 2; One of the best things about Linux is diversity. There are various distros with various characteristics ranging from how hard it is to install, how hard it is to maintain, update, etc. I personally much prefer the Slackware or Debian way of dealing with installing and managing, but other people would prefer a graphical install enviroment. Some would prefer automatic installs, others manual installs, etcetera. Some machine might require bootdisks with a specially compiled kernel just to start the installation. So many different ways as how things can be handled and I'm only talking about installing Linux...

    9. Re:Dumb... by MyHair · · Score: 2

      Hmmm, a possible troll, but here goes:

      Why don't they all merge?

      Duh, of course it's a troll. Oh well, I'll make my point anyway because it relates to many Slashdot discussions about Linux in business and/or competition w/MS Windows.

      There are different distributions for different reasons. Debian is very political, Lindows looks like it's out for easy money, Knoppix is from a guy who scratched an itch, etc.

      The distributions that are running on money and hoping for sales revenue are the ones on thin ice but are also potentially greatly rewarding to the Open Source/Free Software community. Example: Red Hat's Cygwin. The distributions made for personal reasons or political causes will be around as long as the reason or cause is around.

    10. Re:Dumb... by n2dasun · · Score: 2, Funny

      >I'd say if you compare it to WinMe it kicks the living crap out of it.

      I could kick the crap out of WinME blindfolded, drunk and barefoot with a broken toe. I'd switch OS's if I wasn't in the middle of some video capture and other projects. I cant stand WinME.

      Soapbox Ejected.

      --
      I'm determined to reclaim my karma. Now, if I can only find a groundbreaking article and something witty to say....
    11. Re:Dumb... by garcia · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I wouldn't have Debian if I had a GUI installer. I wouldn't have Debian if I was using Mandrake's tools.

      They're not?

      RedHat does it's own thing just like every other distribution. Unfortunatly they are more powerful commercially than the other distributions b/c of their name and their "backing".

      By pulling their collective resources and talent I'd say they have a better chance of taking on Microsoft (not fighting for contracts from Walmart amoungst themselves).

      If I were you, I would think about what UL is trying to accomplish. They are banding together to make a standard to compete...against RedHat, against MS, against X.

      Umm, ok, so we used to have Slackware. The reason I switched from Slackware to RH back in the day was for the simple fact that I was having more and more difficult of a time running newer programs (gtk, libc6). So say one distribution gains more power and forces OLD libs to stay around... That stifles what we are trying to achieve.

    12. Re:Dumb... by powerlinekid · · Score: 1, Troll

      its not a troll actually... when i say merge, I don't mean debian, gentoo, mandrake and assholenux. I mean lycoris, lindows and xandros. The distros who all do the same thing and have the same goal: desktop share. Jesus christ, you throw out one word and all of a sudden everyone is screaming "troll, troll". Debian and gentoo aren't exactly going to merge with mandrake or redhat. Why would i even suggest that? I like gentoo. I like mandrake. I've been known to occasionally like red hat. Debian i'm not too keen on, but to each their own. They all have their own unique little niche. Lindows, Xandros and Lyrcoris? They have the same fucking niche.

      --

      can't sleep slashdot will eat me
    13. Re:Dumb... by powerlinekid · · Score: 2

      Noone is calling for "the one". Personally I don't care what distro anyone uses. Every distro has a niche. The problem is when that niche is coveted by 3 distros. Mandrake isn't working stictly for the desktop. Neither is UL, Red Hat, Suse, debian or gentoo. The original point I was trying to make was that Lycoris, Lindows and Xandros are all competing with each other over desktop share. The fact that walmart computers may now ship with anyone of 3 linux distros makes me nervous. Those 3 are also some of the smaller distros. Red Hat, Suse, Debian, Mandrake... those are your heavy-weight distros. It would seem to me that the most likely way that those 3 would survive is to work together. Microsoft could crush anyone of them by looking at them funny. In all likely-hood they'd probably do the same even if they were merged. Oh well... this is slashdot, this is a distro flame-war and obviously we're not going to agree ;).

      --

      can't sleep slashdot will eat me
    14. Re:Dumb... by salimma · · Score: 2
      #2) Why don't they all merge? They all are obviously trying to take on Microsoft. They all are remarkably similiar. Basically a slicked up kde system and a $99 price tag. I would think it would be in their best interest if Lindows, Lycoris and whatever that other one (Xandros ..


      Interesting, that. Lindows actually licensed its code from Xandros anyway, and both trace their heritage to Corel.

      --
      Michel
      Fedora Project Contribut
    15. Re:Dumb... by LittleLebowskiUrbanA · · Score: 2, Informative

      "What the hell is wrong with Mandrake?"

      Lib dependencies when attempting to install packages even via the vaunted urpmi. I tried Mandrake on my laptop, got a lib dependency, gave up, installed Libranet, updated it to Debian testing and continued working. I used rpm based distros for 2 years. Never again.
      As for "United Linux is crap", I just hope it incorporates Conectiva's rpm management tool and maybe it will be more widely used and bring about well maintained apt repositories and other rpm-based distros might fix the rpm install mess.

    16. Re:Dumb... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      c'mon fuck you moderators. you always like to mod this to troll. all about the party line isnt it, eh? well fuck off.

      count down to becoming another troll..4...3..2..

    17. Re:Dumb... by frankthechicken · · Score: 1

      Goddamn Windows 3.0 kicks the crap out of WinME.

      WinME was only released to help give other OS' a foothold to help in Microsofts various monopoly lawsuits.

    18. Re:Dumb... by fferreres · · Score: 2

      Slackware is a pain to blindly upgrade, but it never prevents you from having the greatest latest. If you know how Slackware is lay out, you can keep it clean and dependencies problem to a minimum. You just need to be very carefull.

      Slack makes my laptop worth because i can have a very decent signal to noise (no unneeded dependencies). But sometimes I only wish Slack could have a better package system than intallpkg. A versioned database of what was added/remove in time would be great. I mean, a more powerfull verion of apt get, and more packages.

      We I want to be cheap, I find that I can just use .rpms. I just use mc to extract the files to a directory and repackage it in the correct directories and modify the necesary scripts. I there where more packages for Slackware :( (linuxpackages.com has only some key packages, most of them on an scratch an itch basis)

      I have 1 server that originally had VA's Red Hat preinstalled. After a while, it started crashing once every 15 days or so, running out of swap. It was a mess to administer remotely. Also, the fact that mostly every business uses RedHat makes it much more vulnerable.

      So a friend prepared a small slackware replicating all the custom setups we had and remotelly installed the server. After the (human assisted) reboot LILO was told to now boot the Slackware partition. That was march 2001. We don't know if we still have the reboot problem because we never had any reson to reboot it.

      Securitywise it was a pleasure. We didn't have the OpenSSH problem because it came with SSH (ssh.com), Bind didn't have any problem, and we only had the ports we needed open where as the red hat version shipped had all kind of open ports all arround for no reason. Everything was on the wrong place (cron files in ridicule places)

      At home, I have a laptop which also uses Slack, my life couldn't be easier

      --
      unfinished: (adj.)
  13. Re:It's like porn sites.... there are enough alrea by Rick+the+Red · · Score: 2, Offtopic
    For a pretty Linux desktop experience there's Debian... for the Linux newbies there's... Gentoo.
    Two people think this is "Insightful"? "Interesting" maybe, but "Insightful"?

    --
    If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
  14. Re:It's like porn sites.... there are enough alrea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    umm i hope you were kidding about slackware being for newbies and all of the rest of this stuff, either you need to get modded down or changed to funny, or try this new thing called linux

  15. Distros come and go all the time... by npietraniec · · Score: 1

    Remember Prodgeny? (sp?)

    Give us a list and put it in a poll... Here's some, everyone pick one. Place your bets now, send me the money, I'll be sure to get it to the right people when they're right.

    Lycoris
    Xandros
    United Linux
    Red Hat
    Gentoo
    Mandrake
    Lindows
    Suse
    Cowboy (Neal) Linux

    1. Re:Distros come and go all the time... by mikey13 · · Score: 0

      How about everybody puts $20 on their prediction for the first distro to die, and the first one that dies gets all of the money from the losers so they aren't dead anymore.

    2. Re:Distros come and go all the time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's it!!!

      Cowboy Neal's Linux distribution should be called "Nealux"... it's based on replicated and hand-picked oddball packages and includes icBoy which will irritate you with useless chatter. [Jon] Ketz will merge with Nealux and will die off because if it's auto-decompile feature.

    3. Re:Distros come and go all the time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Suse will not die, United Linux is a SuSe alliance. In Europe SuSe and RedHat are far more important than RedHat. And of course there is debian left.

      Gentoo is a nice distribution for niche market. It will be no success on the market.

      Lindows has to die because Mr. Robertson is just a Marketing guy. He doesn't know anything about software.

      Lycoris and Xandros are in the same market. Hope Xandros will survive.

    4. Re:Distros come and go all the time... by Godwin+O'Hitler · · Score: 1

      In Europe SuSe and RedHat are far more important than RedHat.

      That's pretty undeniable.
      But could you now please change one of those RedHats for another name so we know WTF you mean. Thank you.

      --
      No, your children are not the special ones. Nor are your pets.
  16. Re:It's like porn sites.... there are enough alrea by Wiseazz · · Score: 1

    making a new one is a losing proposition

    A new distro may be a losing proposition, but I bet a new porn site has a fairly good chance :)

    --
    My sig sucks.
  17. DEBIAN by mr_gerbik · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I just wanted to piss you all off. Move along now. Don't forget to mod me down.

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

      Mister Guuuuuurrrrrrbeck

  18. Never Die by Chicks_Hate_Me · · Score: 2, Informative

    In a sense you can say distros never die, as their GPL source will always live. Corel came back from the grave with Xandros, let's just hope that it doesn't 'die' again.

    IMHO it's hard to sell any distro without giving some kind of 'sample' (i.e. ISOs online.) I can see that distros will not be a success as they don't really make any money at the moment. It is my belief that RedHat is not successful because of their desktop distro but because of their server distros and services they provide.

    I'm sure we'll go through tons of forgotton distros but as time progresses, so will these distros progress, and eventually we'll have a distro with the true stability of Linux along with the smoothness of something like OS X/Windows/[insert favorite desktop OS here]

    1. Re:Never Die by PerryMason · · Score: 2

      It is my belief that RedHat is not successful because of their desktop distro but because of their server distros and services they provide.

      I presume you mean that "RedHat is successful not because of their dekstop distro" rather than "RedHat is not succesful, because of their desktop distro..."

      Big difference there and I agree with you to some extent. Nobody 'selling' Linux is 'successful' with a desktop distro. Right at this point in time you dont make money from a desktop distro, or really for that matter with a server distro. IMHO RedHat are succesful because of marketing. People have heard of RedHat, so RedHat becomes Linux. Add this to agreements with IBM, Dell and Compaq to ship RH7.X with new server hardware and you have a foot in the door. Name recognition is the hardest part in getting acceptance.

      I personally wish that RedHat would completely separate their desktop and server OSs (Advanced Server aside). I really hate the fact that it is becoming harder and harder to do a 'stock'ish' install of a server without requiring X. More and more of the administration tools are X only and i'm fscked if I'm going to run X on any server I build.

      Oh, and success is a relative thing. In pure business terms RedHat isnt exactly what you'd call a roaring success, but with the brand recognition being developed, in time I think they could be.

      --
      "I'm tired of all this 'Aren't humanity great' bullshit. We're a virus with shoes" - Bill Hicks
  19. The small will die by spinlocked · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Of the 'real' companies, I'm afraid the small will die first.

    Redhat (possibly et. al.) have the best chance of success in the business world because the have:

    a) Industry credibility

    b) A half decent support organisation

    No serious business customer is going to invest any money without those...

    --
    # init 5
    Connection closed.


    Oh... ...bugger.
    1. Re:The small will die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The question from the Newsforge poll was who will be first to get out of the desktop/end user market. Redhat won't die, but will they stay focused on the desktop? Redhat, Debian and SuSE can afford to stay out of that segment--sort of. Lycoris, Xandros and the like cannot afford to lose.

  20. Who will succeed: Lindows by HoserHead · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I've seen Michael Robertson, CEO of Lindows.com, speak (at Debconf 2) - and I can tell you that I am certain that Lindows.com will not be yet another dropout of the Desktop Linux business.

    How am I sure?

    Michael's a salesman, pure and simple. He speaks with passion and he makes you love him and his company - and I've heard that he succeeded in convincing a lot of people who attended Debconf. You should be aware this is coming from a group of people who are probably a lot less friendly to corporate (particularly proprietary corporate) involvement in the free software world.

    Michael's ability to make the connections, to sell his company and his vision - that's what's going to make the difference. I've interviewed for a job at Xandros, and I'm sure they've got good people technically (I'm saying this sight unseen), but there's one thing Lycoris, Xandros and all the rest don't have - Michael Robertson. He will make Lindows.com succeed, I guarantee you.

    (Of course, this is discounting the huge war chest of money he got from the sale of mp3.com. I'll bet he could fund Lindows.com for a lot of years even if he never sold a single product.)

    1. Re:Who will succeed: Lindows by MyHair · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How am I sure?

      Michael's a salesman, pure and simple. He speaks with passion and he makes you love him and his company ...


      Please excuse my cynicism and pessimism, but that's what startup CEOs do. They have to get excitement going or they never get the venture capital and/or people to work at reduced rates in return for stock options. I've worked for two startup companies in the past two years. One went out of business and shorted all the employees out of their last paychecks, and the other, a co-lo facility, closed or sold off all of its locations outside the founding city. Both companies had very charismatic CEOs and very loyal and enthusiastic employees.

      Of course at these types of companies "everyone's a salesperson" so I went to some Chamber of Commerce meetings to network and sell. Sadly eveyone else there is also trying to network and sell, too. All sellers and no buyers, but a lot of startup companies with excited employees with big dreams and stock options.

      The CEO's sales pitch is just that: a sales pitch. The product and market (and in some cases the government) ultimately determine which for-profit companies succeed and which fail.

    2. Re:Who will succeed: Lindows by numark · · Score: 3, Interesting

      No, he'll just hype everything up and then sell-out. Don't forget, his job before Lindows was the founder and CEO of MP3.com. Back in the day, MP3.com was the best place to go for independent music, and they truly cared about their artists. Now look at it. Once MP3.com got really big, Michael sold out to Vivendi and they've totally ruined it, hiding independent artists in pages overshadowed by the latest mindless drivel from Nelly and Eminem. I don't trust Michael's intent for Lindows at all.

      --
      Want Slashdot headlines on your site? Try SlashHead
    3. Re:Who will succeed: Lindows by MoThugz · · Score: 2

      IMHO, Michael Robertson talks nonsense all the time... he's just an opportunist, capitalistic businessman, just like you mention.

      He doesn't know (nor do I think bother) with technology like how geeks see it, he only sees the step 3 part of it (PROFIT!!!!)... for exploitation to increase his money.

      Want to see more of his passionate quotes? Check them out here (be prepared to use Google's language tools for some parts of the site). I bet you're loving him and his company more and more now, don't you?

    4. Re:Who will succeed: Lindows by kfg · · Score: 2

      "Michael's a salesman, pure and simple. He speaks with passion and he makes you love him and his company "

      And salesman who can't, or don't, deliver soon become reviled by the same "converts" they made with their silver tounges and monkey dances.

      The "pitch" only makes the first sale. The product still makes the customer. Give a good pitch and deliver as promised you now have a customer. Give a good pitch and deliver a product that doesn't deliver and the "customer" feels like a rube who's been taken by the silver tounged devil. If that "devil" is the company president you now not only don't have a customer, but someone who will make it a personal mission to badmouth the company to anyone and everyone who will listen. . . and they'll be taken seriously.

      What's more, these people can *never* be recovered, no matter what the company does in the future.

      American corporations seem to believe that marketing makes the company these days. It just ain't so, never had been, never will.

      Proctor & Gamble are the marketing masters of this or any age. Because of this they sell a *lot* of soap. . .but the soap *works!* If it didn't they would have ceased to exist long, long ago.

      Sooner or later it still comes down to the steak, no matter what kind of "sizzle" you sell it with.

      KFG

  21. Re:It's like porn sites.... there are enough alrea by GweeDo · · Score: 3, Informative

    I figured I should make sense of this post before some newbie actually believed it If you are new to linux and want a clean desktop to get you started select one of the following: 1) Redhat 8.0 2) Mandrake 9.whatever 3) Suse (what number are they to?) If you are a bit more seasoned and want to play a bit more try these: 1) Redhat 8.0 2) Debian If you are a wizard and want real control: 1) Redhat 8.0 2) Slackware 3) Gentoo These are all my opinion...disagree if you like, but I am right in my little world :)

  22. OT - What will arrive the coming year... by teamhasnoi · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I may be jumping the gun, but OpenBeos is making huge strides all the time. Beos has fewer applications, sure, but it also has a consistent interface, is easy to install, works well on older hardware, and easy to configure. It also has the advantage of being easy to code for, and doesn't have a million distros sapping the pool of developers.

    There *is* a Linux based version called Blue-Eyed OS (YALD - yet another Linux distro), but I think that the speedy and efficient OpenBeos will make some waves, especially in the "Digital Hub" arena.

    If you haven't tried it, you should see what I'm talking about. There is a free download at Bebits.com (in my sig) - Personal, Max and Max Lite distros are available.

    Ain't enough 'O's in smooth to describe Beos.

    1. Re:OT - What will arrive the coming year... by Kiwi · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Let me second that. BeOS was an excellent operating system; if they can suceed in duplicating BeOS with an open source license, this will make for a better desktop OS than Linux.

      Linux makes a decent server OS and a passable desktop OS. The problem is that Linux's desktop design is anything but unified, and has a lot of 15-year-old cruft in it. While there are ways of band-aiding things, such as what RedHat has done with their 8.0 release, the Linux desktop experience is still not as unified and as fast as it would be on any other OS. For example, inconsistant cut-and-paste; each application has its own "file save" dialog, many of which do not have ability to create a new directory to put the saved file in; slower-than-ideal performance; poor Unicode support; and so on.

      This is why MacOS X uses a BSD kernel but doesn't uses X windows as the desktop.

      This is not to downplay the heroic efforts of the KDE and Gnome teams to try to make a usable desktop for Linux while still supporting all of the cruft; nor is this being done to downplay the heroic efforts of the Mozilla team to port their browser to Linux, creating yet another X toolkit in the process.

      If OpenBeOS becomes a usable desktop OS I can get at cheapbytes for $2, I may very well replace my current Linux + KDE 3.0 with it for my desktop machine. My only problem with BeOS was that it was not open-source.

      - Sam

      --

      The secret to enjoying Slashdot is to realize that it should not be taken too seriously.

    2. Re:OT - What will arrive the coming year... by Glytch · · Score: 2

      BeOS did work fine on older hardware. A pity it barely worked at all on newer hardware.

    3. Re:OT - What will arrive the coming year... by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      BeOS certainly was fun & interesting...but it would need a corporate champion or three just as Linux had to get business to take it seriously.

    4. Re:OT - What will arrive the coming year... by delta407 · · Score: 2
      I may be jumping the gun, but OpenBeos [...]
      No... really? See the extensive feature list that the OpenBeOS kernel has. Here's something to notice if you're aiming for the desktop world: Linux has USB support, FireWire support, SCSI support, support for most sound cards/video cards (often accelerated), and -- how revolutionary! -- TCP/IP networking.

      Have fun with OpenBeOS. I'll be using my alpha-bleneded anti-aliased 1600x1200 desktop.
    5. Re:OT - What will arrive the coming year... by Ian+Bicking · · Score: 2
      This is why MacOS X uses a BSD kernel but doesn't uses X windows as the desktop.
      But, interestingly enough, it uses mostly (only?) open source server software. They've changed the desktop, but they didn't really change the other stuff (though they did change some -- the user-visible filesystem is different, for instance).

      That's why pure-BeOS seems a little silly. Linux (or BSD) is a good kernel, and certain parts of the over-all operating system (that GNU/ part :) are very good quality. Why duplicate that?

      If you want to create a whole new desktop, more power to you. That's what BeOS seems to be about. But if that's what it's about, why recreate the other stuff too? It's not that there aren't good ideas in kernels, file systems, etc... but you need to focus, and that's not where a BeOS reimplementation should be focused.

      Blue-Eyed OS seems like a much more reasonable effort to me. (Though as far as from-scratch implementations, I still favor GNUStep...)

    6. Re:OT - What will arrive the coming year... by ChaosDiscord · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Beos has fewer applications, sure, but it also has a consistent interface...

      Those two things are related. As soon as you get a real rush of programmers and popularity, you can kiss your consitency goodbye. You're always at the mercy of some idiot who thinks that his "revolutionary new idea" (bitmapped buttons / custom window frame / dark grey on black text) is worth throwing own consitency and ease of use. You just can't win, they outnumber you. Enjoy it while you can.

    7. Re:OT - What will arrive the coming year... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BeOS isn't aiming for corporate desktops. It's market is in home systems, and multimedia/production systems.

    8. Re:OT - What will arrive the coming year... by jpmorgan · · Score: 2

      Actually, OS X uses Darwin, which is based off of Mach. It's the userspace that comes from FreeBSD, not the kernel.

    9. Re:OT - What will arrive the coming year... by nickco3 · · Score: 1

      > Linux makes a decent server OS and a passable
      > desktop OS. The problem is that Linux's desktop
      > design is anything but unified, and has a lot of
      > 15-year-old cruft in it.

      I agree, we should aim definately aim to be more unified on the desktop and lose the cruft, just like Microsoft does. How quickly can we port DDE, OLE, OCX, COM, DCOM, ActiveX, ASP, and .NET?

      --
      -- Nick "Hallo this is Beel Gates, und I pronounce weendows as ... WEENdows"
    10. Re:OT - What will arrive the coming year... by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 2
      Sure, but I'd raise a few issues with that. The first one is that if BeOS gets larger, you will start seeing the kind of splits that so characterise Linux at the moment. In fact, we're already seeing this, with different groups attacking the problem of resurrecting BeOS in different ways, and none of them are even at version 1 yet!

      It's taken over a decade of effort for Linux to get to where it is today, and over that time as more and more people got involved, surprise surprise not all of them shared exactly the same vision. It hasn't all gone smoothly - look at the KDE/GNOME split for what can happen. Luckily Linux was designed for modularity right from the word go, and can just about cope with it. In some cases the interfaces need to be better defined, especially on the desktop, but that's happening (see freedesktop.org)

      I wouldn't rate BeOSs chances at that. It was designed on the fundamental assumption that it'd have one overriding organisation in control. Without that, it's going to be hard to really move things forward once they reach parity with the old BeOS, in much the same way that once Linux blew away UNIX state of the art things began fracturing until standards bodies started forming to get stuff back under control.

      Anyway, why bother? BeOS had some nice ideas, but they're being reimplemented in Linux right now. For BeFS done properly, see ReiserFS. No, it can't do live queries today, but that's because Reiser and the team have spent years getting performance to a level where they can actually do justice to the original vision of the BeFS team (who iirc were severely limited by performance problems). If you simply must have the BeOS gui that can be implemented as an X desktop environment, but with good hardware support.

      The stuff you mentioned about consistency and clean design only applies when there are very few people involved, the moment you get lots of people working on it, they have different ideas or want to experiment and suddenly things aren't so consistent anymore. And of course everything gets cruft, what happens when a few years down the line the OpenBeOS people come up with a great new widget toolkit design. They have to maintain backwards compatability though.... oops, suddenly you've got cruft and inconsistency. That's not a good reason for starting from scratch.

    11. Re:OT - What will arrive the coming year... by Tar-Palantir · · Score: 1

      Personally, I never used BeOS - it wanted a PCI PowerMac, and I had a Performa. But from what I've read/seen about it, it was quite similar in many ways to Mac OS X. I seem to remember that BeOS used C++ for development, Mac OS X uses Objective-C, which I prefer. These are both OO languages, however. They've both got both a command-line and a pretty interface.
      That said, I will happily try OpenBeOS when they've got a nice, complete version ready.

    12. Re:OT - What will arrive the coming year... by momobaxter · · Score: 1



      And that is exactly why I still use BeOS. Find me a file system that does queries like this and I'll switch back to linux full time.

      --
      "Full sources for linux currently runs to about 200kB compressed" --Linus Torvalds 31-Jan-1992
    13. Re:OT - What will arrive the coming year... by momobaxter · · Score: 1

      No, it can't do live queries today, but that's because Reiser and the team have spent years getting performance to a level where they can actually do justice to the original vision of the BeFS team (who iirc were severely limited by performance problems). And that is exactly why I still use BeOS. Find me a file system that does queries like this and I'll switch back to linux full time.

      --
      "Full sources for linux currently runs to about 200kB compressed" --Linus Torvalds 31-Jan-1992
    14. Re:OT - What will arrive the coming year... by Ian+Bicking · · Score: 2

      OS X runs on a BSD kernel which runs on a Mach kernel... weird but true! Similar to mkLinux of yore (same people, I think), and of course just like NeXT.

  23. Wont Survive vs Wont Thrive by Vengie · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I don't think the article draws a clear enough distinction. He says that they will either "go out of business" or "stop emphasising the user..." Hmm...these two scenarios are NOT the same. If Lycoris has crappy spending habits compared to their income, yes, they'll go out of business. Ditto for redhat, any other linux distro. When these companies marked "desktop useability" they moreso mean on the -Corporate- desktop. Thats where their real dollars are. (in _SUPPORT_ contracts) As long as the support contracts vary enough from distro to distro, you can expect them to be hyping desktop-usability to corporate clients for a long time. (Some companies prefer suse licensing&support, some mandrake, some redhat....etc)

    Oh, and if someone DOES go out of business?
    GASP! The result of a market with competition!

    --
    When in doubt, parenthesize. At the very least it will let some poor schmuck bounce on the % key in vi. (Larry Wall)
  24. Probably Most of Them.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i don't think any of them will make much of a splash anywhere other that with people who were already looking into redhat or mandrake to put on that spare box in the basement.

    face it.. the general population is not ready for linux desktops. hell, the genereal population isn't even ready for windows XP or OSX.

    but still, the lack of a solid, ubiquitous graphical interface, the lack of well-designed default options (keyboard shorcuts in X for instance), the lack of widespread commercial driver support, and the crazy spaghetti mess of packages that most distros have (just TRY to install mandrake without mozilla), are preventing Linux from becoming a viable desktop option.

    Linux unfortunately is, and for the near future will be, for People Who Know What They're Doing.

    1. Re:Probably Most of Them.. by cookiepus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      face it.. the general population is not ready for linux desktops. hell, the genereal population isn't even ready for windows XP or OSX.

      True that. But the thing is, XP and OSX are ready for the general population. Linux is not.

      Give me an AIM client that doesn't look nasty, a browser that doesn't crawl and swap on a machine that runs MSIE effortlessly, and an Office suite that doesn't look clumsy.

      I am a comp sci major with pretty good Linux/Unix experience behind my belt, and still I would be neither happy nor productive if I didn't have windows on my system.

      The simple test is this: I never have a moment like "I am in Windows, and I have the need to boot to Linux to do something." But I often have the "Ah shit I am in Linux, now I need to reboot to windows before I can do this" moment.

      The general public doesn't care about open source, community effort, MS monopoly, none of that shit. They want features and smooth interfaces. And Linux isn't ready to give them that. Will it ever? May be. Probably. Remarkable strides have been made by RH, for example, to make Linux more usable by "regular people" during the last 3-4 years that I've been paying attention to it. They seem pretty adamant about continuing in the same path.

      Oh yeah, another thing Linux needs is the ability to work on all the hardware windows can work on. Whatever's in my computer, windows handles it. If the best linux can do for me is a fuzzing sound card, a modem that drivers don't exist for, and a TV tuner I can't use, then I am not switching. I don't care if this is due to companies keeping their data proprietary. To the end user, it's the same shit: it doesn't work.

      And Linux's fabled reliability isn't worth shit if it doesn't support your hardware and you can't do what you need to do.

    2. Re:Probably Most of Them.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Buy decent hardware and not some cheap-ass joeblow exotic shit.

    3. Re:Probably Most of Them.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've got a Soundblaster Live 5.1 Platinum.
      It certainly isn't "Joe Blow exotic shit".

      On Linux, the 5.1 features go to waste, the decoding of SPDIF from my DVD-ROM drove goes to waste.

      The midi in/out, aux mic, headphone, and optical in/out connections go to waste. The remote goes to waste.

      Same with my ATI Radeon 64 DDR. Video input and output? Not under linux.

      Hell, even my Creative modem...

      you get the idea.

    4. Re:Probably Most of Them.. by cookiepus · · Score: 1

      That's the problem, Mr. Coward. If I am building a server, damn straight I'll buy compatible hardware. If I am considering new software for my existing workstation, on the other hand, I am not going to bother investing even more money in hardware just so I can use an OS that doesn't have all of the things I need, unlike a certain other OS I can use that has all the features AND will work with whatever is in my computer.

      You certainly have a point. If I am someone who wants and needs Linux, then I have no choice but to throw away my Winmodem and get a "real one." On the other hand, if I am the "general public," I won't bother. And that's what this story is about.

      Everyone who's interested in Linux already has it. That's not who desktop distros are aimed at. Desktop distros are aimed at people who don't give a shit about the tehcnology. They just need it to work. They'd sooner throw away the notion of trying Linux than figure out what the hell a Winmodem is. And I can't blame them.

    5. Re:Probably Most of Them.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... I often have the "Ah shit I am in Linux, now I need to reboot to windows before I can do this" moment.

      That's odd for a computer major. I wonder if you are running Lindows?

    6. Re:Probably Most of Them.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      odd for a CS major? depends on what school you go to.

      i'm a CS major at a big state school in Missouri. i'm comfortable with Linux, but most of the other CS majors aren't. even many of my professors aren't.

      last semester, my CS Prof had us running either linux on our own system, or connecting to an X server, using command-line GCC to compile our assignments that used GTK interfaces, and using TEX to email in our homework.

      this semester we're using an old version of MS Visual C++ to make crappy command line programs on windows and turning them in on a floppy. and my Prof isn't even sure how to explain how to create a "project"..

      man, i feel sorry for the guys that didn't have a chance to take a class with my old Prof.

    7. Re:Probably Most of Them.. by frozencesium · · Score: 2, Interesting
      ok...i'll bite...

      1.) if you are a comp sci major (as am i)...how could you possibly like windows (besides the obvious). have you taken a look at the size of the MSDN libs lately?!?!? hello...in .NET they DEPRICATED IOSTREAM.H!!! never mind the bloat that goes into their APIs.

      2.) not evey single person is in your situation. i have never said "i can't do this in linux, i must re-boot to windows". if you are a comp-sci major that is only interested in game development or 3d rendering, i can understand, but even heavy duty rendering is done on *nix systems. very few of the 3d visualization systems i've worked on were windows based...

      3.) we DO have features and smooth interfaces...we also have a lack of both. it depends on the disto, packages installed, etc.

      4.) my sound card, zip drive, webcam, nic card, video card, and joystick all work in linux. the only time you tend to run into the problem of hardware incompatability is when you are running hardware that is made by companies with chipsets that aren't in common usage, or the company doesn't want to release the info to developers that they need to write open source implamentations of the drivers. if you stick with hardware that is even remotely common you shouldn't have a problem. if so...a great wizzard comp-sci major like you should have a problem looking at either the man page or linuxdocs.org right???

      -frozen

      --
      I'm not always the brightest pixel in the stream
    8. Re:Probably Most of Them.. by cookiepus · · Score: 1

      I didn't mean to say that "I don't know how to do something in Linux." Simply pointing out that there are limitations.

      W/o getting into technics of it, I have some games, some applications, a modem, a TV card, and a sound card that aren't supported in Linux. The SC recently became supported, actually, but not very well. So when I want to watch TV or listen to music or play Delta Force or snood or something, I need to boot into Windows. I happen to not rely on any programs that are unix-only, but I rely on plenty of windows-only software.

      Chances are, so do most regular users out there. Which means that Linux won't appeal to them.

    9. Re:Probably Most of Them.. by quantaman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I too am a compsci major and I have found that I cannot code in windows anymore. The linux environment is simply too well equiped for programming not to mention how much I use ssh to use labs remotely. That being said I still find myself constantly wondering how to do task X, what do I use to uncompress this (yeah I know man pages and the gui acn do it also), how do I install this, and why I haven't I had sound for over a week:)

      But I often have the "Ah shit I am in Linux, now I need to reboot to windows before I can do this" moment."

      Other than some games or having to talk to someone on MSN (not for a few months) I pretty much have this urge finally kicked unless I want to print something...

      --
      I stole this Sig
    10. Re:Probably Most of Them.. by Compuser · · Score: 2

      Mmmm, no. Linux is free. Alas, most importantly
      as in beer. That is its de facto selling point.
      You'd be surprised how many things people will
      put up with if they pay less.

    11. Re:Probably Most of Them.. by cookiepus · · Score: 1

      if you are a comp sci major (as am i)...how could you possibly like windows (besides the obvious). have you taken a look at the size of the MSDN libs lately?!?!? hello...in .NET they DEPRICATED IOSTREAM.H!!! never mind the bloat that goes into their APIs.

      I never said I like windows programming. We're talking about Desktop Linux, which to me means "Linux for regular people." That means they don't know what MSDN libs are, they don't care what IOSTREAM is, and APIs have no relevance to their life. They need shit to work, look good, and feel intuitive and polished. I don't "like" Windows in the sense that I worship it. As mentioned elsewhere, I support Unix (and definately prefer Linux) as a server. Hate Windows-based servers.

      But I play a dual role in life. I am a computer scientist/developer/technology enthusiast on one side. I am a user on the other. The first part of me prefers Linux. Like Linux. Respects Linux. The "user" has no objection to Linux, but finds that Windows gets the jobs done faster and better.

      And since we're talking about "regular people" here, I'd imagine they'd share my "user" mentality, rather than the other mentality. As a CS person, I totally agree with you. As a user, I don't care about the things you mentioned.

      2.) not evey single person is in your situation. i have never said "i can't do this in linux, i must re-boot to windows". if you are a comp-sci major that is only interested in game development or 3d rendering, i can understand, but even heavy duty rendering is done on *nix systems. very few of the 3d visualization systems i've worked on were windows based...

      But I am also a user. And Windows gives me a better browser (don't talk about standards. Sites look better in IE, and thats what I care about as a user,) a slicker e-mail client, etc.

      3.) we DO have features and smooth interfaces...we also have a lack of both. it depends on the disto, packages installed, etc.

      Actually, we have definate IMPROVMENT in that area, but I can't say it's anywhere close to Windows.

      4.) my sound card, zip drive, webcam, nic card, video card, and joystick all work in linux. the only time you tend to run into the problem of hardware incompatability is when you are running hardware that is made by companies with chipsets that aren't in common usage, or the company doesn't want to release the info to developers that they need to write open source implamentations of the drivers. if you stick with hardware that is even remotely common you shouldn't have a problem. if so...a great wizzard comp-sci major like you should have a problem looking at either the man page or linuxdocs.org right???

      You're totally right. I have no expectations to get my Winmodem working in Linux. But get it through your head that we're not talking about geeks. All the geeks have linux already. We're talking about whether Desktop Linux will appeal to regular users.

      And regular users tend to not want to worry about whether they "are running hardware that is made by companies with chipsets that aren't in common usage" or that or "these companies don't want to release the info to developers", and they certainly don't want to look at man pages or linuxdocs to get their shit to work.

      I am not disagreeing with you on your points. You're right, 100%. If I really wanted to use Linux, I'd have to invest a few hundred bucks and get Linux-supported hardware, and I'd have no problem with it. But you're being very naive if you think regular people will do this.

    12. Re:Probably Most of Them.. by cookiepus · · Score: 1

      Isn't the whole point of this story that Desktop Distros intend to charge?

    13. Re:Probably Most of Them.. by jameslore · · Score: 1

      And I'll bite back :-)

      1) I was a CS major (2 years ago). Linux won hands down for C/C++ dev (I couldn't afford VS back then). Still does for what I did during my course. These days I end up doing mostly Java, and prefer the Win32 JVM.

      2) I tried moving to Gentoo recently at home and failed. Why? Games, Palm, Photoshop. GIMP doesn't compare to Photoshop (though the price is nice), EE and BF1942 doesn't run under Linux.

      3) What Linux doesn't have is a *consistent* interface. Yeah, GNOME looks funky. KDE is looking sweet these days too. But why should the user be subjected to different UIs and interface standards (copy-paste etc.) depending on the toolkit the programmer chose?

      4) Hardware...Linux won't even recognise my scanner (Canon FB630U) despite the SANE version I'm using supporting it. My Palm is out as QuickOffice doesn't sync with Linux (and I'm too lazy to write a conduit, despite QO files being just HTML on the Palm side). Oh, and it doesn't like all the buttons on my Logitech Mouseman. Dang nabbit.

      The main thing these days though, is that I don't have time. With Windows, I plug in my scanner and it whines about drivers. I'm sure I could get it working under Linux. Ditto with my Palm, mouse, joypad etc. etc. I could get almost everything fine and only have to reboot to Win2k for games. But I don't want to spend all that time just to get my machine working exactly right when I can spend 1/10th the time and do it in Windows.

      On the other hand, give it a few years and I'm sure this will be far less of a problem :-)

    14. Re:Probably Most of Them.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Windows 98 and Windows 2k Professional both hit swap on my box. (Athlon XP 1800, 512 mb DDR, etc.) Linux does not. I have no doubt that it would, if I ran KDE or Gnome, however. The fact remains that Linux isn't inherently better or worse in terms of speed than Windows - it all depends what you're running.

      "I never have a moment like 'I am in Windows, and I have the need to boot to Linux to do something.'" Funny, I have moments like that all the time. As a comp sci major, you should have been taught to ignore the FUD and use the best tool for the task at hand. For me, that's often Linux, but your own mileage may vary. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

      Drivers? I've never had a problem. Stop buying cheap crap, and it'll work. Heaven forfend, you may have to update your kernel. Is that an 'extra' step? No. I don't expect Win 3.11 to support my SoundBlaster Live. I don't expect old Linux kernels to, either.

      Now, as for, "They want features and smooth interfaces.".. Would that more developers would realize that.

    15. Re:Probably Most of Them.. by jameslore · · Score: 1

      But I am also a user. And Windows gives me a better browser (don't talk about standards. Sites look better in IE, and thats what I care about as a user,) a slicker e-mail client, etc.

      I'll argue that. Everyone works fine for me (although microsoft.com doesn't do the DHTML menus) with Mozilla 1.1 on Win2k. And the Mozilla mail client beats the pants off Outlook Express.

      I won't argue anything else though ;-)

    16. Re:Probably Most of Them.. by Random+Feature · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't care that people want to use Windows. It's not a horrible OS and there are many pluses. But stop preaching about "looks bad" and "not productive" because quite frankly, if my 9 year old can figure it out, the 13 year old can do her homework, and the 15 year old can code - ALL ON LINUX - then it's a matter of preference, choice and experience. You don't want to change and that's fine, but your ability to be productive on Linux is NOT universal.

      I write for a living. I have all the latest toys and I've never had a problem finding drivers or support under Linux. StarOffice is great, Galeon/Mozilla display things fine (except for lazily coded sites designed for "ie") and I'm extremely productive.

      Your inability to be productive on linux is not the fault of Linux. It's your own.

      --
      I don't have a solution, but I certainly admire the problem.
    17. Re:Probably Most of Them.. by m1a1 · · Score: 1

      The original poster is right frozen. Your comments don't address the underlying issues.

      I am computer engineering major (junior) and I too often am in Linux and have to boot over to windows for something. Never do I HAVE to boot to linux to do something. Don't get me wrong, I love Linux, but I can be productive without it. Not have windows, would cause me problems right now (which is why I still have it).

      To argue your comments:
      1) You do not HAVE to use .net when coding in windows. I right all of my code in windows and I use gcc. I this is a non-issue.

      2) I play games. Most of them can't be played under Linux, or are considerably more trouble to set up. (see answer 4 for more info)

      3) This is hard to argue, the interfaces are good, just not as good.

      4) My sound card does not work in Linux (at least not well). I have a soundblaster audigy platinum. It is a PAIN to get working, and even when I get it working (I usually don't take the time to) it most of the features don't work. I can't record with it, the remote is non-functional, etc. I WANT THOSE UNDER LINUX TOO!

    18. Re:Probably Most of Them.. by PerryMason · · Score: 4, Funny

      "Ah shit I am in Linux, now I need to reboot to windows before I can do this"

      I have those moments all the time. I'll be sitting at home thinking, geez, I havent had a W32.worm rape my system in months, I'd better boot into Windows.

      --
      "I'm tired of all this 'Aren't humanity great' bullshit. We're a virus with shoes" - Bill Hicks
    19. Re:Probably Most of Them.. by frozencesium · · Score: 2, Interesting
      first of all, it's hard to talk as both a CS major and a user at the same time. it just is. as a CS major you are a programmer. as a user, you are a user. these are two opposite points of view. yes, programmers are trying please the users, but we all know that it can't be done (perfectly at least)

      second of all kde 3 (in my opinion, and that's what we are talking about here, is oppinion) is getting pretty polished.

      third, as far as e-mail clients go...one is as good as the next. if we are talking about outlook + exchange i can see your point. other than that...we (when i worked for an isp) encouraged our users to use eudora because most found it was easier to use, less chance of executing a virus, and less hassle to support.

      fourth, most people do run decent hardware. when i worked for an isp, we flat out REFUSED to support winmodems. we didn't care what os you used, we didn't like dealing with the headache, so it's not a windows issue...it's a hardware issue. anyone who chooses to use hardare that isn't "mainstream" runs a risk, whether in linux or windows, as to whether or not they will recieve support, will it work, etc. after all...with XP, to be supported, the driver has to be certified by MS. if some podunk NIC is giving you a problem, it will probably be a problem no matter what. in linux, at least you have the advantage of forums to tell you if you f*cked, or if there is a fix. try getting that help from MS.

      all that aside. i'm not saying that MS doesn't have it's place, but what i'm trying to say is that Linux isn't as nasty/hard/obtuse as most people make it out to be. do i have any illusions that linux will rule the world? no. we can be competitive given the chance...

      -frozen

      --
      I'm not always the brightest pixel in the stream
    20. Re:Probably Most of Them.. by frozencesium · · Score: 1
      1) You do not HAVE to use .net when coding in windows. I right all of my code in windows and I use gcc. I this is a non-issue.

      give it time...that will change...

      2) I play games.

      at home...i can understand this, but where linux has to make the difference is in business. if business uses linux on the desktop (many companies ban gaming, even solitare), then getting the gaming companies to port to linux won't be a problem. for more, read on...

      This is hard to argue, the interfaces are good, just not as good.

      this is part of the previously mentioned...what...is opengl not a good interface? the problem is that most current games are so dependant on direct x that it's hard to port. notice the games that have the option of opengl tend to be the ones that are easily ported to several systems, not just linux...

      My sound card does not work in Linux (at least not well). I have a soundblaster audigy platinum. It is a PAIN to get working

      mine works fine...this isn't an OS related issue. i also know people that have problems running soundblaster anything under windows. hell, my logitec joystick works under linux, but not windows (at least not correctly). hardware compatability will always be an issue, no matter what os you are running. if you are saying more hardware runs under windows, you are right, but also remember that many hardware companies develop for windows and that they aren't helping the open source people. this doesn't mean windows is better on the desktop, it means that there needs to be either more open standards, or that people need to realise what a market open source can be. after all. i would rather spend more money on a piece of hardware that will work under ANY os i choose to run than to pick the cheapest. to that effect...i have noticed that you get what you pay for in hardware...

      -frozen

      --
      I'm not always the brightest pixel in the stream
    21. Re:Probably Most of Them.. by io333 · · Score: 2

      The simple test is this: I never have a moment like "I am in Windows, and I have the need to boot to Linux to do something." But I often have the "Ah shit I am in Linux, now I need to reboot to windows before I can do this" moment.

      This simple succinct comment sums up my Linux vs. Windows experience over the past four years better than anything I have ever seen. I have never been able to come up with such a short and perfect statement of why I never seem to be able to completely migrate over to Linux no matter how hard I try. I have tried all distros, with Gentoo being my favorite and on the other half of my hard drive -- but I'm in Windows again now because today I needed to get something done, *quickly* and I just havn't gotten around to (or seen the need to) boot back.

    22. Re:Probably Most of Them.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      play Delta Force or snood


      Just so you know, there's a cool Snood-like game in Linux called Frozen Bubble. (I'm no hard-core Snood addict, so I can't compare the details. But, I've played both enough to know that they are very similar.)
    23. Re:Probably Most of Them.. by frozencesium · · Score: 2, Interesting
      These days I end up doing mostly Java, and prefer the Win32 JVM

      ok...then have you used jdk for linux? if so, why? java is an open standard (or was ment to be)...so why develop for only the MS implamentation?

      I tried moving to Gentoo recently at home and failed. Why? Games, Palm, Photoshop. GIMP doesn't compare to Photoshop

      that depends totaly on what you are doing. for most users, gimp is plenty. in fact, on my windows partition (granted i haven't booted it in about a year or so), gimp worked fine for everything i needed it to do. unless you are a serious photoshop developer, gimp will work fine. never mind the plugins that are availible for it (both free and non-free).

      What Linux doesn't have is a *consistent* interface. Yeah, GNOME looks funky. KDE is looking sweet these days too. But why should the user be subjected to different UIs and interface standards (copy-paste etc.) depending on the toolkit the programmer chose? granted this is true. however...highlight and middle-click (both left and right button at the same time for those emulating 3 buttons) is far nicer than the ^c ^v of windows, and is pretty standard in the XFree86 system (WM usually doesn't make a difference). true *nix developers need to choose their interface, shortcuts, etc. i have, however, run into several programs in windows that didn't behave as though i though they would/should. again, this a a programmings issue, not an OS issue.

      Hardware...Linux won't even recognise my scanner (Canon FB630U) despite the SANE version I'm using supporting it. My Palm is out as QuickOffice doesn't sync with Linux (and I'm too lazy to write a conduit, despite QO files being just HTML on the Palm side). Oh, and it doesn't like all the buttons on my Logitech Mouseman. Dang nabbit.

      my mouseman works just fine...i just told XF86 that i was using a mouseman and it was fine. this step shouldn't be necisary granted, but many distros include and autodetect function that will config this for you...so it's a non issue. as for your scanner...i have posted many times about the manufacturer not helping open source people develop drivers for hardware. oh, and palm works find under linux...(depends on distro, etc...). i spent maybe 2 hours total configuring my desktop and server in linux. i spent more that that with 1 windows installation alone.

      the bottom line is that everyone's experiance is different. can linux take the desktop? yes, and you are right, it will take a little work for it to do so. on the other hand, for the common tasks of an office environment, linux (with a skillfull admin), could easily smack windows down.

      i have taken the time to post to most of the responses here, which i normaly don't do...but if i am wrong, or am incorrect...e-mail me...i dare you to prove me wrong. in fact, i hope you do.

      -frozen

      frozencesium@hotmail.com

      --
      I'm not always the brightest pixel in the stream
    24. Re:Probably Most of Them.. by frozencesium · · Score: 1
      ok...then have you used jdk for linux? if so, why? java is an open standard (or was ment to be)...so why develop for only the MS implamentation?

      um, i ment..."ok...then have you used jdk for linux? if not, then why not?

      this is why there is a preview button ;-)

      -frozen

      --
      I'm not always the brightest pixel in the stream
    25. Re:Probably Most of Them.. by tshak · · Score: 2

      hello...in .NET they DEPRICATED IOSTREAM.H!!!

      Well, once you start programming outside of the classroom you'll appreciate .NET's elegance. Although I'm a relatively new programmer (6+ years of professional experience), I've worked with many 10+ year developers (BSC, MSC, and those with just an HS degree) and although not all of them love Microsoft, they will definitely agree that .NET is a huge step in the right direction for Windows based software and Web Applications.

      my sound card, zip drive, webcam, nic card, video card, and joystick all work in linux.

      See, this is the problem with CompSci. You really need to get another major, and do CompSci later - it's too narrow focused of a degree, and most of the stuff you can learn on your own (still a good degree to get though). There's this little science called statistics, and it requires a sample size. So who cares if your sound card works in linux? That doesn't mean that everyone else's will.

      --

      There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
    26. Re:Probably Most of Them.. by cookiepus · · Score: 1

      Why can't a CS major be a user? I use e-mail, financial management tools, web design tools, graphic tools, word processing, etc. It's as important to me that these things work efficiently and entuitively as it is to an office secretary.

      being CS doesn't make me a masochist.

    27. Re:Probably Most of Them.. by tshak · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A 9 - 15 year old is a poor example as they are at the optimal age to learn something that is not necessarily easy to use. Hell, I used MiniLinux when I was 12 and configured PPP (ya, it was a bit of a task at the time), wrote lame iRC scripts, etc. At the same time, my parent's just DIDN'T GET IT, so I progammed some nice menu's for them. Still, it wasn't good enough, so they bought a Mac.

      --

      There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
    28. Re:Probably Most of Them.. by frozencesium · · Score: 1
      Well, once you start programming outside of the classroom you'll appreciate .NET's elegance. Although I'm a relatively new programmer (6+ years of professional experience), I've worked with many 10+ year developers (BSC, MSC, and those with just an HS degree) and although not all of them love Microsoft, they will definitely agree that .NET is a huge step in the right direction for Windows based software and Web Applications.

      um...and what makes you think i'm in a classroom? i code yes, i have a CS background yes, but let input a few things here...i'm not a 23 yearold grad student. i've been there, done that. .NET can be nice...but it has too many limitations, and just too inefficent for what we (DOD/NSA) are doing. if you write a program in .NET, you have to have the .NET framework installed for the program to work...not always possible. granted it has it's place, but for performance and compatability it sucks ass.

      There's this little science called statistics, and it requires a sample size. So who cares if your sound card works in linux? That doesn't mean that everyone else's will.

      this is exactly the point i was trying to make. "just because it does/doesn't work for you doesn't make it so."

      -frozen

      --
      I'm not always the brightest pixel in the stream
    29. Re:Probably Most of Them.. by frozencesium · · Score: 1
      yes, but more often than not, being a CS major taints these things...you can no longer look at them from the objective point of view that is that of the user.

      i am guilty of this as much as many other /.'rs are.

      i guess i have found a way to collect foes ;-)

      -frozen

      --
      I'm not always the brightest pixel in the stream
    30. Re:Probably Most of Them.. by cookiepus · · Score: 1

      yes, but more often than not, being a CS major taints these things...you can no longer look at them from the objective point of view that is that of the user.

      Which is probably why applications developed by CS majors don't appeal as much to regular users, I guess. Do open source projects have teams of cognitive psychologists and professional graphic designers making sure that every control is ideally placed, every sequence of events is perfectly natural, every icon is crystal clear in its meaning? It would go a LONG way towards making Linux more popular among "average joes." As is, these projects are done mainly by computer people who knows how to write great software, but don't always have the psychological and artistic insight to make it absolutely appealing to non-computer people.

      Your little comment lead me onto a really important revilation. That's EXACTLY the reason some (most?) Linux apps just lack a certain polished intuitivness to them. MS, etc has a way to attract psychologists, linguists, artists, etc. to their projects: money. How do you attract these people to open source projects? It's a problem.

      i am guilty of this as much as many other /.'rs are.

      Damnit. my mind has been trained to read /. as "lambda" rather than "slashdot." I have to get used to that. But anyway, that's not a problem. Linux and open source are valuable. They are software for computer people. I love Apache, PHP, etc. These are programs that are meant to be used by experienced computer people, and they don't need fancy guis or anything else. For these apps, their POWER, reliability, security are their selling points, and they beat the shit out of MS products. So I don't care that /.'s have this mentality - it lead to the creation of MANY tools I use and rely on. Unfortunately, software for non-computer-pros needs that extra level of polish, which apparently only $ can buy.

      i guess i have found a way to collect foes ;-)

      What does that mean? I hope you don't mean me. I certainly respect and admire your statements. In fact, your comment lead me to understand what it is that's missing from open source stuff. So your comment enriched my mind. I certainly am no foe.

    31. Re:Probably Most of Them.. by evilviper · · Score: 2

      Why do you need to boot Windows to use MSN messenger or print? GAIM supports MSN messenger, and MOST printers do have open source drivers.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    32. Re:Probably Most of Them.. by JonK · · Score: 1
      in .NET they DEPRICATED IOSTREAM.H!!!

      At the risk of responding to an obvious troll (three exclamation points?), if you really were a CompSci major and (as you claimed downthread) working for the DoD/NSA, I'd hope you'd read ISO/IEC 14882-1998 before sounding off.

      If you had read it, you'd know that iostream.h has been deprecated by the Standard and, further, this has been the case since the mid 90s, when the Standard Library was being finalised: as documented in the D&E, this was to ensure that compiler vendors' (probably non-standard) implementations didn't clash with the Standard one.

      Since it's painfully obvious that you haven't read it and are, in fact, merely shooting your mouth off, we can also safely assume that the bit about your being a CompSci major and working for the DoD/NSA. Admit it: you're 25, single and live with your parents (although you did kiss a girl once).

      To use your preferred demotic: yUO R TEH 5UXX0R!!!

      --
      Cheers

      Jon
    33. Re:Probably Most of Them.. by frozencesium · · Score: 1
      I (laughs to myself) am acctually 25, that doesn't mean i haven't been coding for a while. I WAS (past tense here) a CS major. I now am in the Air Force working at the NSA as a programmer.

      No, I haven't read ISO/IEC 14882-1998, nor have I claimed to. Of course, it hardly matters, as microsoft's perversion of open standards is well documented, and i don't have time or space to get into that argument here. If you try to tell me that MS's compilers follow the standards, I will simply laugh at you, then ask "who's standards?".

      now...as for the personal attacks...that's just low. if you have to attack me on a personal level because you can't think of anything else to say, then i pitty you, i really do. your reply started well, but the last part of your comment just proves that not only are you ignorent, but immature as well.

      -frozen

      --
      I'm not always the brightest pixel in the stream
    34. Re:Probably Most of Them.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Software is so bloody expensive sometimes it is smarter to buy hardware and use linux. The softmodem is a great example, because not only does a real modem enable you to use more software, it's more efficient. It will probably last longer too.

    35. Re:Probably Most of Them.. by jameslore · · Score: 1

      ok...then have you used jdk for linux? if so, why? java is an open standard (or was ment to be)...so why develop for only the MS implamentation?

      Whoops. I meant the Sun Win32 JVM (1.4.1). I refuse, on principle, to touch the MS 1.1.4 JVM. And why over Linux? Because the Win32 version gets a huge amount of testing, a huge amount of users and has the greatest chances of reliability and speed. When the Linux JVM has had a chance to mature a bit, then I might well jump on board.

      gimp is plenty.

      Agreed, for most users. For those that *need* Photoshop though (including anyone submitting work to print shops) there is no substitute. And there's a surprising amount of people who need it.

      however...highlight and middle-click (both left and right button at the same time for those emulating 3 buttons) is far nicer than the ^c ^v of windows, and is pretty standard in the XFree86 system

      Semantic. It may be nicer, but does almost everything use it? And yes, it is a programming choice. And as a programmer, choice is good. As a user though, inconsistency is bad. As a user I want every application I load to work the same, and if it doesn't I'm unlikely to use it (same under Win32). Java has always irked me as a user can tell their not using Windows. Development choice should not be visible to the end user (unless they go looking).

      On the hardware front, yeah the Palm works. It's a pain in the arse though. And QO still doesn't work, along with plenty of other proprietary conduits. My mouseman works, but the side button doesn't. And yeah, Canon is terrible (i.e. doesn't) at providing product info for driver developers. But end users don't care - they'll blame Linux, not Canon.

      I'd certainly agree. Linux *could* take the desktop. With work. Fingers crossed discussion like this will ferret out what needs to be done. I'd love to be proved wrong on all points, so bring it on :-)

  25. Re:It's like porn sites.... there are enough alrea by oneeyedman · · Score: 3, Funny
    For a pretty Linux desktop experience there's Debian; for the more seasoned Linux hackers there is Mandrake and SuSE; for the Linux newbies there's Slackware and Gentoo.

    You are joking, right? Pretty Debian? Mandrake for seasoned hackers? Gentoo for newbies?

    No more of this or someone may get hurt.

    --
    *** "Freiheit ist immer die Freiheit des Andersdenkenden". -- Rosa Luxemburg ***
  26. Got an opinion? by SexyKellyOsbourne · · Score: 2, Flamebait

    At least bet on a Linux distro in a dot-com deadpool.

    http://www.fuckedcompany.com

    There are 17 HOF-fucks already for Linux companies, and with the economy, I expect a lot more:

    http://comments.fuckedcompany.com/fc/phparchives/s earch.php?search=linux

    My picks? Lindows and SuSe, and quite possibly Slackware. Lindows because it's iillegal, and SuSe and Slackware due to general lack of popularity, corporate backing, and maintenance.

    1. Re:Got an opinion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I doubt Slackware will be one of the victims for a number of resons. First of all, it is effectively a one man operation so operating expenses are not nearly as high as Mandrake as an example. Second, while it's user base is not the largest, Slackaholics are notoriously loyal to thier distro. Third, economically speaking it is currently in the black, unlike most distros (due to a combination of one and two).

      Hi, my name is Mephisto and I am a Slackaholic.

    2. Re:Got an opinion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's just beautiful. SuSE lacks popularity, corporate backing and maintenance. Good to see someone who does research before he posts.

    3. Re:Got an opinion? by program21 · · Score: 2

      I'll vouch for that. Having tried a number of other distros, I came to Slack and have been using it ever since; I've installed in on at least 4 computers and I recommend it wherever I can (to people who could use it, at least).

      --
      This has been a test. Had this been a real emergency, we would have fled in terror and you would not have been informed.
    4. Re:Got an opinion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I second that

    5. Re:Got an opinion? by jpetts · · Score: 4, Insightful

      SuSe and Slackware due to general lack of popularity, corporate backing, and maintenance.

      So many Americans say this about SuSE: well, I've got news for you. It is the number one distro in Germany, the largest Linux market in Europe. Ditto, Denmark, Scandinavia, Eastern Europe, etc.

      It is used in very many corporations, and has MUCH better support than RedHat or Mandrake in my experience (having contacted all three in the last month.

      There is a larger world outside the US...

      --
      Call me old fashioned, but I like a dump to be as memorable as it is devastating - Bender
    6. Re:Got an opinion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Me too.

    7. Re:Got an opinion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's also a _huge_ 'US underground' of SuSE fans. I know because I'm one of them!

      Now that YaST is finally fully modular, easy/fast to use from both the console and X, and no longer a blatant memory hog -- I think it has great potential to attract others as well. It's a breeze to install/configure and still easy to hack on -- the best of both worlds.

      That said, I know quite a few PPC fans of SuSE as well. Would be nice if they released more versions of SuSE for the PPC architecture!

    8. Re:Got an opinion? by i_am_nitrogen · · Score: 1

      How do you determine that Lindows is illegal? You can find links to the source code here.

  27. Okay.... by cookiepus · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'll take the plunge and post for the first time in my life.

    No one will pay for desktop linux. Why? Because people who pay for OSs are generally businesses, and businesses want productivity. There's just not enough of that in Linux desktop apps. If you're going to pay, you may as well pay for what's going to give you the most bang for your buck. And that's Windows.

    I am not anti-Linux, at all. I cringe at Windows-based servers, and I fully realize Unix-based server power and flexibility, and encourage my clients to consider it. One of my clients moved to Red Hat and they pay RH some nominal fee for every RH server they ship out. Not even for that RH Network thing. They just pay some ammount to ensure that RH continues its development.

    And yet, these guys use Windows on the desktops in the office. They are all Unix professionals. But for shit they need to do on the workstation, Windows can't be beat.

    1. Re:Okay.... by Phroggy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      No one will pay for desktop linux. Why? Because people who pay for OSs are generally businesses, and businesses want productivity. There's just not enough of that in Linux desktop apps. If you're going to pay, you may as well pay for what's going to give you the most bang for your buck. And that's Windows.

      WRONG. More and more businesses (and government agencies, and schools) are switching to Linux, precisely BECAUSE it gives them more bang for their buck. Yes, even on the desktop.

      Besides, I bought Slackware, after I'd already downloaded and burned the ISO, because I appreciate that Patrick et al have done and I want to support them.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    2. Re:Okay.... by frozencesium · · Score: 3, Interesting
      well...not always true...

      i'm in the Air Force, and arround the non-classified network, they use primarily NT for the reasons you mentioned. on the cassified side of things (air walled from the world), they use linux, bsd, solaris, and irix (and yes irix CAN be locked down...).

      on a more interesting note...the USMC has a large investment in *nix systems. most of the systems they use on a daly basis (at least here) are *nix based. most of the regular office workers use xterms for god's sake! when i "shipped" (went through a processing station to leave the local area and go to basic), the people there all had xterms as their desktops.

      *nix systems have plenty of software out there, and when in doubt...write your own. most big companies write their own propriatary software to handle their needs anyway (on both winblowz and *nix systems). hell, i've run in to many small companies that write their own stuff (or modify the open source solution) because it doesn't *quite* meet their needs. but then again...that's just my experiance...by no means am i saying that it's always that way...

      as i said...there are plenty of people using *nix solutions and have no problem with it. for example, i had a friend (a total computer newbie) that was surfing the web on my box (debian/unstable with kde3). they were able to chat, surf the web, and work in open office all without me having to tell them how to do anything. what is my point? this person kept telling me that they didn't know if they could ever work on anything but windows...(yes, they were so clueless that they had no idea they were on a linux system).

      at this point, even a newbie can work on a working *nix desktop. put a windows user in front of OSX and they can do their job...click on an icon, use dropdown menus, etc. the look and feel is different, yes...but the basic concept is the same, and thus it isn't as hard to re-train people as one might think...

      -frozen

      --
      I'm not always the brightest pixel in the stream
    3. Re:Okay.... by cookiepus · · Score: 1

      nix systems have plenty of software out there, and when in doubt...write your own. most big companies write their own propriatary software to handle their needs anyway (on both winblowz and *nix systems).

      No doubt. However, there are some VERY basic things that MOST people use, at which windows is just much better.

      * better browsing experience. MSIE is sleeker and faster than Mozilla, etc. The web sites were designed with it in mind. Not a fair advantage, but it's a fact.

      * better word processing. MS Word is better than that StarOffice thing. Smoother, nicer, faster, more fully features. Same for Excell vs that spreadhseet.

      * Solitaire. Much better on Windows.

      * E-mail. Outlook and Outlook Express. No better mail client.

      What you say is totally true. But the thing is, there's a sertain common set of features and applications that just about everyone in any business or home use. And Windows does it better. For a lot of people, this precludes any futher consideration.

      but the basic concept is the same, and thus it isn't as hard to re-train people as one might think...

      Definately. But, what's the motivation? The best argument you can make for *nix is "hey, it can do X, Y and Z too." It certainly isn't that much more difficult to do basic things, but I can't say it's BETTER or MORE PLEASANT. So why will people bother to switch?

    4. Re:Okay.... by frozencesium · · Score: 1
      granted...but i have to say that klines and ksolitare rule ;-)

      aside from all that...i can't tell much of a difference in open office vs office xp. but again, that's me.

      outlook and outlook express suck. i've had to support them both, and nobody i know likes them for their e-mail capability. if we are talking about outlook & exchange with the calander shareing and all, i can understand...but on a pure e-mail level...even eudora on windows is better than outlook.

      oh, and before i forget...i know this is my experiance, but IE is slower than even netscape 6. reason? most of the time IE waits to grab the whole page before rendering it. in netscape/mozilla, as soon as a link appears, i can click on it, even if the rest of the page hasn't be grabbed yet...but that's me...

      anywho...cheers!

      -frozen

      --
      I'm not always the brightest pixel in the stream
    5. Re:Okay.... by reflective+recursion · · Score: 2

      Where are your sources for this "fact?" My guess is just a very very very small percentage of businesses are switching to Linux for desktop tasks. Why do I think this? Because from my daily use, Linux has been very slow gaining productivity apps. We finally have an office application with word processing, etc. But this is NOT enough. Printer support is severely lacking. Sure you might be able to get just about any common postscript printer up and running, but it is somewhat difficult to do so. Then there are font issues and file system issues. Desktop systems do _not_ need multiuser capabilities. The hassle of system management is still there (opposed to "user" management.. which should be treated in a completely different way).

      The more "bang for buck" is true, but only if the user is a programmer or very *ix-knowledgable. Otherwise, the "bang" drops quickly to zero and the "buck" increases dramatically in terms of cost of maintenance and support. Slapping a fancy GUI onto a _system_ does not make a _new_ system. It just makes an incoherent hodgepodge of metaphors. The user will see a very Windows-like desktop, but the file system and nearly everything about the system is different.

      I suppose nowadays it is entirely possible to install a "working" Linux desktop "system" that is usable out-of-the-box. BUT, once something goes wrong (and something WILL go wrong, Linux is not invincible to everyday things going awry) the system will be completely useless without a system administrator. One of the benefits of Windows is that everyday users can do most system administration tasks. Installing drivers is as simple as installing software. All _system_ and _user_ configuration is done via the control panel, unlike Linux which has most system configuration in /etc and most user configuration in $HOME/.* files with as many different formats as there are programs which use the configuration data.

      --
      Dijkstra Considered Dead
    6. Re:Okay.... by Erore · · Score: 1

      * E-mail. Outlook and Outlook Express. No better mail client.

      IMHO you're wrong here. the Bat! is the best email client. It has features useful for email that is head an shoulders above anything Outlook or Outlook Express offer. It handles multiple accounts better, mailing lists better, allows for templates for each folder you store your mail in, a signature for each folder you send mail out of, unique sounds for each folder, and boiler plate templates you can create and execute with just a typed word and a command sequence. Searches, man, they are the fastest ever. I had over 10k mail messages in the bat and it could search through them in about 4 seconds. Outlook is terrible at this. The other mail clients you mentioned simply do not have the features you really need to manage mail well.

      However, those other mail clients have some features that do not exist in the Bat!. Outlook Express is also a newsgroup reader. And Outlook is a Personal Information Manager. It has tasks lists and Calendars, also, coupled with an Exchange Server, can be a powerful collaboration tool. But, those are features of PIM, not an email client.

      See, I'm nitpicking your choice of words. Those programs you mentioned are not the best email clients. They are, however, very powerful capable programs that do things that have nothing to do with email.

    7. Re:Okay.... by tstock · · Score: 1

      * better browsing experience

      This used to be a subjective matter, but with the latest Mozilla based browsers it's pretty much a given that Mozilla browsers better than MS IE.

      * better word processing

      whatever. I dont see a difference. OO and Abiword do just as much as MS Word

      * Solitaire. Much better on Windows.

      I hope this was a joke

      * E-mail. Outlook and Outlook Express. No better mail client.

      The few look-and-feel advantages are not worth the virus/worm vector.

      I don't know why people _don't_ switch. I've been using linux on the desktop for the last 2-3 years, and don't miss a thing from the Microsoft world.

    8. Re:Okay.... by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      One of the benefits of Windows is that everyday users can do most system administration tasks.

      You must be joking, I've run myself RAGGED supporting networks of PC's operated by (ab)users who could not even grasp the concept of a subdirectory or network drive pointing to an area on the server. But 99% of Unix admin I could do from my chair......

    9. Re:Okay.... by rizzo420 · · Score: 1

      does quicktime work in mozilla on a *nix system (other than osx obviously)? i don't think so.

      do webpages look prettier in mozilla (on any system)? nope.

      is there a better spreadsheet program than excel? no way.

      in general, is windows easier to use for a huge gigantic percentage of the population? yes.

      do companies want to pay someone to fix problems that might arise in a *nix system (again other than osx)? never.

      so in conclusion, i'd say that windows will always be the top desktop operating system. unless linux or other *nices happen to come out with easier configuration that the average joe can point and click and completely configure his computer, and all the top applications that separate the microsoft world from the unix world happen to work in both windows and unix (and i'm talking photoshop and other adobe products, macromedia products, etc, etc, etc. not just ms office here), i don't think you'll see too many companies switch to linux or another unix platform for their desktop machines. servers is one thing, desktops is another.

      --
      please me, have no regrets.
    10. Re:Okay.... by weeble · · Score: 1

      The Scottish Police have already migrated to Star Office from Microsoft Office.

      The Police in England are currently under going trials for Linux on the Desktop. It is expected that they will migrate 60,000 desktops to Linux in the next year.

      --
      Slashdot Beta should die a painful death.
    11. Re:Okay.... by cookiepus · · Score: 1

      This used to be a subjective matter, but with the latest Mozilla based browsers it's pretty much a given that Mozilla browsers better than MS IE

      What does that mean? I am currently working on a web project for a large web-based B2B seller. We had a meeting with the owners and our strategy was this: make it look amazing in MSIE, and usable in Netscape/Mozilla. When we have limited hours and dollars to spend, we aim to perfect it for MSIE.

      So does every other web developer in the world, unless they have a specific reason to expect a lot of Mozilla traffic (such as this time we're on right now.)

      That fact alone makes IE better for users. It can be a bloated piece of crapware people like to say it is, but it renders pages they way they were meant to look, seems to work a LOT smoother, and on another site I frequent (www.plastic.com) renders much slower on Mozilla than IE.

      So indeed, "better" is a subjective term. Mozilla is "better" in many ways. IE is better in the sense that "more sites look better in it." To most non-technical users, THAT's the criteria that counts.

      That's the whole thing. I totally buy your point about *nux software being BETTER SOFTWARE in many aspects. Unfortunately, Microsoft figured out that it can get away with making infirior software by focusing their efforts on aspects that average (call them ignorant if you want) people care about.

      Most non-tech people will use software that's better looking and more intuative/smoother. They won't bother comparing stability and security.

      Please please please don't think I am trying to shit on Linux or software for it. I am not. I understand why people like Linux and switch to it. More power to you! But chances are not many people switched to Linux w/o some prior interest in computer technology and/or hate of MS. For people who don't care about the technical aspects nor hate MS, nor aren't interested enough to investigate "under the hood" MS software looks like a better choice.

    12. Re:Okay.... by tstock · · Score: 1

      But chances are not many people switched to Linux w/o some prior interest in computer technology and/or hate of MS

      I actually think that the people who havent switched to a unix based platform (Mac/Linux/BSD) are just afraid of change, period. They have too much invested in knowing how to do a three finger salute in windows and are afraid they won't know how to do Ctrl-Alt-Del in other OSes. There is no benefit to stawing in Windows today unless your job depends on it.

      My mother uses linux _without knowing_ when she visits me and always compliments me on my "lunix thing" and asks what she needs to download to make it look the same.

    13. Re:Okay.... by bogie · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "No one will pay for desktop linux"

      Well I guess its a good thing Linux and most of the GPL apps are free then.

      "But for shit they need to do on the workstation, Windows can't be beat."

      You said it. It depends entirely on what your doing.

      For example take Redhat 8.0. If you just need Web,Email, and an Office Suite it fits the bill nicely. I never used to say that about linux but now it couldn't be more true.

      Contrary to your bleak outlook the linux desktop its experiencing huge growth. Sure it may only go from the current 2% to 4% within the next 2-3 years, but that's an insane growth rate that makes even Microsoft jealous. Microsoft can no longer dream of that. Its even more impressive considering that overall all of the linux companies don't even advertise in any measurable amount.

      Think about it. Sooner rather than later Linux will have the same size market as Apple and most likely will surpass Apple and gain even more market share.

      --
      If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
    14. Re:Okay.... by cookiepus · · Score: 1

      Well I guess its a good thing Linux and most of the GPL apps are free then.

      Am I an idiot? Somehow I read the story to mean that we're talking about Desktop Linux Distros which are intended to be SOLD to the users.

      Please let me know if I am wrong!

    15. Re:Okay.... by reflective+recursion · · Score: 2

      Of course. Put those same people in front of an *ix machine and the problem will become much worse I suspect. But there are quite a few who _can_ do administrative tasks on Windows. Just try changing something like mouse clicking speed on Linux and compare that to Windows. Overall, it takes less knowledge to operate Windows.

      --
      Dijkstra Considered Dead
    16. Re:Okay.... by reflective+recursion · · Score: 2

      How is that a good statistic which represents what the majority of _businesses_ are switching to? I'd wager more businesses are switching from MS-DOS or MacOS to Windows than from any platform to Linux (or perhaps even from Windows to MacOS X). Police, fire, etc. have different needs and economic situations than businesses too. And citing a number such as 60,000 is completely meaningless because it is only _one_ organization. Sounds impressive, but means nothing at all in terms of the overall picture.

      For every business which switches to Linux, how many new businesses arrive which use Windows? Probably many more..

      --
      Dijkstra Considered Dead
    17. Re:Okay.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Three clicks on RH8/gnome2
      Next?

    18. Re:Okay.... by redtuxxx · · Score: 0

      >do webpages look prettier in mozilla (on any >system)? nope.

      Matter of opinion (also have you seen what IE does to pngs)

      >is there a better spreadsheet program than excel? >no way.

      your joking right - I hate excel with a passion.
      Excel likes to mangle your data because it thinks it knows better than you - a "feature" not a bug

      >in general, is windows easier to use for a huge >gigantic percentage of the population? yes.

      Your opinion - I find having to use a windows machine painful

      >do companies want to pay someone to fix problems >that might arise in a *nix system (again other >than osx)? never.

      irrelevant - companies dont want to pay someone to fix problems that WILL occur in windows, but have to.

      >so in conclusion, i'd say that windows will >always be the top desktop operating system. >unless linux or other *nices happen to come out >with easier configuration that the average joe >can point and click and completely configure his >computer, and all the top applications that >separate the microsoft world from the unix world >happen to work in both windows and unix (and i'm >talking photoshop and other adobe products, >macromedia products, etc, etc, etc. not just ms >office here), i don't think you'll see too many >companies switch to linux or another unix >platform for their desktop machines. servers is >one thing, desktops is another.

      Apps?

      I can think of one and only one app that I miss Access/Paradox.

      I use

      evolution (what outlook should be)
      openwriter
      gnumeric
      G2 (of course)
      galeon2
      Cups (printing)
      Pan
      Gaim
      Gimp (gtk2)

      looking at mergeant for dbs

    19. Re:Okay.... by reflective+recursion · · Score: 2

      That's cute, but this user has KDE. Ahh now we have distinctions. There is KDE Linux and Gnome Linux. Such a confusing thing, this "Linux."

      --
      Dijkstra Considered Dead
    20. Re:Okay.... by llamaluvr · · Score: 1

      Linux for businesses/ government agencies makes a lot of sense. At such places, you want the computer to only run whatever software is necessary for the business/agency: the business specific software (for the cash register, or for ordering something), a word processor, and perhaps e-mail and web browsing. Provided the vendor will make the specific software for Linux, then it's the ideal choice.

      How so? Most folks have little clue what to do in Linux, even with a gui like KDE. That way, you teach them only what they need to know, and they only do what they need to do, since they can't do anything else. They will be more productive because they won't waste time changing backgrounds and screensavers and playing solitare.

      --
      Insightful: 76, Off-Topic: 379, Flamebait: 24, Funny: 152, Interesting: 201, Underrated: 55, Troll: 9, Total: 896
    21. Re:Okay.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Productivity"? I thought that word meant something like doing your job. Not wasting your time rebooting, reinstalling and just fighting windows, trying to make it do what you want it to.

    22. Re:Okay.... by chrj · · Score: 1

      ... businesses want productivity. There's just not enough of that in Linux desktop apps..

      What kind of apps are you talking about?

      I (in my work as a fulltime programmer) find it much convenient to work in blackbox using emacs, cvs and other development tools.

    23. Re:Okay.... by weeble · · Score: 1

      It is always difficult to look at percentages or trends when at the beginning of a trend.

      Would you say after someone pushes the first domino at a domino topple "Well that is just one domino"?

      Would you say it at the second to fall?

      This is the beginning, there are few organisations that have tried using something other than windows on the desktop.

      You are right that different orgainisations have different needs, for all will not have the need to move from what they have. Just as the Royal Bank of Scotland used Windows 3.1 until about 1998, it suited their needs.

      What it does is give choice. Prove that there are other Operating Systems that can be used successfully.

      I am not a zealot that wants to see everything relaced by Linux, I would like to see a little more choice and hope that this would force more use of open standards. :-)

      --
      Slashdot Beta should die a painful death.
    24. Re:Okay.... by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 2
      does quicktime work in mozilla on a *nix system (other than osx obviously)? i don't think so.

      Yes, just install CrossOver if you must have QuickTime. I believe Xine has integration with Mozilla to some extent. But who actually uses QuickTime apart from Apple and people who have signed "content deals" with Apple anyway? I can't remember the last time I saw a QT movie that wasn't on Apples site.

      do webpages look prettier in mozilla (on any system)? nope.

      Yes. Mozilla antialiases text far better than IE on Windows. I pigged about for ages when I was using XP trying to make it antialias text nicely. I'm sure there's a way, but I never found it.

      is there a better spreadsheet program than excel? no way.

      I'm not a business type, so Gnumeric solves all of my needs. If you are in the minority of people who needs an ultra powerful spreadsheet and you refuse to use OpenOffice, you can run MS Excel under Linux.

      in general, is windows easier to use for a huge gigantic percentage of the population? yes.

      Worthless statement, as ease of use is entirely subjective. People find what they're used to easy regardless of how insanely it may be designed.

      do companies want to pay someone to fix problems that might arise in a *nix system (again other than osx)? never.

      Confusing statement. You can't pay people to fix stuff in OS X, it's proprietary. And yes, at my company we find issues in Windows or some other commercial product we'd like to fix but can't all the time.

    25. Re:Okay.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "They will be more productive because they won't waste time changing backgrounds and screensavers and playing solitare." ...that's because no one can figure out how to do any of those things in Linux anyway. Let alone get work done.

    26. Re:Okay.... by cookiepus · · Score: 1

      "Productivity"? I thought that word meant something like doing your job. Not wasting your time rebooting, reinstalling and just fighting windows, trying to make it do what you want it to.

      May be I am just lucky, but I haven't had these troubles with Win2k or XP.

    27. Re:Okay.... by FUna · · Score: 1

      This attitude points out a fundamental flaw in Linux; sadly.

      Linux has every tool available for Windows users from CD Burning (xcdroast is my personal jesus) and watching movies (xine) to webcasting and CAD -- some of which is BETTER than the windows equivalent -- and the vast majority is FREE!!!

      The problem is that Windows users want to switch and have their computers instantly do everything they ever did in Windows without actually doing any research. When a Google search for "True Type Font Linux Support" fails they give up and go back to windows without checking such archives as Freshmeat and Sourceforge. Even those that do find those archives don't bother reading the instructions but look for the auto install file (setup.exe doesn't exist in Linux guys) without reading anything.

      The problem rests equally with:

      1) The users. They're lazy. 'nuff said.
      2) Linux. Instead of making things easier on users we insist on a business-as-usual approach.
      a. Make non-coders compile code themselves.
      b. Non-intuitive configuration utilities or
      complete lack thereof (conf files are great
      for us experts...but not for average users).
      c. Complete lack of documentation or difficult to
      read docs.

      When the linux community wakes up and realizes that the reason Windows continues to be successful is because it caters to the people who can't program their VCR (press the "menu" button and follow the damn on-screen instructions) and throw their owner's manuals away without even breaking the seal on the plastic bag then complain to the cable company that they can't record anything. When the Linux community realizes and more importantly accepts this fact, then will Linux start to make significant inroads in the desktop business.

      Y'all may hate RedHat...but I think they're doing the best job of working in this direction.

      (Oh...for you Debian users who think that distro is your personal jesus...pass a message to the developers that they can take Jigdo and shove it. Even on the website it says that its unreliable...so anyone wanting to download ISO's overnight are screwed. Yes...debian will be one of the distros to dissappear into obscurity if they keep using tools like Jigdo. Jigdo only adds to the problems...but doesn't solve anything by adding another layer of obscurity on top for users to give up on. I gave up after my 3rd unsuccessful attempt to get one ISO -- Jigdo kept reporting that "files were missing". Debian can rest on the scrapheap of history for all I care.)

      --
      "You're a penny in the tip jar of life, but you're shiny and you're mine."
    28. Re:Okay.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What exactly are they doing that requires Windows? I honestly can't imagine much.

    29. Re:Okay.... by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      I *DID* put the same users in front of Solaris and IRIX boxes and my life was much easier. Funny, no one ever called me needing help changing mouse click speed, real corporate administration is involves much more serious tasks, like install/upgrade of software, changing network settings, restoring backups.......all of which are MUCH easier to do on a network of Unix systems. I've done NT admin for 7 years and Novell admin for 5 years, by the way.

    30. Re:Okay.... by rizzo420 · · Score: 1

      you can't replace photoshop with gimp. so there's one app that is out when you choose linux (keep in mind, i'm not pro-ms or anti-linux at all, i just like playing devil's advocate).

      if you were to put someone completely new to computers in front of 3 machines (linux, windows, mac) and they were to use them, they would probably find them equally easy to use. now say something goes wrong. something breaks. they would probably find the windows machine easiest to fix, linux would be second, and if it's not a simple fix problem on the mac, that would definitely be last. the difference between windows and linux for people new to computers is that you can install windows and have everything working with maybe a few driver installs. you install linux and not everything works right away, installing stuff isn't as easy as double clicking a setup file or inserting a cd and clicking next through a series of little instruction screens. that's my main problem with using linux as my desktop machine. i can't install and uninstall programs with the simple click of the mouse. my other main problem is that i can't play all my games under linux without having to use wine (which i will say makes it totally not worth playing them if they don't play right off the bat).

      --
      please me, have no regrets.
  28. Whichever one dies first... by E-Rock-23 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...One will survive. And yes, I am optimistic. Linux on the desktop is possible. What needs to happen is people need to be exposed to it. How? Here's my plan.

    Start with education. Before someone can use Linux, people have to get beyond relying on Microsoft to take care of everything and actually learn some of the ins and outs of their machine. That way, when it comes to actually installing Linux, they're not as lost as they would be when it tells them "Hey, your modem isn't compatable."

    After they are educated, start them on something that doesn't require a leap of faith (i.e. repartitioning their hard drive, etc). Knoppix is perfect for that. It runs off of a CD and doesn't require any extensive knowledge, reformatting or repartitioning. This will help them get used to Linux's differences from Windows at a pace they can understand. They can click around, see what's where, etc.

    Once they're familiar, at least in part, with Linux as an OS, then they might be ready for a distro like Mandrake, Debian, or one that doesn't require them to do any Kernel work. Another reason for starting with something like Mdk or Deb (or even RH), is that software installation after the initial OS load is fairly simple thanks to packages. The only conceivable snag in that plan is dependancies. Make the machine dual boot with the default OS in LILO (or whatever boot manager you pick) pointing at Windows. That way, they don't have to leave Windows right away.

    From there, it's all up to software companies. But, of course, they won't be too quick to jump on. While Joe and Jane Consumer won't really care about modifying and redistributing source code, major software vendors aren't too keen on the Open Source/GPL way of doing things. They're only concerned about money. Since MS likes to keep their source closed, they feel a whole heck of alot more secure about things. They can charge for their software, in other words. It's getting them to embrace the Linux platform that is going to determine the fate of Linux on the Desktop in the end.

    And all this is probably just wishfull thinking on my part, since we all know how MS works...

    --
    Blog Prophyts - Right On, Man
    1. Re:Whichever one dies first... by MrResistor · · Score: 2

      I think it's better to reduce peopless dependency on Windows only apps first.

      Step one is to stop providing them with pirated MS Office CDs. As long as Joe Consumer isn't actually paying for it, he'll see very little reason to try anything else. You may think you're Stickin' it to the Man when you give away pirated MS software, but you're not. You're actually helping MS expand and maintain their monopoly, which is far more valuable to them than the actual cash they lost on the sale.

      Step two is to present viable Open Source alternatives, which basically means OpenOffice and Mozilla for most people.

      When the majority of apps they use are available for Linux, switching is a non-issue. At most they'll have to get used to a new menu structure, but having multiple desktops should more than make up for that.

      --
      Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
    2. Re:Whichever one dies first... by spitzak · · Score: 2

      I believe we are talking about systems that are installed on machines before the user buys them. Truth is, Linux does not stand a chance if the user is expected to "install" it. Windows installation could require the installer to type the entire thing in in hex, and it will *still* be easier than "put the CD in the drive and reboot" to install Linux, because the work will already be done by the manufacturer.

  29. Re:It's like porn sites.... there are enough alrea by xenode · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I think it was intentional to show that the moderators don't even read half of what they're moderating.

  30. Re:It's like porn sites.... there are enough alrea by checkyoulater · · Score: 1

    For a pretty Linux desktop experience there's Debian; for the more seasoned Linux hackers there is Mandrake and SuSE; for the Linux newbies there's Slackware and Gentoo.

    This is a joke, right? Gentoo and Slack for Linux newbies? Debian for a pretty desktop? Mandrake for the seasoned hackers? Can I please have some of what you are smoking?

    --
    Is that a real poncho? I mean, is that a Mexican poncho or is that a Sears poncho?
  31. Re:It's like porn sites.... there are enough alrea by i.r.id10t · · Score: 1

    Hey, how about a pr0n distro? All hail Free pr0n!

    --
    Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
  32. Been there by mbrubeck · · Score: 2
    Lindows. If they have any success in 2003, Micro$oft will just sue them into oblivion.

    That didn't work so well the last time they tried it...

  33. Red Hat is "de facto" standard Linux by MtViewGuy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think Red Hat will succeed because it has essentially become pretty much the de facto standard for Linux.

    I mean think about it: here in the USA when people know about Linux they definitely know about Red Hat Software. And Red Hat Linux is the commercial distro that is by far the most used in the corporate world. Even IBM's well-funded Linux research uses a variant of Red Hat Linux.

    Slackware may be better for the highly-experienced user, and Mandrake may be great for newbies, but for the corporate crowd Red Hat Linux is pretty much it.

    1. Re:Red Hat is "de facto" standard Linux by __aadkms7016 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      2003 could be an interesting year if Sun
      bought RedHat. The numbers work: at 862M
      market cap, RHAT is 10% of Sun's market
      cap. Plus, Sun has 5B+ of cash in the bank.

      It may be worth it, just for the transient
      effect of having all of the hardware vendors
      who partner with Redhat scurry to find a new
      Linux vendor. That's six months of FUD, during
      which Sun can launch their new Linux hardware
      as a safe choice against Dell and IBM and HP.
      The long-term value of RedHat is an extra.

    2. Re:Red Hat is "de facto" standard Linux by frozencesium · · Score: 1
      /me shudders...

      and no wonder linux hasn't taken the *entire* world by storm...rpm hell :-P

      i know this won't be read, but it had to be said :-)

      -frozen

      --
      I'm not always the brightest pixel in the stream
    3. Re:Red Hat is "de facto" standard Linux by Zenithal · · Score: 1

      This may seems stupid, or ignorent... or who the hell knows. But I've been using Red Hat since 5.2, and nothing else. Three generations of home computers and (luckily) two jobs both using Red Hat as a desktop machine. I have no idea what the heck rpm hell is supposed to be. I have never in the multi-years I've used rpms extensively experienced anything negative at all.

      This may seem like a smart ass remark, but I really REALLY want to know what has been causing this opinion?

      Someone? Please?

      --


      Aaron
      AaronCameron.net
    4. Re:Red Hat is "de facto" standard Linux by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

      You never would run into "rpm hell" as long as you only installed rpms that came with that version of RedHat. I ran into problems when I tried installing RealPlayer (cira 6.0 I think? Its been a while...). It needed library foo-1.4 to work, but that verison of RedHat only came with foo.1.3. So I ran out and found an rpm for libfoo-1.4, but when installed it said I needed libx-1.7, which conficted with liby-2.4, which conflicted with....

      So eventually I said to hell with it, I only wanted to watch one clip, and tried going back to libfoo-1.3. But libfoo-1.4 didn't want to uninstall because RealPlayer depended on it. I tried uninstalling RealPlayer, but RedHat somehow "lost" it and didn't know it was installed!

      So then I force removed all the new packages and went back to the old ones. Then a couple days later it suddenly remembered that RealPlayer was installed again, except I had deleted all the files........

      At this point I called my friend over, who was running Slink (Debian) and had him show me how to install it, and never looked back.

      This was a few years ago, and I'm sure RedHat has improved, but after mastering the install process, I won't run anything else but Debian.

    5. Re:Red Hat is "de facto" standard Linux by Rooktoven · · Score: 1

      From my experience, rpm hell comes from when you install something _not_ using rpms. For instance: if you compile something onto your system, it may compile and work perfectly. The same program/library may also be a dependency for an rpm you want to load. However, because the rpm database doesn't see the rpm for the new program, it will complain that the there is an unresolved dependency. Then, if you get that try to install that dependency in the form of an rpm, you may find yourself being asked for even more rpms, or you run the risk of borking up what you compiled.

      It's a flexibility thing. If all you ever use is rpm, most likely you won't encounter dependency hell. But if you like to put things where you want them, then you run the risk of being frustrated.

      --

      Acquiescence leads to obliteration
    6. Re:Red Hat is "de facto" standard Linux by frozencesium · · Score: 1
      that's because debian (or more to the point "apt") rocks ;-)

      -frozen

      --
      I'm not always the brightest pixel in the stream
    7. Re:Red Hat is "de facto" standard Linux by JoeBuck · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If Sun bought Red Hat one half of the company would implode. It would be like Compaq/DEC. The culture is just too different: if the surviving corporate culture were Sun's, the whole free software world would be in trouble, because we all rely hugely on free software developers that are on Red Hat's payroll, and I can't imagine McNealy keeping that investment going. He wants to kill competitors, not subsidize them, and it would gall him too much to see UnitedLinux, Mandrake etc. essentially repackage Red Hat stuff.

      It would do about as well as Caldera trying to bring together SCO and Linux, that is, it wouldn't.

    8. Re:Red Hat is "de facto" standard Linux by ryantate · · Score: 2

      It would be like Compaq/DEC

      Or Sun/Cobalt ...

    9. Re:Red Hat is "de facto" standard Linux by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 2

      Actually that's just in the US. In Europe SuSE is probably most used in the corporate world. I'm using version 8 of the 'hat here at work right now to type this, but all the other Linux servers and desktops in this department (and there are several) are SuSE.

    10. Re:Red Hat is "de facto" standard Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      And you sir, are a fool. Or at least ignorant of the fact the the world economy extends beyond the borders of the US.

      SuSE is the dominant distro in Europe; Connectiva has everything in the Western Hemisphere south of the US; and Turbo Linux and a few others are dominant in Asia.

      IBM, does not fall victom to the ignorance that you have suggested. IBM supports Redhat and SuSE, as well as cooperating with a number of other distributions. In fact we have two IBM people in the software lab that I work in; both use SuSE.

    11. Re:Red Hat is "de facto" standard Linux by rock_the_casbah · · Score: 1

      // Or at least ignorant of the fact the the world economy extends beyond the borders of the US. //

      Yes, and if the US economy ever went *completely* belly-up, all other economies in the world would follow suit.

      Within months, if not weeks.

      True, and you know it.

      --
      - -- --- --- -- - Frammin' at the jim-jam, frippin' at the krotz!
    12. Re:Red Hat is "de facto" standard Linux by pmz · · Score: 2

      If Sun bought Red Hat one half of the company would implode.

      Not if Sun is smart about it. Buying Red Hat but leaving Red Hat's organization alone would be smart. Red Hat remains a separate OS company providing a well-known distribution and support services. Sun can continue by deriving the Sun Linux distribution from Red Hat's for the Sun LX50 et. al.

      What Sun can offer Red Hat is even stronger corporate recognition and marketing. Red Hat can offer Sun a good piece of the Linux market pie. It's win-win.

    13. Re:Red Hat is "de facto" standard Linux by Zenithal · · Score: 1

      Ok, I'll buy into this 100%. I DID have these issues with Apache/PHP/MySQL for a while. I suppose it wasn't so bad because they're somewhat compartmentalized from the rest of the system. I can see that trying to build something like libgnome from source and using the rest of gnome as rpm's could be awful.

      It is frustrating sometimes when, say, new versions of Mozilla come out and the standard rpm from redhat or ximian aren't released yet. It's tempting to compile it but I've found usually waiting is much less of a headache.

      Generally, if I was (and I do, so I guess I should so 'when' I do, not if) setting someone up with a Linux install, I make sure Ximian's redcarpet is installed and I leave out any information about manual installs or the rpm command line.

      I think that's the ideal scenario for your average Windows migrator.

      --


      Aaron
      AaronCameron.net
  34. Merging Pop culture references by HeXetic · · Score: 1

    "merge to survive" List your pop-culture references here! I count 3 so far: - Star Trek: The Motion Picture Veger, the long-lost Voyager space craft, wants to merge with its creator to become self-aware. - Deus Ex At the end of the game the AI "Helios", created by the Head Bad Guy who wants to merge with it in order to become a superbeing, decides it wants to merge with the main character, JC Denton instead. - Starcraft (Game) Merging two Protoss templars (of the normal or dark variety) is a good way to save their asses when they're under heavy fire.

    --
    http://www.chmodoplusr.com/
    1. Re:Merging Pop culture references by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ghost in the Shell (movie).
      A cyborg special agent goes renegade from her agency and merges with an ominous AI. (It's where Deus Ex got it)

  35. This can't be I good idea by Zeebs · · Score: 1
    Hey, how about a pr0n distro? All hail Free pr0n!
    I can see it now...

    Welcome to pr0n*linux Version 6.9

    Hardon: root
    Assword:

    root@vagina /fetish# ls -anal

    ... FILES and SUCH ...

    root@vagina /fetish# cd /co-eddorm

    I've seen the future and it's gooey.
    --

    Happy Noodle Boy says "F###ing doughnut! Mock me? You fried cyclops!!"
  36. Re:It's like porn sites.... there are enough alrea by CableModemSniper · · Score: 1

    Yeah. wget and IMLib could be in kernel space. It could be RtLinux to make sure that really important porno got d/led off Gnutella before any other piddling tasks such as handling login requests and such. We already have a pr0n optimized mozilla do we not? Its the next logical step.

    --
    Why not fork?
  37. Re:It's like porn sites.... there are enough alrea by dr.badass · · Score: 1
    For a pretty Linux desktop experience there's Debian; for the more seasoned Linux hackers there is Mandrake and SuSE; for the Linux newbies there's Slackware and Gentoo.

    Wow, that's some typo.

    I don't know which part is funnier, the idea
    of Debian being a pretty desktop, or Slackware being for newbies.
    --
    Don't become a regular here -- you will become retarded.
  38. Re:It's like porn sites.... there are enough alrea by killmenow · · Score: 0, Troll

    What...Goatse Linucx?

  39. Re:It's like porn sites.... there are enough alrea by redshift-systems · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Now, i could lambast that remark about Slack being for newbies, but I'll take the even-handed approach. True, on it's own it is a rather dumb, ignorant, flamebait throw-away remark, and you deserve a good whipping. BUT, I would recommend Slack to newbies, because with Slack you learn Linux, and it's BSD style config files are cool for tweaking and tuning, as opposed to the visual in your face stuff on other distros (which are ok too, just different) - so newbies getting exposed to this stuff is kinda good - with a little patience and perserverance. So, newbies by all means get Slack, but don't for a minute think it's a "newbie" distro, it's packs a punch for any level of user.

  40. I think unfortunately none will survive. by maudite615 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Lycoris, Lindows, Xandros, all look great. I just cannot see forking over nearly the same price as the "mainstream" OS. The look of these distros is proof that linux is maturing. The Knoppix distro is simply amazing. I believe that for a new distro to survive it is going to have to look great, install software easily and also have the ability to run from CD. I installed Knoppix on the harddrive of one of my spare machines and I enjoy using it. A new distro that can boot completely up from CD and show people that linux is possible. I hope that the great work continues. maudite

  41. Linux has less chance for competing in desktop by pranalukas · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I find that a lot of Linux users are closed minded about non-free software. If you want to get into desktop world, you have to be able to make money from Linux applications. In order to be able make money from Linux, software developers have to make a target where the operating system has a large user base. If Linux developers want it to have a large userbase, Linux has to be really easy to use right out of the box, thus reducing the learning curve. With different desktop applications (Gnome, KDE), incomplete manual, little inconsistency copy/cut/paste (which is dependent on applications - not KDE/GNOME), added with the fanaticism and eliticism of its users (Yo! I can c0mp1l3 the whole L1nux from source - I'm 31337 attitude), I personally don't think it can compete with Mac or Windows, especially in usability area. Linux is maybe more secure, faster, and handles a lot of things better than other operating system, however don't forget about usability and consistency & coherence in the design.

    There are just way too many inconsistency in its functions, plus there are too many Linux distributions, and this confuses people. If the scenario were different, i.e:

    1) There's only 1 Linux

    2) Only 1 desktop/windows manager

    3) A more stable X-Window where it doesn't crash the whole operating system

    4) Consistent look and feel (btw, Bluecurve is a joke)

    5) More complete manual

    6) More drivers for hardware
    ...
    ...

    I believe if these criteria is met, computer vendors would be more than happy to install Linux by default. The cost to support an operating system that has many inconsistency is just too much. I've been both a developer and a tech support, and I couldn't imagine myself trying to support different distro with many inconsistencies everywhere.

    I have produced a few free Linux software since 1999 and I was a member of Gnome foundation, but now I erased all my Linux partition and just use Windows entirely. Moreover, I need money. I can't make money from developing Linux software. Nobody in the past has hired me solely based on my ability to develop high quality C++ and C software in Linux.

    --
    My $0.02 + 7% Canadian GST tax + 8% provincial tax

    1. Re:Linux has less chance for competing in desktop by Rascalson · · Score: 1

      Wow, was that dificult for you to copy out of the MS manual? Cause it looked difficult. You say you have used linux and wrote some apps yet you claim that X-Window can crash the whole system? Also, there is only one linux. There are many different distrobutions based on that linux kernel. Consistent as compared to what? Windows? Your kidding right? You do know that computer vendors don't directly suppport an OS in general as a practice unless you pay them $$$ for a support contract or per incident right?

      --
      prisoner# msce18xxxxx. Currently planning my escape.
    2. Re:Linux has less chance for competing in desktop by tuffy · · Score: 2
      I believe if these criteria is met, computer vendors would be more than happy to install Linux by default.

      Not likely. Computer venders aren't going to preinstall Linux in place of Microsoft simply because they don't see enough profit in it; not enough to risk Microsoft's ire, at any rate. Turning all distros into HighlanderLinux ("There can be only one!") isn't going to change that, realistically.

      If the desktop is going to be changed from an all-Windows platform, Linux isn't going to accomplish it by trying to out-Windows Windows; it'll have to try and change the desktop instead (integration, ala TiVo? or perhaps something else entirely)

      In any case, nobody can force Linux to de-splinter - I doubt few of the existing users would like it anyway. And since Linux isn't a single commercial entity, it isn't going anywhere unless the existing users/developers decide to stop working on improving it.

      --

      Ita erat quando hic adveni.

    3. Re:Linux has less chance for competing in desktop by JohnFluxx · · Score: 1

      So... In summary you want a closed source, expensive, OS with only one window manager and one look and feel. No wonder you switched over to windows. Thankfully some of us want a litle bit more.

    4. Re:Linux has less chance for competing in desktop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      1: Red Hat probably makes more money selling support than they do selling boxed distros, so distros can make money and still be GPL.

      2: You can't make money developing Linux? There are lots of ways you can. There are many people who have found job after job where all the work they do is on OSS. Take the samba team (http://www.samba.org) for example.

    5. Re:Linux has less chance for competing in desktop by Lord+Bitman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What we need isnt 1 of everything, it's compatability.
      I am personally sick of looking around for various config files//installation paths which I'm used to having in certain places, whenever I try out a new distro. For the second one I've just given up, I'm sticking with Debian and doing most things completely with package managers. The result is that I have lots of dependencies installed for no reason. Yeah, I'm lazy and not the most savvy user. The point is it annoys me. If distros can't keep required files in the same place, the least they can do is have a standard-formatted database of where it is keeping the files, and keep that database in a certain place. Even a little thing like the difference between /etc/X11/XF86Config and /etc/X11/XF86Config-4 makes compatability a problem.
      We dont need 1 Window manager, we need consistent features between them, so that programs dont mis-assume something and try to, for example, place themselves where they used to be when the window manager has already done that, resulting in it being placed in an entirely different place every time.
      We dont only need a more stable X, but a more recoverable one, and one with more on-the-fly reconfiguration ability. Linux users seem to focus so much on uptime- not having to re-boot -that they dont seem to notice that in order to get many things done you have to close down all the programs you use to work. Hell, we need screen for X. I just started using screen, that thing kicks some ass. We need to be able to get back to the console even if X crashes and is no longer accepting input. We need ways to keep working not just keep our "uptime" high. Who the hell cares about uptime? How long has it been since you had to re-start X? That number matters more. Your working uptime.
      Not everybody likes the same look and feel. Some people like their start-menu, some people dont. The ability to have a consistent look and feel is important. If you want your system to look a certain way, you should be able to make it look and work that way without much work, and you should be able to switch back and forth like that so that whoever was using it before you can pick up where they left off- Linux is a multi-user system. It should stay that way.
      Not just a more complete manual is needed, but a rehashing of what we already have. Sure, open-everything is nice, but a lot of the resources out there are just plain messy we need an editor.
      We've got lots of driver support, but not enough, it's true. It also doesnt help that most of the time "installing a driver" involves compiling one. Linux wont get anywhere as a widespread desktop unless it can work well for idiots. That's the real problem: Many people are idiots. Linux users seem to have gotten the idea that computers shouldnt be made for idiots. The truth is: Macs are easy to use, and many people _should_ be using Macs. I like Linux. I like Open Software. But we wont get anywhere until it works well for utter morons. [ Does this count as flamebait because of the obvious troll responces? :) ]
      Yeah, free software does have that problem of not easy to make a living off of. No solution there, but even though it sucks, we've come pretty far. Maybe we'll be good some day :)

      --
      -- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
    6. Re:Linux has less chance for competing in desktop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find that a lot of Linux users are closed minded about non-free software. If you want to get into desktop world, you have to be able to make money from Linux applications. In order to be able make money from Linux, software developers have to make a target where the operating system has a large user base. If Linux developers want it to have a large userbase, Linux has to be really easy to use right out of the box, thus reducing the learning curve. With different desktop applications (Gnome, KDE), incomplete manual, little inconsistency copy/cut/paste (which is dependent on applications - not KDE/GNOME), added with the fanaticism and eliticism of its users (Yo! I can c0mp1l3 the whole L1nux from source - I'm 31337 attitude), I personally don't think it can compete with Mac or Windows, especially in usability area. Linux is maybe more secure, faster, and handles a lot of things better than other operating system, however don't forget about usability and consistency & coherence in the design.

      There are just way too many inconsistency in its functions, plus there are too many Linux distributions, and this confuses people. If the scenario were different, i.e:

      1) There's only 1 Linux

      2) Only 1 desktop/windows manager

      3) A more stable X-Window where it doesn't crash the whole operating system

      4) Consistent look and feel (btw, Bluecurve is a joke)

      5) More complete manual

      6) More drivers for hardware ... ...

      I believe if these criteria is met, computer vendors would be more than happy to install Linux by default. The cost to support an operating system that has many inconsistency is just too much. I've been both a developer and a tech support, and I couldn't imagine myself trying to support different distro with many inconsistencies everywhere.

      I have produced a few free Linux software since 1999 and I was a member of Gnome foundation, but now I erased all my Linux partition and just use Windows entirely. Moreover, I need money. I can't make money from developing Linux software. Nobody in the past has hired me solely based on my ability to develop high quality C++ and C software in Linux.

      --
      My $0.02 + 7% Canadian GST tax + 8% provincial tax

    7. Re:Linux has less chance for competing in desktop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
      1) There's only 1 Linux

      At a time when MS continues to split Windows into Pro, Server, ME, XP, 2K, CE, Embedded, yadda yadda.

      2) Only 1 desktop/windows manager

      Identical to XP, right? Or Mac?

      3) A more stable X-Window where it doesn't crash the whole operating system

      Fix your machine, none of my boxes have had an X crash in years. Lots of ..Explorer has caused errors and will be shut down... on 2k at work though.

      4) Consistent look and feel (btw, Bluecurve is a joke)

      As consistent as the look and feel of say, Media Player and Excel. Yah.

      5) More complete manual

      Something as in depth and technical as the one shipped with pre-installed Windows? What's it called, F1 isn't it? Or Clippy?

      6) More drivers for hardware

      Than what? The biggest bitch I hear about XP is the lack of solid drivers, the second biggest that companies are starting to charge for them.What typical dektop hardware doesn't a distro like Mandrake support out of the box, or with as much surfing for drivers as Win requires?


      If you're going to troll, show the minimum level of respect for the readers. Try running linux first and come up with original distortions, don't just copy and paste from the ones repeated here.

    8. Re:Linux has less chance for competing in desktop by Ian+Bicking · · Score: 2
      Computer venders aren't going to preinstall Linux in place of Microsoft simply because they don't see enough profit in it; not enough to risk Microsoft's ire, at any rate.
      Maybe you didn't notice, but computer vendors are preinstalling Linux. Sure, it's only small guys (like Microtel). They don't have much to lose and Microsoft isn't likely to scare them. What's MS going to do, charge outrageous prices for something they aren't buying anyway?

      Companies just offering a Linux option probably aren't going to be the ones to bring Linux to the desktop. It's going to be a little company that actually commits to Linux and doesn't just use it as a bargaining chip in negotiations. It'll either be those Taiwanese manufactures who feel they can win when the computer is a commodity (and is running a commodity OS), or a high quality manufacturer that wants to compete with Apple and can only do it when they can control their OS and not just their hardware.

    9. Re:Linux has less chance for competing in desktop by KraZy-KaT · · Score: 1

      You've mada a point here. Sorry if I'm being redundant, but that's true. First of all, UNIVERSAL copy/cut/paste is something we're lacking in linux, due to different graphical enviroments; I use WindowMaker + GNUStep, and some kde / gnome apps (mainly nautilus2).
      <RANT> The 'l33t' attitude of script kiddies on #linux on any irc server (supposedly helping out other users) doesn't help solving any problems at all, either. Having to manually mount each local unit before reading it is a step that should have been solved ALREADY (c'mon, how hard is it to make things simpler?)I don't care if doing it automatically exposes me to a potential security hazard in my tcp/ip stack or whatever (flame me if you feel the need)....hey! I'm running linux on a laptop, I ain't no slashdotted server getting millions of hits per second! I want a consistent, usable desktop! I want to browse the web, listen to my ogg collection, play some quake III whenever I can or use some office-like package to do my college work in a robust system that doesn't go 'bleep bleep bleep' and eats my paper (it's the...bummer). Leave the 'l33tn355' for the server room, please. </RANT>

      That's my Desktop-User point of view.

      BTW., I think Debian is sweeeeeet...too bad sound (specially alsa) is such a pain in the ass to set up; at least red hat got it working out of the box...*sigh*
      If these problems persist on linux distros, they'll ALL DIE, and we'll switch to good ol' FreeBSD, wich at least lets me hear my oggs after the first reboot. Period.

    10. Re:Linux has less chance for competing in desktop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ur right. I love downloading my nifty free sftware on freshmeat.net but PEOPLE NEED TO BE PAID. Also people arre suspicious of free things.

    11. Re:Linux has less chance for competing in desktop by Daytona955i · · Score: 1

      More linux distros encourage development... if you just have one there would be no choices or innovation. What makes debian useful is different than what makes Mandrake useful. While I may find that Debian suites my needs more you may prefer a different distro... or as you pointed out Windows could be for you.

      I think the different desktop/windows managers are a benefit because one person may want a slim, no frills window manager while someone else might want a bloated pretty window manager wheras the average person will probably want something in between.

      The only time I've had X crash the whole system was when I was configuring it with the wrong driver trying to get it right. Once it's configured I haven't had any problems with it crashing the system.

      Consistent look and feel? Configuration is what makes things unique... ever look at how many winamp skins there are?

      want a manual? there's this site (www.google.com) where I can search the web and find all sorts of useful info on how to set up any part of linux. the linux documentation project is a really good starting point.

      Now let's look at Windows...
      1 windows... nope, just a few releases: 98, ME, XP, NT, 2000... shall I list more?

      1 desktop/window manager... well I guess you could say that...

      A stable GUI that doesn't doesn't crash the whole operating system... no, the GUI crashes the whole thing goes...

      Consistent look an feel? one could debate this but we'll give it to you

      Complete manual? Ha... good luck finding a manual or online documentation... If it's broke reboot... if it's still broke, re-install.

      Drivers? well technically drivers are available for windows but I've had plenty of problems with drivers crashing while trying to install them or I would install a driver and it wants to install all this other useless crap.

      Well, linux doesn't have what you want nor does windows. I too erased my hard drive but I put linux on instead of Windows.
      -Chris

    12. Re:Linux has less chance for competing in desktop by npietraniec · · Score: 1

      I've never had driver problems on a modern system. What are you trying to run it on? Some laptop from 1995?

    13. Re:Linux has less chance for competing in desktop by pranalukas · · Score: 1

      Well... here's some clarification:

      1) There's only 1 Linux: I'm talking here about 1 Linux distro for DESKTOP use. Read it over again, remember it, have a nightmare about it. What I mean is just 1 Linux distribution. Sure, many people disagree with this, but hey maybe you were right that having 100 Linux distributions with different config files and package manager is more fun for you. Do you think the business world see it the way you see it?If you were right though, what's keeping a lot of people who have tried Linux for DESKTOP use switched back to Windows and doesn't look back?

      If, for example: Amy runs SuSE and Jake runs Mandrake. Both of them have different config tools, different config file locations. Both Amy and Jake are just average users who just managed to installed Linux and was very excited about it. Suppose Amy needs help with configuring the a web server because she wants to have her personal homepage. Amy doesn't know which package to install. She asks Jake about it, and Jake told her just install http-server-xxxx.rpm.. But Amy's Apache server packaged is named differently in Linux - it's apache-xxxx.rpm (BTW, yes I've encountered this problem). There are many scenarios that you can think of.

      If you were right, why do some people initiate Linux Standard Base?

      2) A more stable X-Window: I have Sager NP8560-Ultra on my system. Everytime I switch to the console and back to X-Window again, X-Window crashes. Ctrl-Alt-Backspace can't solve it. It has been like that since Mandrake 7.2. Redhat 8 apparently doesn't crash on me, however I'm reluctant to use Redhat. Redhat 8 kernel wasn't compiled with low latency patch and XMMS skips a lot (this doesn't happen in Mandrake). I mean, they even advertise it for deesktop use? Are Redhat people joking? I've contributed a few apps to both Redhat and Mandrake, and my software gnome-telnet & Mandrake Update Robot is included in Mandrake (7.2 - 8.0) and Redhat 7.1 Powertools & Redhat 7.2 (only gnome-telnet).

      Also, X-Window consumes way more resources than Win32. Yes, you can tell me to use FVWM95 or WindowMaker rather than KDE and GNOME. However, FVWM95 or WindowMaker doesn't give as much functionality as KDE and GNOME. Both KDE and GNOME are the two desktop managers that provide functionality close to MacOS and Windows. Do you understand what I'm saying here?

      3) One desktop/windows manager with consistent look and feel.
      True, Win95 interface have differences with Win2k, WinXP, etc. What I'm talking about here when I say 1 desktop/windows manager also includes: 1 API. This makes developer live so much easier. Consistent look and feel accross all applications. Yes, Winamp different from MS Excel, Windows Media Player 8 and MS Excel interface doesn't match. But you're talking a different language here.
      I'm saying that Emacs is totally different from KEdit or KWrite and GEdit - especially the shortcut keys. A sawvy Linux user can handle this, but your grandma doesn't even know how to handle Emacs. The configuration file in Linux across Linux distributions is different. This is VERY FRUSTRATING for technical support.

      Also, Redhat changes its RPM API in 4.0 to 4.x and there was a few differences. Mandrake Update Robot causes segfault when compiled with the new RPM library, but it was okay with the older one. Having a consistent API in terms of functionality is important. I'm just way too lazy to handle complaints especially when I make my software for free

      4) More complete manual.
      You said:

      Something as in depth and technical as the one shipped with pre-installed Windows? What's it called, F1 isn't it? Or Clippy?

      Something that a normal user can still understand. Yes, Clippy is stupid but it helps grandma to use MS Word and amuses her (some are probably annoyed). If you're more proficient with Windows, you have the option to turn it off. It's on by default to help grandma and some little kids 5-7 yrs old who just start learning computer

      You said:

      want a manual? there's this site (www.google.com) where I can search the web and find all sorts of useful info on how to set up any part of linux. the linux documentation project is a really good starting point.


      You're kidding right. We're talking about manual that just works - simple stuff like connecting with dial-up modem. If Linux manual is so good (including formatting, look & feel, usability, etc) (especially with Google), how come a grandma can't do it with Linux but she can do it with Windows - using both the same external 56K modem? READ MY STATEMENT AGAIN: I'M TALKING ABOUT FOR DESKTOP USAGE FOR THE AVERAGE JOE USER WHO BARELY KNOWS COMPUTER! Some people needs to learn how to read properly. A Grandma who just got her $199-PC from Walmart probably doesn't know what Google is. Yes, Google is very simple to use but the process to find a good manual can be very lengthening. Compare the "Help and Support" in Windows XP to Linux manual. Which one is formatted more user friendly so that Grandma and little kids can easily navigate the help system?

      4) And this one is #1 my favorite:


      Wow, was that dificult for you to copy out of the MS manual? Cause it looked difficult. You say you have used linux and wrote some apps yet you claim that X-Window can crash the whole system? Also, there is only one linux. There are many different distrobutions based on that linux kernel. Consistent as compared to what? Windows? Your kidding right? You do know that computer vendors don't directly suppport an OS in general as a practice unless you pay them $$$ for a support contract or per incident right?
      prisoner# msce18xxxxx. Currently planning my escape.


      Elitists and closed minded person like this is one of the biggest reason why I leave Linux world. People who can run Linux maybe more technical sawy than the average user, but they're just too elitist.... Probably a 14 yrs old script kiddie....

      Yes, I know there's only one Linux kernel - again forked with different patches but the source is the same. Still, it's forked. I'M TALKING ABOUT LINUX DISTROS HERE, AND IF YOU CAN'T UNDERSTAND A SIMPLE LANGUAGE LIKE THAT, .....insert some flames for stupid retards here....? Anyway, the kernel I have in Redhat 8 is not the same as the kernel I have in Mandrake 9. They have different optimization. Don't go talking about Windows 95 vs Windows NT again as a comparison. The next time you want to say something, think something intelligent.

      This is my #2 favorite:
      At a time when MS continues to split Windows into Pro, Server, ME, XP, 2K, CE, Embedded, yadda yadda
      It's called version. This is very common in programming world. If you want to see it that way, then you'll see Redhat 5.2, 6.0, 6.1 as different "splitted Linux". Debian Woody, Debian Potato, etc etc etc.
      NT line=XP,2K, Windows NT4, NT3.51
      9x line=95, 98, ME ...etc

      By the way, you shouldn't try to go to run Linux if your IQ is that high. You might "blow up" your computer.

    14. Re:Linux has less chance for competing in desktop by BenjyD · · Score: 1

      Most of the problems with Linux are caused by Microsoft's domination of the market.

      Companies don't release drivers for anything beyond Windows, few people bother writing portable sofware. Why bother? Windows is the only operating system in existence, right? Everybody should have to pay Microsoft in order to own a computer, right?

      Fortunately, Microsoft are unintentionally doing everything they can to push users away from Windows through their attempts to acheive even greater profits and dominance.

    15. Re:Linux has less chance for competing in desktop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First of all, UNIVERSAL copy/cut/paste is something we're lacking in linux, due to different graphical enviroments; I use WindowMaker + GNUStep, and some kde / gnome apps (mainly nautilus2).

      Most desktop environments support select/middle-click copy/paste.

      Having to manually mount each local unit before reading it is a step that should have been solved ALREADY (c'mon, how hard is it to make things simpler?)

      The kernel has an automounter.

      too bad sound (specially alsa) is such a pain in the ass to set up

      OSS: modprobe . To make it stick, you need to edit /etc/modules.conf.

      ALSA: apt-get alsa-modules-, apt-get libasound1. modprobe snd-, modprobe and-pcm.

      If these problems persist on linux distros, they'll ALL DIE, and we'll switch to good ol' FreeBSD, wich at least lets me hear my oggs after the first reboot.

      Because the FreeBSD kernel is monolithic by default, and thus loads all of the modules it knows.

    16. Re:Linux has less chance for competing in desktop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      grr.

      That should be modprobe <your sound card>, apt-get alsa-modules-<your kernel>, modprobe snd-<your sound card>, and modprobe snd-pcm respectively.

    17. Re:Linux has less chance for competing in desktop by v4sudeva · · Score: 1
      Even a little thing like the difference between /etc/X11/XF86Config and /etc/X11/XF86Config-4 makes compatability a problem.
      I might be wrong, but I believe the XF86Config-4 is a function of X moving to 4.x.x, and not a function of any specific distribution. Having said that, I wouldn't be surprised if certain distros varied from this standard in favor of "backward compatibility."

      We dont only need a more stable X, but a more recoverable one, and one with more on-the-fly reconfiguration ability. Linux users seem to focus so much on uptime- not having to re-boot -that they dont seem to notice that in order to get many things done you have to close down all the programs you use to work.
      I'm not sure what you mean. The only time I have to close programs is when I reboot -- which happens very rarely.

      Hell, we need screen for X. I just started using screen, that thing kicks some ass.
      Yeah, definitely an amazing program. As far as screen for X, your problem could perhaps be solved by using X on top of VNC? Or launching subsequent X sessions on different terminals, accessible with CTRL+ALT+F8, etc? The former lets you connect to your X session from anywhere on the network; the latter allows multiple people to have totally separate yet concurrent X sessions. You can't both access them at the same time (unless you hook up multiple peripherals), but now you don't need to log off so your wife can run X with her pretty background and fancy window manager.

      We need to be able to get back to the console even if X crashes and is no longer accepting input. We need ways to keep working not just keep our "uptime" high.
      If X crashes -- which I find slightly rare now that I'm mostly done tweaking it -- have you tried hitting CTRL+ALT+BACKSPACE to summarily kill the X process? Have you tried using CTRL+ALT+F1 or +F2 to access a command line virtual terminal, from which you can kill the offending program? Lastly, if none of these work, chances are you can SSH in from another machine on your network and clean up that way.

      Not everybody likes the same look and feel. Some people like their start-menu, some people dont. The ability to have a consistent look and feel is important. If you want your system to look a certain way, you should be able to make it look and work that way without much work
      Agreed, and vehemently so. I guess you can chalk this up to the advantage of the open source model and other related modern buzzwords. When you've got thousands of people developing an OS and window environment from every point on the globe, standards are tough. I would love all windowing bits and keyboard navigation to be perfectly consistent. I dunno if we'll ever get there, though.

      and you should be able to switch back and forth like that so that whoever was using it before you can pick up where they left off
      See earlier comment about multiple concurrent X sessions.

      Hope some of this helps.
      --
      Personal me, collaborative you
    18. Re:Linux has less chance for competing in desktop by schmoke · · Score: 1

      Can somebody please tell me where i can install my progfiles? /bin? /usr/local/bin? usr/local/sbin? /usr/bin? /mnt/windows/progra~1? :)

    19. Re:Linux has less chance for competing in desktop by aytekin · · Score: 1

      You say you have used linux and wrote some apps yet you claim that X-Window can crash the whole system?

      Well, it can. I have recently installed SuSE 8.1 at home. I am actually quite happy with it, though GNOME crashes sometimes when I try to run a movie. It just freezes so badly, I cannot even alt+cnt+f4 and killall mplayer.

      At work, I am using SuSE 6.4 and E for the last 2 years, I never had restart the system because of an application crash.

      Is linux starting to look too much like windows?

    20. Re:Linux has less chance for competing in desktop by Shadowlore · · Score: 1
      1: Red Hat probably makes more money selling support than they do selling boxed distros, so distros can make money and still be GPL.


      Note, that in this scenario, they would be making money from selling support contracts, not support. The trick to that business is to sell the contract, where people can turn to you for support, but then sell a product that doesn't need high levels of maintenance. In other words, keep your cost down.

      Thus, if RH is making money by the support model, they are doing it because people want the "feel good" nature of the contract, combined with the much lower cost of providing said feel good level.

      This means that Linux (or at least RH to RH) provides a lower cost of ownership. Of course, we've already seen that.

      --
      My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
    21. Re:Linux has less chance for competing in desktop by MQBS · · Score: 1

      Most of your comment is done already. It's called FreeBSD, and if some of the damn Linux programmers would get off their high horse and develop applications for it instead of Linux, it would all be good because FreeBSD is consistent. In everything.

      --
      The dream reveals the reality which conception lags behind. That is the horror of life- the terror of art. -Franz Kafka
  42. Which desktop-based distribution won't survive? by Trogre · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Microsoft(R) Windows(TM) 98,ME,2000,XP.

    Well, it won't survive in my business anyway.

    I simply don't have the time to administer technically-inferior products distributed by illegal monopolies.

    --
    "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    1. Re:Which desktop-based distribution won't survive? by CounterZer0 · · Score: 1

      What a load of horse-shit. Technically inferior in what manner? If you 'had the time' to actually learn how the products worked, and what they were supposed to do, you couldn't make that statement.

    2. Re:Which desktop-based distribution won't survive? by SpiffyMarc · · Score: 1

      Microsoft(R) Windows(TM) 98,ME,2000,XP.

      Well, it won't survive in my business anyway.


      Hmm... if this were changed to say Linux, it'd be flamebait. Say Windows, and it's interesting.

      Windows, Linux, Macintosh, OS/2 Warp... pick the one that suits your needs the best. Don't argue with people who think otherwise. Just sit back and grin and know you are right, because after all, we all know deep down that we are all right. :)

      Where I work, we run Windows 2000 Professional on the workstations, Windows 2000 Server on the mail servers, FreeBSD on the firewalls and heavy-lifting authentication machines... each one picked because it was the best for the job it is performing at the time the network was put together.

      Besides, attempting to force your opinion on others can only cause undue grief for both parties... :-)

    3. Re:Which desktop-based distribution won't survive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well some of us don't have years to learn how to use windows, and get MCSE and MCSP etc... We want something that we don't need to spend a long time learning, something thats userfriendly, something that just works.

      That's why we use Linux.

  43. Re:It's like porn sites.... there are enough alrea by NeuroChrist · · Score: 1, Funny

    can't believe you guys are missing this: Lesbian Gnu/Linux

  44. I don't know by autopr0n · · Score: 1, Troll

    But I bet OSDN won't be around to see it :P

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
  45. Slackware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unfortunantly Slackware is not keeping up with the times. If you want a stable server box you go with BSD. For a linux more oriented towards desktop Slackware is on the right track, it just needs to automate a few basic things and update versions a little faster.

  46. The Linux distro that survives... by Alethes · · Score: 2, Insightful

    will be the one that relies the least on its bottom line and the most on a passionate community of users and developers. This is why Slackware and Debian keep going, yet groups like UnitedLinux, Lindows, Lycoris and Xandros keep coming and going. The latter parasitic group almost always has the worst reputation with the host community and eventually the community rids itself of the parasite, which is left to regroup and figure out another way to attach itself again to get the profitability up somehow.

    Eventually, there will be a completely community oriented desktop-specific distro that exists to scratch the itch of the developers and community surrounding it. Maybe it even exists somewhere (Mandrake or Redhat?), but until it does, expect these fly-by-night, dotbomb leftovers to be up and down all the time.

    1. Re:The Linux distro that survives... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My money's on the distro this guy uses--oops, netcraft says its Windows 2000. Hey, IBM, man down!

      yada yada love of the game and all, but don't neglect public awareness.

      Spoils to the first distro to get positive product placement on the silver screen--Blood Work doesn't count, I'm talking all American sweetheart with some box office like Jennifer Lopez or something.

      No, I am not meaning to suggest Dot Huckster LeenooX® will take over userland, becuase imo they *do* come off like parasites and are clumsy pr-wise. Mandrake and Redhat both have made misteps, but they grok "the community" and the marketplace well enough to have real impact.

  47. Re:HI MOM by redshift-systems · · Score: 1

    So are you.

  48. Have you used it? by Mustang+Matt · · Score: 3, Informative

    One of my friends bought a Wal-mart PC with Lindos pre-installed and it was awful.

    From both the perspective of a linux user and a windows user. It failed at everything. It was tough to use, the menus were cluttered with software you didn't have but you could pay for. It was slow, it couldn't run windows programs the way it advertised.

    I can't believe wal-mart would have agreed to let them ship it on their systems.

    --
    The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
    1. Re:Have you used it? by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 2, Funny
      It failed at everything. It was tough to use, the menus were cluttered with software you didn't have but you could pay for. It was slow, it couldn't run windows programs the way it advertised.

      That description brings back memories of Win95.

      Hmmm, If history repeats itself, Lindows could be a runaway success!

    2. Re:Have you used it? by i_am_nitrogen · · Score: 1

      Have your friend download Lindows 3.0. It's supposed to be available to anyone who either bought LindowsOS or a LindowsOS PC. The first Walmart machines were shipped with SPX, which wasn't nearly as good as 3.0 (I've used every LindowsOS version released, and they get much better each time).

      Don't discout Click-N-Run either. The great dependency handling of apt, the simple interface, my 10 year old brother was able to install software easier than in Windows.

      Who needs Windows programs anyway? StarOffice lets me communicate with anybody who dares to send a .DOC file in an e-mail. Kmail, Evolution, Netscape Mail, or what have you does all the e-mail handling I need. Konqueror, Netscape 7, Mozilla and derivatives, etc. allow browsing any site worth visiting. Gaim lets me chat with all my family and friends, as some use AOL, some use MSN, etc. Unless you are NOT a typical desktop user, there's no need for any Windows-specific software.

      I am not a typical desktop user. I need Acid Pro and Adobe Premiere from Windows.

    3. Re:Have you used it? by BlackBolt · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I am not a typical desktop user. I need Acid Pro and Adobe Premiere from Windows.

      Hey,

      You should write the guys at AcidPlanet and request a Linux or Mac version of Acid. I already have, but I may be the only one. I don't know.

      What we need in the open-source world more than ANYTHING is a site linked off Slashdot which organizes our grassroots letter-writing efforts, so that we can have 50,000 Debian users "Slashdot" our favorite app vendors with requests for linux versions of their software. If there are enough requests, the code houses WILL come around. These "name" apps draw newbies like flies. The people I talk to often won't even consider using alternatives. We need to get organized and throw our numbers around, and I know from reading Slashdot that the Linux guys can argue their point very well indeed. We just need focus and direction.

      Unless we get this, ALL linux distros will die for lack of mainstream productivity apps. And it's hurting Apple too, though you likely won't hear it admitted. It seems everyone I know has one app that they can't migrate without having and for which there's no suitable substitute; be it Acid Pro, my dads Metastock stock market program, or my friend's Counterstrike, there's always something. And the more "name brand" apps we have, the easier and more enticing for people to switch.

      BlackBolt

      P.S. My manager has Lindows 2 running at home, and except that he had to buy a new modem, and that the kid's cereal box games won't run on it, they love it - especially Tux Racer!

      They'd never be able to use Linux without something like click-and-run. Even apt-get boggled him when I explained it.

  49. Re:It's like porn sites.... there are enough alrea by tunah · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    Six moderations... not one is "-1 Troll".

    Draw your own conclusions about the crack the moderators are smoking.

    --
    Free Java games for your phone: Tontie, Sokoban
  50. Re:It's like porn sites.... there are enough alrea by Iguanaphobic · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Mandatory IQ testing for moderators, pass it on....

    --
    Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power.
  51. Of course Slackware's development has slowed. by Glytch · · Score: 4, Funny

    How can one improve on perfection?

    (Many thanks, Patrick.)

    1. Re:Of course Slackware's development has slowed. by Hugonz · · Score: 1
      How can one improve on perfection?

      Putting precompiled ALSA on it...

      Well, really just kidding, I just love Slackware (and I've tried many more distros, but Slack has endured).

      Thank you very much, Patrick. Are you still taking $$ through PayPal?

    2. Re:Of course Slackware's development has slowed. by Oxide · · Score: 1

      Pefection you say ?

      Get a decent packaging system then we will start talking about the rest of the stupid things in slackware.

      -- Slackware (RIP)

    3. Re:Of course Slackware's development has slowed. by Anonymous+MadCoe · · Score: 1

      HA!

      You don't get the idea behind Slackware do you?

    4. Re:Of course Slackware's development has slowed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It has a decent package system. When was the last time you used slack?

    5. Re:Of course Slackware's development has slowed. by fferreres · · Score: 2

      Great, no all we need are the actual packages...Linuxpackages has some, but i often have to recompile everything myself. That's not a problem, except when the package is hard to compile or has lots of dependencies (Evolution, Mozilla-Galeon, Gnome, etc).

      --
      unfinished: (adj.)
  52. i will keep track by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Funny

    this is a very, very good question, which distro will die first. a really good question.

    in the interest of answering the question, i will keep track of the various distros under deathwatch on my amiga work station.

    i will enter their information on my OS/2 database.

    everyone can view the results, as they are tabulated, on my minix server.

    again, this is a good question and a very important one! we shall watch the distros die! and i will give the winner, the one who predicts the order of death, a genuine TRS-80 Color Computer!

    (note the details for the '12th Annual "Last" Chicago COCO Fest May 17-18th, 2003' on the link... wtf?! a TRS-80 Color Computer fest in 2003?! WOW! i started this post as a flippant jaded joke and i find myself in dumbfounded amazement ;-P )

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:i will keep track by Fizzol · · Score: 1

      Yep Cocofests live on. Making me feel all nostalgic here.

  53. usable OS's by sstory · · Score: 3, Insightful

    More importantly, you should have a pool to guess which distro will first become as good, usable, and easy to install as Win2k is. My guess is, RedHat, in the year 2007. or maybe 2009.

    1. Re:usable OS's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      3 Insightful? The best argument I've heard for ending anonymous moderation on Slashdot.

    2. Re:usable OS's by ChaosDiscord · · Score: 5, Insightful
      More importantly, you should have a pool to guess which distro will first become as good, usable, and easy to install as Win2k is.

      Easy to install? The last few versions of Red Hat I've installed (6.2 and 7.2) were significantly easier than my last few installs of Win2K. Do I have the right drivers? How many times will I need to reboot to get working drivers installed? Anyone who has ever installed Windows 2000 has all of the skill necessary to install Red Hat 8.0.

      Usable? Well, after installing Windows 2000 out of the box, I have an email client, a web browser, a few games, a nearly useless stripped down word processor (Write), and not much else. Without purchasing additional software, Windows 2000 isn't terribly useful for much other that basic internet access. With Red Hat 8, I get a word processor, spreadsheet, photo editor, and bunch of other useful, usable software. The various productivity packages that ship with Red Hat may not be perfect, but they're good enough for 95% of users and come with the operating system.

      Good? That's in the eye of the beholder. I am certainly much happier with Red Hat than Windows. Sounds good to me.

    3. Re:usable OS's by destiney · · Score: 1


      I'd mod this up if I had mod points. I think RedHat is the one as well. They seem to understand the need for uniformity in the desktop area with their latest Bluecurve work. RedHat 8.0 is very polished.

      But in the meantime, while the distro wars rage on, I'm having a lot of fun with LFS: Linux from scratch

    4. Re:usable OS's by dpt · · Score: 1

      To turn a Windows box into an actual useful device, you will need to install:

      * Perl

      * Emacs

      * All the cygwin tools

      * A web browser that lets you switch off Javascript and other nonsense

      * gcc

      Then, you've got something resembling a real computer, not a media consumption box ;)

    5. Re:usable OS's by indiigo · · Score: 2

      I'm a Windows2000 admin and had a Red Hat server up, (squid proxy, apache, and samba all working on a DELL 933 OEM that we wiped W2K off of all running within days of install, with only a tad bit of assistance from my bro. (apparently some of the default swuid directories needed permission modding to get working. Free Red hat saved us $2000+ in "IAS taxes" on our 100% windows network.

      Permissions are persnickity on linux, but that's how it's supposed to be, and I like it.

      --
      fslg503-985-8686503-985-8686503-985-8686503-985-86 8650 3-985-fdsg8686503-985-8686503-985-8686503-9
    6. Re:usable OS's by hughk · · Score: 2
      Actuall, Perl and GCC can be installed in one step via cygwin and that is one of the easier installations in the MS world that I came across. Xemacs and the lizard are another download but Xemacs is using the cygwin installer now.

      Don't forget the free X-server (also on cygwin), it may not be the best, but it works and the price is right.

      --
      See my journal, I write things there
    7. Re:usable OS's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you implying that IE doesn't let you turn off javascript? Please pull your zealot head out of your ass.

      MOM

    8. Re:usable OS's by dpt · · Score: 1

      Are you implying that IE doesn't let you turn off javascript?

      Since I don't have to run Windows, and never will, I actually don't know. This had been commented on enough times that I assumed it to be true. So sue me.

      Please pull your zealot head out of your ass

      When you talk tough on /. this is what I picture: someone living in his parent's basement, who got the shit kicked out of him every day at school, and is now a social pariah.

      So, mind your damned manners, geek-boy hiding behind his keyboard. It was only meant to be lighthearted.

    9. Re:usable OS's by i_am_nitrogen · · Score: 1

      Win2k is a freaking PAIN to install. I had to wipe my partition table to get it to install its bootloader to its own boot sector, and then reinstall Gentoo and grub. Rebooting after every single driver and application is painful, especially when all my PCI slots are full, and I have lots of obscure video editing utilities. It uses close to 1GB of hard drive space just for an OS? I can get the same functionality with a modern Linux distribution in half that space. Last time I installed LindowsOS there were only two pages that required any thought from the user (the "erase your existing operatingsystem?" page and the "pick a name for this computer page" -- I'm discounting the license agreement page because nobody reads those anyway (yes, I myself have read it, and there's nothing crazy in it that I could see.. does that make me nobody?)). Win2k had lots of crap left to do after the installer was done.

      My kid brother can download and install software using Click-N-Run. He doesn't know how to download and install software using an ordinary web browser and Windows.

    10. Re:usable OS's by woogieoogieboogie · · Score: 2
      1. Perl is pretty much useless on a winbox, learn WSH + COM, it gives you the same functionality and is native to the platform.

      2. Emacs. Of course because having a bloated editor on a bloated OS makes so much sense.

      3. Why would you install Cygwin to obtain the GNU tools when most of them have been ported directly to Win32?

      4. Err, IE let's you switch of javascript, active x, and java. Geesh, it isn't like stting the security level to high is so difficult.

      5. Only a total loser "needs" to use a specific compiler or editor. What a loser you are.

      Then, you've got something resembling a real computer, not a media consumption box ;)

      Err, no, then you have a computer loaded with a whole bunch of shit software.

      --
      ... Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed...
    11. Re:usable OS's by woogieoogieboogie · · Score: 2
      Since I don't have to run Windows, and never will, I actually don't know. This had been commented on enough times that I assumed it to be true. So sue me.

      So, you do not know much about windows, but claimed you could make the perfect windows box. methinks you are just one of those poverty stricken losers stuck with a 386 and Linux is the ONLY thing which will run on it.

      --
      ... Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed...
    12. Re:usable OS's by dpt · · Score: 1

      So, you do not know much about windows, but claimed you could make the perfect windows box. methinks you are just one of those poverty stricken losers stuck with a 386 and Linux is the ONLY thing which will run on it

      No, I don't run Linux, monkey-boy. But, being a professional who has strict requirements for technology and actually understands the issues, I don't develop on Windows either. Go back to Visual Basic, or show us all how to "hide HTML source". Go on, you uneducated Pratt.

      [See my journal for this clown's idiotic BS, it's worse than I though even the *lamest* Javascript weenie could be]

    13. Re:usable OS's by dpt · · Score: 1

      Perl is pretty much useless on a winbox, learn WSH + COM, it gives you the same functionality and is native to the platform

      Same functionality as Perl? You *fucking* ignorant fool. That's the stupidest thing I've heard since "HTML source can be hidden".

      Besides that, how then will I port my code to other OSes? Ah, I forgot, since you don't *really* work in computing, you don't have that kind of problem.

      Emacs. Of course because having a bloated editor on a bloated OS makes so much sense

      I need the functionality, but my requirements are slightly above that of a Javascript coding "web developer".

      Err, IE let's you switch of javascript, active x, and java. Geesh, it isn't like stting the security level to high is so difficult

      My mistake, since I don't use IE.

      Only a total loser "needs" to use a specific compiler or editor. What a loser you are

      No, just a professional who needs optimal tools. Which you are not, as you only work at some real estate office being the onsite computing monkey. Are there some backup tapes that need changing? Some viruses that need erasing. Hop to it, boy!

    14. Re:usable OS's by woogieoogieboogie · · Score: 2
      Same functionality as Perl? You *fucking* ignorant fool. That's the stupidest thing I've heard since "HTML source can be hidden".

      You stupid ignorant jackass. Do you even know what WSH is, do you know what COM is. Ever program using them. With WSH and COM, you have total access to the complete win32 API as well as every control on the system. anythign you can do with perl on a *nix box, you can do with WSH and CoM on a win box.

      Besides that, how then will I port my code to other OSes? Ah, I forgot, since you don't *really* work in computing, you don't have that kind of problem.

      If you plan on writing code to use on many platforms, try learning a real programming language and not some scripting language.

      I need the functionality, but my requirements are slightly above that of a Javascript coding "web developer".

      Like perl is any more complex than javascript. You cannot be that retarded can you.

      My mistake, since I don't use IE.

      Perhaps you migth try and act a little more intelligent instead of arguing about things you have no clue about. No, just a professional who needs optimal tools. Which you are not, as you only work at some real estate office being the onsite computing monkey. Are there some backup tapes that need changing? Some viruses that need erasing. Hop to it, boy!

      I have seen whining little code-monkeys like yourself. Losers who think the editor will help them write better code. if you had any real skill or talent, the editor would not matter.

      --
      ... Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed...
    15. Re:usable OS's by dpt · · Score: 1

      You stupid ignorant jackass

      You said it has the same functionality as Perl. *That* is ignorant. Look at the huge amount of modules on CPAN? Has it got every one of them? Thought not.

      anythign you can do with perl on a *nix box, you can do with WSH and CoM on a win box

      Yes, in theory anything can be done in any Turing complete language. It's just that it's easier in some than others.

      Like perl is any more complex than javascript. You cannot be that retarded can you

      Actually, it is. Look at the regular expression support alone. Or, get a degree of some kind.

      If you plan on writing code to use on many platforms, try learning a real programming language and not some scripting language

      Perl is a real programming language. It's used for a lot of things that C would formerly have been needed for. And it's portable.

      I wonder what you mean by "real programming" language anyway? Can't be Javascript, that would be too funny.

      Perhaps you migth try and act a little more intelligent instead of arguing about things you have no clue about

      I wasn't arguing, the original post was intended to be humorous, but I should have known some insecure people would be "offended". Ah, well.

      I have seen whining little code-monkeys like yourself. Losers who think the editor will help them write better code. if you had any real skill or talent, the editor would not matter

      Sigh. No the editor can't help you, but it can be integrated with the language in useful ways for large projects, obviously.

      Do some backup tapes need changing? I'm sure if you do that, they'll make you CEO any day now ...

    16. Re:usable OS's by woogieoogieboogie · · Score: 1
      With WSH you can use every and any com object ever created, plus have complete access to the win32 api's, plus you can write your own com objects. why don't you learn about a topic before you discuss it.

      Not to mention you can use VBScript, Javascript, Perl... gasp..... Python, TCL and many more programming languages with WSH.

      People do not get much dumber than you.

      --
      ... Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed...
    17. Re:usable OS's by dpt · · Score: 1

      Sigh. I'm breaking my promise to ignore this clown, but I can't let people be mislead.

      With WSH you can use every and any com object ever created, plus have complete access to the win32 api's, plus you can write your own com objects. why don't you learn about a topic before you discuss it

      Yes, of course. But that doesn't give me the functionality of what's available in CPAN.

      Not to mention you can use VBScript, Javascript, Perl... gasp..... Python, TCL and many more programming languages with WSH

      I'd like to see you use Perl with WSH without installing Perl first. Let's see you back up that little claim, dumbass. Here is your big chance to "code rings around me".

      This is the important point - you have to install Perl (or whatever) anyway, so it's a complete non-sequitor. Please don't be mislead by this ignorant tool into thinking WSH can in any way execute Perl code.

      People do not get much dumber than you

      Design of HTML - I win.
      HTML hiding - I win.
      CSS "!important" - I win.

      Anyway, I'll reply if you can use Perl in WSH without first installing Perl, as you claimed.

      But I'll ignore any other weasel words and backpedalling, and just accept it as final proof that you do not know what you are talking about, and fully deserve not having any kind of credible computing position. Which is your situation right now, apparently. You're just the lone sysadmin monkey at the local hairdressers, or real estate office, or something ...

      Let's see this genius at work!

  54. Lycoris Build 60 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I installed Lycoris Linux two weeks ago. I gave up and reinstalled Windows when I couldn't figure out how to install 3d support drivers or find a yEnc-compliant news reader for KDE.

    1. Re:Lycoris Build 60 by vegetablespork · · Score: 1
      couldn't . . . find a yEnc-compliant news reader for KDE.

      You couldn't find Pan?!

      --

      Call (206) 338-5780 COLLECT for information about a genuine BA, BS, MA, MS, MBA, or Ph.D.

    2. Re:Lycoris Build 60 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      for KDE. Lycoris doesn't include GNOME by default. Yes, you can launch pan from your KDE desktop, but only if you have all the GNOME libraries installed.

    3. Re:Lycoris Build 60 by vegetablespork · · Score: 2

      Fair enough--didn't read "for KDE" as "KDE library specific," my bad. However, Pan's worth installing the GNOME libraries by itself :).

      --

      Call (206) 338-5780 COLLECT for information about a genuine BA, BS, MA, MS, MBA, or Ph.D.

  55. Re:It's like porn sites.... there are enough alrea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    gentoo an is not for n00bs!!!

    gentoo is for ppl who r 3l337 h4x0rs!!1

    u r a n00b -.-

  56. Good job guys by narftrek · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's great to see the linux community is really getting behind the whole linux movement and voting for which distro is gonna tank first.

    Sounds alot like us Windows guys talkin about whether or not XP was gonna suck ass.....we only had one choice though.....

    ***********
    This post is probably a troll. Mod as such.

    1. Re:Good job guys by Glytch · · Score: 2

      Sounds alot like us Windows guys talkin about whether or not XP was gonna suck ass.....we only had one choice though.....

      Yeah, I guess "Yes." was the only choice. :)

  57. Hopefully not OEOne... by nickos · · Score: 1

    Of all of them, OEOne must be the most original, and the one that has had the most obvious work done on it. Admittedly, it's not what I personally would want to use as my desktop, but it's the one most likely to appeal to those who find Windows too complicated. Unfortunately I fear this may cause its potential user base to be too small, given Linuxs (still) predominantly technical bias.

    1. Re:Hopefully not OEOne... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OEOne isnt a distro, its just a desktop environment like KDE or GNOME.

  58. Switching just to switch is the wrong reason. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    As well as switching just to be anti-MS. Take me for example. 99% of the apps I use are written for Windows only. If I decided to become a Linux zealot right this instance, my sum total of computer usage would be 1) using WinZip and 2) using Mozilla. That will get old in like 2 minutes. The "replacement" apps you would then recommend I use, I wouldn't use them even in Windows. Example? Well I like to do graphics. Well, you say we have The GIMP! Please, I wouldn't touch that crap if an exact version existed for Windows (who's version is even worse), much less migrate to Linux for it?

    This is the part Linux zealots don't get: most people want to do work, not make some OS-religious statement. When NORMAL people talk computers, they say something like "I was playing Tomb Raider last night...", not "I was using Windows last night...". It's the app that's important to 99% of the world. You'll probably say somethiing now like "well if more people switched to Linux, more apps would be written" Well man, what do we do in the meantime? Just wait there mutely till whatever app I use gets made? No, I want the apps now, I don't have time to wait. The business serves ME, that's how it works. There's a reason I use a particular Windows app, IT'S THE ONE I LIKE!

    1. Re:Switching just to switch is the wrong reason. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The GIMP is pretty much identical to photoshop, only without the licensing issues.
      What's more, if you like 3D graphics, there are a LOT of 3DR programs written for Linux, many of which are at least as good as windows-based 3DR programs.

      Why can't you play Tomb Raider under Linux? I was playing UT 2003 last night....

    2. Re:Switching just to switch is the wrong reason. by Rooktoven · · Score: 2, Informative

      Hate to break this to you bud, but I don't think there's a Winzip for Linux ;-)

      You do have gaim, yahoo messenger, gimp, abiword, gnumeric, star office, real player, xine, mplayer, audacity, xmms, evolution, pan, and at least 2 other applications though...

      --

      Acquiescence leads to obliteration
    3. Re:Switching just to switch is the wrong reason. by calarts_nutmeg · · Score: 1

      It all depends upon what you do. For me I use Linux to spin mp3/ogg and scratch them like turntables using terminatorX, there's no comparable mac or windows software, Abelton comes closest, but doesn't handle ogg files. Likewise if you're a computer animator you'd get much more mileage out of using maya under linux rather than using it under windows (performance and stability are better).

      --
      Check my site out for ogg vorbis music produced with linux.
  59. *applause* by Tokerat · · Score: 0, Offtopic


    You threw the moderators a fast one. Congrats!

    Slackware is for newbies like jock itch is for fun.

    --
    CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
  60. my wish by chump+daddy · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    is that debian dies.

    every single person I know who uses debian is so religiously pro-debian that they refuse to accept the existance of anything else.

    They also are all complete fuckwits, stuck up arrogant wankers, and think they know more than they actually do.

    And debian has a habit of doing software updates automatically for the users by default, thus stopping people how to do software updates on their own.

    the whole heart of linux comes from hackers who love to futz around day and night trying to get software working.

    debian has brought fuckwits into the scene who don't know anything about the systems their administering.

    1. Re:my wish by BattyMan · · Score: 1

      is that debian dies.
      every single person I know who uses debian is so religiously pro-debian that they refuse to accept the existance of anything else.


      AND THAT IS WHY DEBIAN CAN _NEVER_ DIE!!! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!

      --
      Exceeding the recommended torque is not recommended.
  61. Darwinism and Desktop distros by GuruJ · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I know I'm preaching to the (mostly) converted here, but:

    Open Source does so well because people can do what they want with it. If a program is buggy, unstable, or too expensive, people will either fix it, fork it or dump it and write their own...

    Think of Open Source as a gigantic Darwinian "survival of the fittest". You may end up with a dominant species (eg. Red Hat), but that doesn't instantly mean all the others will become extinct.

    Having lots of desktop distributions helps to speed their evolution as they all compete for 'resources' in their respective niches.

    --
    -- Askari: Give JavaScript the bird.
  62. It depends on which one gets a clue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This was covered quite well in the discussion forum on extremetech following their review of Lindows 2.0.

    http://discuss.extremetech.com/n/main.asp?webtag =e xtremetech&nav=messages&msg=19980.52

  63. Re:It's like porn sites.... there are enough alrea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gentoo and Debian for newbies. Then this is how I will address my intro to the web class.

    Ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to tonights class. "Welcome to the world wide web." I think the best way to introduce new users like your selves is to start by showing you something about how the web works.

    Have any of you been on the web before? Good, I see a couple of hands so without any further questions we'll start out with some basic Assembly programming to get the blood flowing.

  64. Xandros doesn't look too bad.. by the+unbeliever · · Score: 2, Insightful

    At least according to the 2nd review. Sure, they may have irritated some GNOME heads, but there are those of us that prefer KDE. And if I can run Windows apps seamlessly (I'll wait for more info on this) I'd gladly spend $99 for Xandros and replace WinXP.

    1. Re:Xandros doesn't look too bad.. by npietraniec · · Score: 1

      Well, I still reboot to run photoshop sometimes, but crossover office runs just about whatever I throw at it. You may want to look at it, it's pretty impressive.

  65. SuSe? by T-Kir · · Score: 2

    SuSE not popular?

    AFAIK SuSE is very popular in Europe, wheras RedHat is more popular in the US (than SuSE).

    Although I do laugh at Lindows, I subscribed to their mailshot on one of my e-mail accounts... and the amount of "Michael's Minute" messages that come through is astounding (the message subject is prepended with the word "{SPAM ?}" by the mail server). I gave up reading them long ago... talk about an evangelical salesman!.

    --
    Are you local? There's nothing for you here!
  66. Depends on what 'dead' is. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I've been using Linux for years, and I still encounter distributions that I've never heard of.

    So, here's my list.

    'Business' Linuxes:
    Perched for massive growth: RedHat, SuSE.
    May die from bad business planning: Mandrake.

    'Eternal' Linuxes:
    Slack, Debian. These will be around long after all the trendy little skript kiddiez are dead and buried. When business has left Linux, and it will, grizzled veterans will still be playing with source and debs. I'd dare to say these two distributions aren't so much distributions as they are religions. ;) Also of note is Linux From Scratch.

    'On the Verge of Apotheosis' Linux: Gentoo. Total customization? This is fast becoming the 'l33t' of the 'l33t'.

    'Dead, Dying, Wounded, Peasants' Linuxes:
    Turbolinux, all those other ones a fraction of the population has heard of, but never seen. But who knows - miracle recoveries can happen.

    Now, to cut off the flaming Mandrake users - Shut up. Asking for money is no model for a business. I'd like to see Mandrake succeed as much as the next person (Linux needs a good freaking desktop!), but you can't question that Mandrake doesn't have the corporate staying power of RedHat and SuSE.

    1. Re:Depends on what 'dead' is. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Business will "leave" linux ? On which basis ?

      "Asking for money is no model for a business". Tell that to Microsoft watch them laugh so hard to make your pubic hair fall

    2. Re:Depends on what 'dead' is. by MullerMn · · Score: 3, Interesting

      'On the Verge of Apotheosis' Linux: Gentoo. Total customization? This is fast becoming the 'l33t' of the 'l33t'.

      Ok, hands up how many Gentoo users had to look that word up to decide if they needed to get defensive about their distro... ;)

      (I did)

    3. Re:Depends on what 'dead' is. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ditto ;)

  67. Re:It's like porn sites.... there are enough alrea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I love this. It's the same reason I use when people look at me like I'm crazy for learning C inside and out before even going near C++.

    Are C++ objects easier to handle than writing a large amount of insane code to mimic them in C? You bet. Is using new() and such fine for the average program? Damn straight.

    The fact remains - I've touched on the deep and dark parts where few dare to tread. I know what goes on down there, and thus, I'm better equipped to play with things in C++.

    The same goes for Linux distributions. Having everything automated is nice, and myself, I'd kill for something that approaches MS Win*'s ease of use. Still, if something screws up on Whizbang Desktop Distro 8.52, having hacked through config files with VI, I'm much better equipped to figure out what the problem is - and fix it.

    Learn the basics. Then you can make everything automated and pretty, because you'll know how to.

  68. Re:It's like porn sites.... there are enough alrea by EvilAlien · · Score: 2
    Dammit, the day I *don't* have mod points is the day they have the test. I always get screwed =(

    Times like these make me wish there were more options for negative moderations like "-1 Lame" and "-2 ALERT! YOU ARE A FUCKTARD."

    For the record, I think the next Linux distro to die, primarily intended for desktop or not, will be something like Lycoris or Caldera. Distributions like Mandrake and Red Hat provide ease of use and power in one package, providing a solution for all levels of users, while the "elite" distros requiring clue such as Gentoo (and maybe Debian and Slackware) will satisfy the tinkerers, superority complex, "make world" and other types of Linux users. A lot of choice is a good thing, but the key is identifying redundancy and figuring out which redundant distro is inferior. I think that will help pick off the next to go under.

    --
    perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5, (41*2), sqrt(7056), (unpack(c,H)-2), oct(115), 10)'
  69. RedHat Will Die First by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Because it will be the first that Microsoft attacks.

  70. Things To Do In Linux, Not In Windows by krmt · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The simple test is this: I never have a moment like "I am in Windows, and I have the need to boot to Linux to do something." But I often have the "Ah shit I am in Linux, now I need to reboot to windows before I can do this" moment.
    Then you must use your dual-boot setup very differently than I do.

    When I'm in Windows, I consistently think about the things I could rather be doing in Linux.
    "Man, if I only had a bunch of virtual desktops so I could have an uncluttered screen."
    "Wow, what I wouldn't give for grep right now."
    "Hell, why is it that the registry is so incomprehensible? I wish I had a manpage or a README describing this crap."
    "Stupid spam. I'd love to have procmail running here. Ah well, I guess I'll wait until I reboot to Linux to read my non-web email."
    "It's so great that I've got tabs in Mozilla. Why can't I have them on my windows too like I do in Linux?"


    The list goes on. I only boot to Windows now when I absolutely have to. I don't even use the "oh, I need to play games" excuse any more because I've simply stopped playing windows games. I'll play nethack or Q3 or an emulated SNES game instead.

    Sure, it's a choice in the way that I choose to use Linux, but it still means that it passes your test. And yeah, I could run programs like Cygwin in Windows, but that's like saying you can run Windows programs in Linux via Wine, which doesn't cut it.

    Once I started learning how to use Linux as Linux, rather than as a bad version of Windows, I became much more reliant on its features. Now I feel frustrated by anything without a bash shell and a copy of vi. It's all in what you learn to accept from your interface, as well how you're willing to work with it.
    --

    "I may not have morals, but I have standards."

    1. Re:Things To Do In Linux, Not In Windows by cookiepus · · Score: 1

      The list goes on. I only boot to Windows now when I absolutely have to

      Such a long post, but this line is the weak point. Sometimes you REALLY DO HAVE TO!

    2. Re:Things To Do In Linux, Not In Windows by m1a1 · · Score: 1

      "Man, if I only had a bunch of virtual desktops so I could have an uncluttered screen." "Wow, what I wouldn't give for grep right now." "Hell, why is it that the registry is so incomprehensible? I wish I had a manpage or a README describing this crap." "Stupid spam. I'd love to have procmail running here. Ah well, I guess I'll wait until I reboot to Linux to read my non-web email." "It's so great that I've got tabs in Mozilla. Why can't I have them on my windows too like I do in Linux?"

      Some of those are terrible arguments.

      1: You can have them in XP. Install powertoys, and turn them on.
      2: Use one of the many spam filters for Windows (mozilla has a new Bayesian one).
      3: Install mozilla for windows, or better yet Phoenix. You'll have the SAME FUCKING TABS as in Linux.

    3. Re:Things To Do In Linux, Not In Windows by krmt · · Score: 2

      You hear what you want to hear. You said that the true test is whether or not you ever say "I am in Windows and I have to boot to Linux to do something." I gave you multiple things that I can not do in Windows that I can do in Linux. Right now, I have one thing that I have had to boot to windows for in the last half year, and that's to run test prep software that I probably could have run through wine with enough effort. Yes, I "had" to boot to Windows, but I had to boot back to Linux to get work done.

      You can choose to ignore it, but there are tons of things you simply can't do in Windows that you can do on Linux. I'll give you another easy one: hacking the kernel. Yeah, it might not be for the guy down the block, but his precocious son or daughter might just be interested in how such a thing would work. Try letting him learn about that in windows.

      --

      "I may not have morals, but I have standards."

    4. Re:Things To Do In Linux, Not In Windows by krmt · · Score: 2
      1: You can have them in XP. Install powertoys, and turn them on.
      I don't have XP. I can't afford XP. I don't want to run XP. I don't want to agree to XP's EULA. And I don't want a buggy add-on that'll just add more instability to my already unstable 98 install. I refuse to pirate XP or 2k or any other piece of software anymore simply because I've learned that I don't have to in order to have a fully functional system.
      2: Use one of the many spam filters for Windows (mozilla has a new Bayesian one).
      Fair enough, but then that doesn't solve the problem of having duplicate local copies of my email, one on the Linux partition and one on the Windows partition. I don't want to keep two copies and I don't want my server space to be overloaded by keeping the mail there. Then it just becomes a question of choice, and I'd rather keep my email on the Linux partition because that's where I spend my time.
      3: Install mozilla for windows, or better yet Phoenix. You'll have the SAME FUCKING TABS as in Linux.
      You misunderstood me. Here, take a look at pwm. Imagine having tabs on all your windows, and then things might start to be clearer for you.
      --

      "I may not have morals, but I have standards."

    5. Re:Things To Do In Linux, Not In Windows by cookiepus · · Score: 1

      You can choose to ignore it, but there are tons of things you simply can't do in Windows that you can do on Linux. I'll give you another easy one: hacking the kernel. Yeah, it might not be for the guy down the block, but his precocious son or daughter might just be interested in how such a thing would work. Try letting him learn about that in windows.

      I don't know why you bothered to write that, given that I posted about 15 comments saying the same things. Yes, linux is amazing. Yes you can do a lot with it. But regular people don't care about hacking the kernel and things like that.

      And since we're talking about Desktop Distros, we're talking about targeting exactly those people.

      I commend yours (and many many many others') conviction in your choice of OS. Because of this incredible support Linux gets better and more widely usable every year - no question about that. But it seems that having had to defend Linux against much slander, people are too eager to do so, even at the expense of actual dialogue.

      The context of this story suggests that we're talking about trying to SELL (as in: you pay for it, as in beer) Linux Desktop Distros to people who don't want to recompile the kernel or read the HOWTOs. And my position is that, as great as Linux is (and I was more than eager to give Linux praise where due, in my posts in this thread) it will NOT appeal to these people.

      I am not ignorant of the fact that you can do much on Linux that you can't on Windows, and I don't ignore this fact to attack Linux. What I am saying is that people to whom Desktop Distros are targeted are probably not interested in doing those things - which makes me doubt they'd be able to appreciate Linux. In fact, I have a feeling that these people will overlook stability and security and will be eager to home down on the shortcommings in the GUI and intuitivity areas. As such, I doubt they will pay money for Linux.

      So to sum it up again: Linux is great. Linux is the best. But these people won't appreciate it and won't pay for it, so Desktop Distros are either doomed, or best there will be plenty of time elapsing before they actually make any money

    6. Re:Things To Do In Linux, Not In Windows by juggy · · Score: 1

      OK, I usually don't answer to stupid OS war threads as this, but I really gotta yell at this:

      "Man, if I only had a bunch of virtual desktops so I could have an uncluttered screen."
      There are plenty of free applications for windows available that let you do that.
      "Wow, what I wouldn't give for grep right now."
      Available for Windows as well, build it yourself, download it from other web sites or use cygwin.
      "Hell, why is it that the registry is so incomprehensible? I wish I had a manpage or a README describing this crap."
      This point I'll grant. However, I am rather frustrated by either super-short or neverending man-pages that may or may not give an answer to your problem. But I want to stress that this is a valid point.
      "Stupid spam. I'd love to have procmail running here. Ah well, I guess I'll wait until I reboot to Linux to read my non-web email."
      I am using Mozilla-Mail and set it up so that both my Windows-version and my Linux-Version use the same data-file, so I can use "Non-Web Mail". You can do similar things with other mail clients (mutt, pine, portable GUI clients, etc.)
      "It's so great that I've got tabs in Mozilla. Why can't I have them on my windows too like I do in Linux?"
      Now that is probably the MOST STUPID thing you've said! Why on earth do you download/install Mozilla for Linux, but not for Windows? Or do you just not know that there is always a Windows build as well??

      I just don't get it: There are many reasons to bash Windows, be it weird errors, spy apps, dialers or company policies. But if some people put the same effort in finding suitable apps for Windows as they do with finding and configuring them for Linux, there would be a lot less stupid posts like this. My WINDOWS runs completely on free software, except for the OS which I bought. I have found freeware replacements (which even mostly come with source code, for the OpenSource purists - although, beware! it sometimes is the "non-free" BSD license!) for all of them.
      BTW: I am a Linux user, have been for more than 6 years - but all those people outrightly denying that there was no room for opinions except "Linux is great, I never need to boot into Windows, because Linux can do anything!" just annoy me. -_-

    7. Re:Things To Do In Linux, Not In Windows by juggy · · Score: 1

      You can have them in XP. Install powertoys, and turn them on.

      There are plenty free programs available for all windows versions from Win95 onwards. Do a quick search on cnet or google.

      Fair enough, but then that doesn't solve the problem of having duplicate local copies of my email, one on the Linux partition and one on the Windows partition. I don't want to keep two copies and I don't want my server space to be overloaded by keeping the mail there. Then it just becomes a question of choice, and I'd rather keep my email on the Linux partition because that's where I spend my time.

      Well, why do you not configure it to use the same data on both partitions? I did so, and have been using it for more than 1 year this way without any problems. Why do you not configure your Linux to do so?

      You misunderstood me. Here, take a look at pwm [cs.tut.fi]. Imagine having tabs on all your windows, and then things might start to be clearer for you.

      This is a nice feature, I agree. But you can basically do the same thing in Windows, you just have to write an add-on (and yes, this is possible, just look at other desktop managers such as Talisman - though this is not the best example, I can't recall of the other ones I tried before, but there are some).

    8. Re:Things To Do In Linux, Not In Windows by dasunt · · Score: 2

      krmt writes

      "Man, if I only had a bunch of virtual desktops so I could have an uncluttered screen."

      Virtual Win.

      "Wow, what I wouldn't give for grep right now."

      Cygwin. Or try this collection of natively compiled GNU utilies.

      "Hell, why is it that the registry is so incomprehensible? I wish I had a manpage or a README describing this crap."

      The registry is a big PITA. Can't help you there. There is a readme describing the structure here, but a lot of programs break that. OTOH, if you don't mind spammy logfiles, regmon can help you find what program is accessing what keys in the registry.

      "Stupid spam. I'd love to have procmail running here. Ah well, I guess I'll wait until I reboot to Linux to read my non-web email."

      There is a variety of client-side plugins for spam. The next release of Mozilla will also have spam-blocking capabilities.

      "It's so great that I've got tabs in Mozilla. Why can't I have them on my windows too like I do in Linux?"

      Too bad they don't make a mozilla windows port. Tabbed browsing works great.

      I agree, linux is better. But not for most of the reasons you list. :)

    9. Re:Things To Do In Linux, Not In Windows by krmt · · Score: 2
      I don't know why you bothered to write that, given that I posted about 15 comments saying the same things. Yes, linux is amazing. Yes you can do a lot with it. But regular people don't care about hacking the kernel and things like that.
      First of all, I'm not tracking all your comments. Second of all, what defines "regular people"? The point of my example is that the line is thin. Dad may buy the computer for work, but Johnny might be interested and ask Dad to buy him a copy of Linux for Christmas so he can try it out. Dad might not be interested in a kernel, but Johnny would be, does that make him any less "regular"? Does that mean that Dad isn't the one buying it for him? It's not a far-fetched example.
      The context of this story suggests that we're talking about trying to SELL (as in: you pay for it, as in beer) Linux Desktop Distros to people who don't want to recompile the kernel or read the HOWTOs. And my position is that, as great as Linux is (and I was more than eager to give Linux praise where due, in my posts in this thread) it will NOT appeal to these people.
      How about another hypothetical one? Skip works in a small office that has been slowly moving over to Linux on the desktop for various reasons (cost, geeky well-trained admins, security, whatever). He wants to be able to take his work home with him, and he decides that he wants to run the same thing at home that he does in the office. So he goes and buys a desktop Linux distro because the guy at the office told him that it would be easier than the one he uses there, but still compatible.
      I am not ignorant of the fact that you can do much on Linux that you can't on Windows, and I don't ignore this fact to attack Linux. What I am saying is that people to whom Desktop Distros are targeted are probably not interested in doing those things - which makes me doubt they'd be able to appreciate Linux. In fact, I have a feeling that these people will overlook stability and security and will be eager to home down on the shortcommings in the GUI and intuitivity areas. As such, I doubt they will pay money for Linux.
      In all honesty, I don't think there's anything wrong with the GUI or with intuitivity on Linux. Programs are no worse in these areas than they are in Windows. I've decided that all most people want is the ability to download lots of copyrighted material, to browse the web, and to get email on their browsers. Occasionally they type something up. Since Windows gives them this, they're not going to switch to anything, especially when they already have Windows.

      So, without incentive, like having Linux on the desktop at work, they're not going to make the switch. But if you think Linux has a shot at the business desktop, and I do, then I think these Desktop distros also have a shot at the home user. I agree that the market is small right now, but never say never.
      --

      "I may not have morals, but I have standards."

    10. Re:Things To Do In Linux, Not In Windows by krmt · · Score: 2
      I just don't get it: There are many reasons to bash Windows, be it weird errors, spy apps, dialers or company policies. But if some people put the same effort in finding suitable apps for Windows as they do with finding and configuring them for Linux, there would be a lot less stupid posts like this. My WINDOWS runs completely on free software, except for the OS which I bought. I have found freeware replacements (which even mostly come with source code, for the OpenSource purists - although, beware! it sometimes is the "non-free" BSD license!) for all of them.
      I could put a lot of work in to making Windows work as well as Linux, but that'd be the same problem in reverse, trying to treat Windows as a bad copy of Linux.

      I pretty much use all free software when I'm in Windows now too (Mozilla, Vim, Nethack, Ruby, etc.) but that's a strange thing when almost all the software that I use is either available for Linux or is an actual port to Windows.

      On top of that, there's the instability of Win98 (I'm not going to pirate 2k and I can't afford a copy), the security holes, the constant vigilance against spyware, and general uselessness of all documentation. Why should I bother if I can do the same stuff in Linux?

      That's not to say that I never have to boot in to Windows ever. I never said that, nor did I imply it. I don't think Linux is for everyone yet, so most people still do need Windows. But why should I have to pander to it if Linux can do anything I ask it to quite easily? Why should I have to bother with Cygwin (which never feels comfortable to me, no matter how I try) when I've got a native grep sitting just over yonder? Why should I have to bother with something freeware program that will very likely crash my system when I've got my virtual desktops set up by default already?

      People complain about how much time it takes to set up Linux, I say it takes a lot longer to set things up in Windows. That's just my personal experience, but it's mine. The parent to my original comment said there was nothing he felt he could do in Linux that he couldn't do in Windows, I say it's generally the other way around, but that's only if you're using Linux as Linux rather than Windows. If you're a 6 year Linux user, I'm sure you know what I mean. So rather than try my best to build a Windows system that will act like my Linux system, I'd rather just use Linux.
      --

      "I may not have morals, but I have standards."

    11. Re:Things To Do In Linux, Not In Windows by Morgahastu · · Score: 2

      "Man, if I only had a bunch of virtual desktops so I could have an uncluttered screen."

      For the past year nVidia drivers for Windows XP lets you have virtual desktops.

      "Wow, what I wouldn't give for grep right now."
      I don't know if any of you ever bother to look at the Windows 2000/XP Command prompt but there are similar commands.

      "Hell, why is it that the registry is so incomprehensible? I wish I had a manpage or a README describing this crap."

      I use this thing called google.

      "Stupid spam. I'd love to have procmail running here. Ah well, I guess I'll wait until I reboot to Linux to read my non-web email."

      After a few weeks of tweaking my Outlook filters don't let any spam come by.

      "It's so great that I've got tabs in Mozilla. Why can't I have them on my windows too like I do in Linux?"

      I guess my tabs in the Win32 version of Mozilla have been imaginary.

    12. Re:Things To Do In Linux, Not In Windows by mateub · · Score: 1
      krmt wrote:

      Then you must use your dual-boot setup very differently than I do.

      When I'm in Windows, I consistently think about the things I could rather be doing in Linux.
      ...
      "It's so great that I've got tabs in Mozilla. Why can't I have them on my windows too like I do in Linux?"

      I can't help but think the same thing about this comment--why don't you just install Mozilla for Windows? It seems to be a memory pig on my laptop at work compared to IE, but I love the tabs, and the popup blocking, and the ad blocking--why shouldn't I have that on Windows?

      But for the rest, I agree with cookiepus--until I can use my Omnibook 6000 modem, until I the laptop going to sleep doesn't hang Linux without me trying a dozen scattered patches, until Nortel makes a Linux client to get me inside my company's firewall, I'll keep needing to boot into Windows.

      adeu,
      Mateu

      PS when did accented letters stop working? Like &eacute;?

      --
      "And we're happy here, but we live in fear, we've seen a lot of temples crumble..." - Concrete Blonde
  71. Re:It's like porn sites.... there are enough alrea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I agree with all but the last. In that case, I'd reverse the entire list.

    RedHat would be dead last in total control. Slackware would be second, with Gentoo as first. Why Gentoo as first?

    It gives you total control without stripping out the ease of use.

  72. lindows by asv108 · · Score: 2
    Lindows had a real chance because it had plenty of funding and an excellent salesmen in Michael Robertson. I had high hopes for Lindows, but it is quite obvious that the main goals Lindows set out to acheive (windows compatiblity and ease of use) have not been met.

    If Lindows spent the time to work on creating a quality distro they might have become a viable contender, but instead they chose to try and turnout half-ass software in order to show some sales made off of momentum from their PR machine.

    Too bad most of their PR that has anything to do with tech is just complete BS. The best is the version numbering, Version 3.0 in less than a year of development?

    Lindows.com PR last year.

  73. Why was that modded as a troll? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's true. Maybe it could've been worded better, but it's absolutely true.

    Long after the business world has found another belle for their ball, Slack and Debian will still be installed on boxes around the world.

    Slack, Debian and possibly Gentoo, now, aren't based on the bottom line. They're based on Linux. They're about Linux, not 'killing Microsoft'.

    RedHat, SuSE? I don't know about SuSE, but RedHat isn't about killing Microsoft, either. But the fact remains, the two of them *are* based on the bottom line, which leaves them at the mercy of the market.

    Mandrake? The people who spelled Microsoft as 'Micro$oft' on their website? Not only are they the ill equipped militia attempting to fight a veteran army, but their bottom line keeps dropping lower and lower. Hmm, I wonder why? (Free tip: Acting childish doesn't impress hardened businessmen.)

  74. See, you don't understand. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't want something that's just like Photoshop, I WANT PHOTOSHOP. Not a pretender, not something as good, not a copy, nothing that isn't Photoshop. What part of this is so hard to understand?

    1. Re:See, you don't understand. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What part of this is so hard to understand?

      The $600 part.

  75. Status ?? by bstadil · · Score: 2, Informative
    Did they acutally lose the case or just their request for injunctive relief?

    The Latest info I can find is from last month where Lindows asked the Judge to dismiss the case filed by MS. There can not have been any ruling yet as the press would have written about it regardless of outcome.

    --
    Help fight continental drift.
  76. Hopefully, they will all fail! by Ogerman · · Score: 1, Troll

    The sooner we get rid of all these stupid special-purpose and commercial distributions, the sooner people will realize that ALL the legitimate money in Open Source software is found in consulting and services. We only need ONE popular Linux distribution: Debian. And before anyone goes flaming me for being a "debian elitist" or starts criticizing how Debian's installer sucks and is unsuitable for home users, consider this: Debian is the only distribution that is fully community-driven. It is the only distribution with a formalized policy and social contract. It is one of the oldest distributions and has a solid track record in security and timeliness. The size and popularity of the project is growing rapidly--Debian now packages far more software than ANY other distribution.

    And yes, now that Debian has begun to move far beyond its "techie-core" roots, there is a large interest in developing newbie-friendly installers and system maintenance utilities. Interested? Get coding! (:

    1. Re:Hopefully, they will all fail! by Unregistered · · Score: 0

      No! bad fundamentalist! bad! We don't need 1 meta-distro specilization is good. That's wht linux is all aobut. And gentoo is fully-community driven, and has portage.

    2. Re:Hopefully, they will all fail! by carambola5 · · Score: 2
      How about Gentoo? Sure its only a year or so old, but it's definitely making progress.
      only distribution that is fully community-driven

      The only one? Gentoo is certainly fully community-driven. And it's an awfully friendly community at that.
      only distribution with a formalized policy and social contract
      Gentoo: check.
      has a solid track record in security and timeliness
      What Gentoo lacks in age, it makes up in every other area. Security and timliness are most definitely not one of its downfalls. Quite the opposite.
      size and popularity of the project is growing rapidly
      Seen DistroWatch lately? Seems to me Gentoo has slowly been leaving Debian in the dust.

      Ok, man. Time to stop making sweeping generalizations. There is a world outside of Debian.
      --
      IWARS.
      People, in general, disappoint me. Politicians even more so.
    3. Re:Hopefully, they will all fail! by EzInKy · · Score: 2

      And yes, now that Debian has begun to move far beyond its "techie-core" roots, there is a large interest in developing newbie-friendly installers and system maintenance utilities. Interested? Get coding! (:

      I'm not sure Debian hasn't already moved too far from it's techie roots, and that is why there has been an explosion in source based distros recently. It's okay that stable moves at a snails pace, but unstable doesn't even have software that has become standard on other distributions.

      --
      Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
    4. Re:Hopefully, they will all fail! by Ogerman · · Score: 2

      It's okay that stable moves at a snails pace, but unstable doesn't even have software that has become standard on other distributions.

      Like what? OK, yeah, KDE3.. but that is only because the Debian project is undergoing the enormous transition to using gcc 3.2.1, which has some c++ incompatibilities with 2.9x. Once this is complete, unstable will move much faster with the latest and greatest KDE stuff.

    5. Re:Hopefully, they will all fail! by Ogerman · · Score: 2

      OK, I was not aware that Gentoo was fully a community effort. After checking it out further, however, I would have to classify it as a decent distro. On the other hand, I don't agree with some things about it.

      Source-only are fairly impractical in many real-world cases. I can't afford to wait a whole day for all software to compile when setting up a new customer. Granted, I could just compile with everything enabled, use compatible defaults, and then clone the partition, but then that would kinda defeat the purpose of a meta-distro, wouldn't it? And then what happens when I need to upgrade the software? More downtime for re-compiling! Point being, I don't have the time to customize each client machine, so what's the advantage of Gentoo vs. well built Debian binary packages. With Debian, I can install from binary packages for the vast majority of software and install from source packages for the handful that I need to truly customize. Sure, there's room for improvement in making this task more user-friendly, but I don't see the need for a whole new distro when Debian's source package management tools are not THAT far behind what Gentoo is doing. The main difference is that Debian doesn't force you to use source packages. I believe there is even a tool that will automate downloading and build of dependancies when installing from Debian source packages. All this and Debian supports more architectures than any other distro: 10, with a couple others in the works. Gentoo only supports 4. Packages available? Debian: ~10,000 vs. Gentoo: ~3,000. And Debian is moving to become non-Linux-specific as well so that you can use BSD or Hurd kernels. Who's leaving who in the dust? Btw, Distrowatch is misleading if you're going to compare package version numbers: No, Debian 3.0r0 is not as up to date as Gentoo, but few people use *only* the stable releases of Debian. I'm not saying Gentoo is bad, but it IS redundant.

    6. Re:Hopefully, they will all fail! by EzInKy · · Score: 2

      I'm looking forward to it then, because I do believe that Debian could be the universal distribution, particularly with the apt-build in the works.

      --
      Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
  77. Yggdrasil by nickos · · Score: 3, Funny

    My money's on Yggdrasil. Oh, hang on...

  78. That's the point by Unregistered · · Score: 0

    That's why i love linux. It gives me choice. I don't like X fature on Y app, i'll try app Z and pick. Maybe its not best fopr The Average Consumer, but that's not really the market. Some distros (Red Hat 8, i know) have addressed these [roblems ad as long as you stay in the protective shell of Null, you're fine. But taking the choices out of linux would leave us w/ Windows, but Open-source. We already have for that.

  79. It isn't about the people at home. by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's all about what businesses decide suits them best. If enough companies have an incentive-- be it open source, community effort, [or] MS monopoly. All of these factors can provide a reason for a company to invest money in an alternative. More importantly, any one of these reasons may make it worth a significant investment to switch.

    The last wave will be the US; other countries have much greater reasons to invest both public and private money to refine Linux to serve their own needs. (Namely that Windows and Mac are both American products and money spent on them has almost no ripple effect on the local economy.)

    How much would it really take to make Linux viable, given sufficient corporate resources?

    Once companies switch, it isn't much of a step for their employees to do the same...

    1. Re:It isn't about the people at home. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "How much would it really take to make Linux viable, given sufficient corporate resources? "

      Given enough corporate funding, Linux will eventually be able to recreate Windows.

  80. Linux's "mission" is irrelevant by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 3, Insightful

    2. Onerous licensing not in keeping with Linux's mission.

    Linux's "mission" and it's traditional community are irrelevant with respect to a desktop distro. IMHO a desktop distro is not for the traditional community it is for bringing new users to Linux. All that really matters is how well such a distro functions as a newbie desktop, how well the user gets along without Windows or Office. Linux's desktop future will be determined by people who don't give a rats ass about the GPL.

    1. Re:Linux's "mission" is irrelevant by HiThere · · Score: 2

      There certainly are people like that around. But I wouldn't say that they were the core of the desktop market. Not this year. Possibly by the end of next year. But this year it's still people being evangelized by "Free Software" advocates, but not technically as competent as needed for one of the standard distributions. The problem is, they generally aren't competent enough for the desktop distributions, either. Or, for that matter, for Windows. They depend on outside support whenever something happens. So they go with the place that they see as providing that support.

      Companies are a secondary market for these "desktop distributions". Really secondary. Almost any company would prefer Red Hat to Lindows, even for their desktops. If not Red Hat, then Mandrake. What do the "desktop" distributions offer to make up for their increased cost? All I've seen is a slick way to download things that are freely available elsewhere, and a per seat licensing charge. But companies would generally prefer that their end-users not go around installing software, so that's actually a disincentive. Wine is a decent argument, but CodeWeavers already has that available for the standard distributions.

      I'm willing to be convinced. But I haven't been by anything I've seen. And I'm not about to pay cash for a per seat system when it doesn't offer anything over Mandrake or Red Hat. That seems just silly.

      As for a default login as root ... ugh!

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  81. My Candidate: Corel Linux!!!!! by farrellj · · Score: 2

    Oh...it already died?

    And, like Buffy and Xena, has been reincarated?

    Now called Xandros?

    Gosh!

    ttyl
    Farrell

    --
    CAN-CON 2019 - Ottawa's only book oriented Science Fiction Convention! October 18-20, Sheraton Hotel, Ottawa, Canada h
  82. Abiword == MS Word? by mgkimsal2 · · Score: 2

    * better word processing

    whatever. I dont see a difference. OO and Abiword do just as much as MS Word


    Abiword didn't (as of my last download a few months back) even support tables. If all you're using Abiword for is to type text in and maybe do a search/replace, yes. For just about anyone else who uses a word processor, formatting with tables will be a requirement at some point during the time they expect to use it.

  83. You want Debian? How about Xandros? by Skapare · · Score: 2
    I don't believe that they should merge. If they did I would have to put up w/the tons of shit from Mandrake and RedHat while all I want is Debian.

    Then download Debian or buy a CD with Debian and install it and set it up yourself. But what about people you know who are not into computers enough to do it themselves, but still want occaisional access to your knowledge they can fall back on if they have problems, and you would prefer they have Debian? Well ... there's Xandros ... which is based on Debian.

    --
    now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
  84. Mergers! by transami · · Score: 1

    well, hopefully they won't just up and die but merge with other distros (if they had any sense)

    mergers to expect? The UnitedLinux 4 will solidify into one company.

    Lindows will become the home edition of Xandros.

    others?

    --
    :T:R:A:N:S:
  85. microsoft adverts having an effect? by horster · · Score: 2

    gee, good ol' slashdot taking potshots at linux now? this in addition to giving more press to ms then any supposed 'nerd' site I can think of?

    this is bullshit folks.

  86. Irony... by fireboy1919 · · Score: 2

    I stopped using AIM because I couldn't organize my friends list into categories. Falls somewhere into the "I need to boot to Linux" category.

    Also ironic is that my Video Capture card, a Buz! won't work on the latest version of Windows I used before I stopped (Win2K). Also, system tasks are far more difficult. If I want to search for a file named "test1.3p2" under every subdirectory of a particular system, zip it up, remove the original, and spit it back out (which is something I've done), its a one-liner in Linux...I wouldn't even want to attempt that in Windows.

    Its a general feel more than anything else. Do I want to program in Perl in Windows? I'd better go download activeperl, change my autoexec.bat to have the right environment variables and path, and associate the "perl" extension with .pl files, since I can't run them on the command line automatically. Do I want python? Roughly the same thing. System scripting? Well, I can't just type commands into a file, 'cause Windows batch files can't do much on their own. I have to learn another language.

    I have minimized my Windows use to three programs: mIRC (don't like the Linux ones as much; I've tried MANY), IE (only to test webpages; using Phoenix at the moment), and Access (AFAIK the only thing that can open access files is Access). Of course, for those, I can just use win4lin, so I don't boot to Windows. If I leave the emulator running too long, my system runs out of memory due to leaks, and I have to reboot to fix it (I have 512MB).

    In Linux, setting up and running development environments is trivial. Of course, there is always Cygwin, but at crucial times it sometimes doesn't work, especially when you need some esoteric package to do what you want.

    HOWEVER...there are still some TASKS that Linux can't do that I would really like to (notice I'm avoiding the whole game thing). Some of them are on the way, and some of them are not. But they are all definitely something to think about:
    1) High level networking. Samba's not as nice to develop for as WSH.
    2) GUI coding. There are many better ways to do it in Linux than in Windows, and you get a nice uniform look.
    3) CD-R UDF. How much I want it. The lack of this means that the all important non-network based portability is much, much better in Windows, as are backups. Considering that copying files to CD using such an approach takes less time than copying to a floppy, and CDs now cost less than a cent each, it is the one thing that makes me constantly reconsider my decision to give up Windows. They say its on the way...its been on the way for two years though.

    4) Remote desktops. Windows XP now has it pretty much down pat, and its faster than X.

    --
    Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
  87. Re:hmm...which version is going to die first? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FreeBSD is so much better than any linux distro ive tried. Ports are awesome, the FreeBSD handbook is awesome. Freebsdforums.com is awesome. And it is so freaking fast and stable.

  88. Red Hat will be the desktop Linux by bkontr · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I know some people will be upset at this, but Red Hat has more staying power than all of the other Linuxes combined (other than Debian and Mandrake). I don't have anything against the other linuxes, but let's face it what easily sets RH apart is that they have the most clout with major businesses here in the US and abroad. I think even Linus still uses RH! No other Linux has that kind of credibility factor going for it. With RH 8.0, the look and feel of the desktop seems professional and appears to be striving towards some type of consistent feel, look etc....and this is where linux IMHO is really lacking. A business linux on the on the server and even more importantly on desktops has to have some level of consistency. I hope RH understands this concept. What I think the linux distributors really need to do is to get together and finally decide on a standard configuration for /etc and init scripts....the resulting linuxes then can be called standard linux. That doesn't mean there can't be non standard linuxes, but I think it would go a long way in getting linux accepted. It's clear to me that RH knows they are on the way to being the standards leader for linux and they don't have much competition.

    --


    "You helped our nation celebrate its bicentennial in 17 -- 1976." --George W. Bush, to Queen Elizabeth, Wash
    1. Re:Red Hat will be the desktop Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      suse has more clout than rhat in Europe.
      as it should since it is european and not
      american.
      since it is europe over there and not america.

    2. Re:Red Hat will be the desktop Linux by idletask · · Score: 1
      What I think the linux distributors really need to do is to get together and finally decide on a standard configuration for/etc and init scripts....the resulting linuxes then can be called standard linux.

      Close to... It's called Linux Standard Base. A good, 30+ years of Unix practice in one spec sheet... But it has yet to be adopted by all major players. And it has yet to be agreed upon by application programmers as well. Add to this the fact that quite a few of these participants feel free to violate the standards when it arranges them.

      And the LSB doesn't touch the desktop in any way either, so no desktop consistency can be hoped from there... I do hope RedHat succeeds in its long-overdue effort, or if it fails, that it at least sets the trend for other major distros and put some lead into Gnome/KDE programmers' heads - "cooperate".

  89. That's fine by Dave_bsr · · Score: 2

    Fine. Use windows. I'll admit that the applications aren't available for linux yet. But...don't whine when it breaks or you get a virus.

    Some of us switch to linux because it has some nice tools. Some because it's stable. Some cuz we like open source. and some because we want to look l33t. It's a *NIX, too...I happen to like UNIX-ey environments.

    I understand your point - but *this* linux zealot is trying to get people to enjoy a whole new computing experience, and also trying to suggest replacements for tools you might miss. Sorry if you are offended, many of us are only trying to help.

    --


    Who is this Anonymous Coward character, how does he post so much, and why is he always such a whore?
    1. Re:That's fine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just my $.02:
      I've been doing s/w development under UNIX for about 20 years now (mostly SunOS/Solaris) and didn't really use Windows at all until Java came along:
      kind of ironic, but the first good Java tools (Symantec Cafe) was a Windows-only thing. I hate Microsoft and everything it represents - but since I spend most of my work/home time either inside a
      Java IDE or inside a Web browser, I'm forced to use Windows because Mozilla and NetBeans (a couple years ago I switched from Symantec to NetBeans) look/work better under Windows than they do under Linux.

      Here are my biggest peeves with Linux (I just gave up on another attempt to 'migrate' - this time to RH 8.0):
      - Fonts: for my apps (Mozilla, NetBeans), they simply suck. Sure, you can try to import Windows TrueType fonts, rebuild FreeType to do AA, etc. but I don't have time to jump through those hoops: I have a 4-year old that doesn't give me much time. Someone either needs to write some foolproof script to automate the above work or someone needs to come up with nice fonts (and make them default) for those apps. Or maybe there are some nice fonts already - but Mozilla and NetBeans sure don't make use of them by default.

      - Mouse support: same story. Last time I tried migrating (RH7), my mouse wheel wasn't functional at all right after installation (as always, there were some config files one could modify to make it work, but again - who has the time to research/do it?) With RH8, the wheel worked, but the extra buttons on the mouse still didn't do anything and there didn't seem to be any utility for setting up those buttons (e.g. I have the thumb button in Windows setup to do "Browser Back" and the wheel
      button to do "Browser Forward".) Again, the 'solution' is apparently to modify some config file(s) - again, hours of research.

      I guess I'm pretty shallow - can't look past the exterior: fonts and mouse support. But since I'm using Windows even though I hate M$ - you can imagine how willing the non-technical masses will be to put up with these things when they could care less who makes their OS?

      Tom

      P.S. I never thought I'd say this: the argument that some folks make about Linux being much more stable than Windows is pretty stale: I leave my W2K (SP2) running all the time - last time I rebooted? About 3 months ago...and not because it hung - just needed to because I needed to look inside my box. The average "home" user might run into more problems than I because they run a greater variety of apps that could cause a hang - most likely games...but then, you can't compare a Linxu box running plain vanilla apps with one that has to handle hardware-(ab)using games.

  90. Re:It's like porn sites.... there are enough alrea by Daytona955i · · Score: 1

    I think that post was one of those new fangled posts using sarcasm...
    -Chris

  91. I'm confused now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have been reading all along that *BSD was dying ...
    Is linux dying too??
    Am I trolling or is the Story a troll?

  92. My take by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would like to see RedHat and Mandrake merge or in other words Redhat with all of mandrakes neat lil wizards. In the end will have 3 major distros SuSe RedHat and probally Mandrake. Redhat dominates the american market with mandrake in clsoe second. Suse has europe wiht mandrake in a close second... Whats popular in asia, south america, and africa?

  93. Business man == looking for deals by Kashif+Shaikh · · Score: 2

    My idea of Mr. Robertson is that he's looking for the quick buck, i.e. he's more interested in signing contracts with companies to provide Lindows-based PCs. Especially to the companies who don't want to sell OS-less computers because M$ assumes they are supporting piracy...

    All that stuff about "Lindows is like Windows", "can run all your Windows apps", "runs Office", "is easy to use", "one-click software purchase" is all marketing BULLSHIT Robertson needs to promote his ideas. It was nothing more than a fucking hype machine with very bad execution.

    I don't even think he gives a shit about the desktop, other than showing nice themes with a simple menu layout.

    Of course this is just my opinion.

  94. My thoughts by mao+che+minh · · Score: 2
    My thoughts:

    1. Suse will have to lower prices, at least in the US, to remain competitive with Mandrake and Red Hat - especially after Red Hat's insanely user friendly 8.0 and it's intuitive "Red Hat Network". Not to mention that they don't provide a free download, which hurts them in the distro popularity contest.

    2. United Linux will be met with very little fan fare for the forseeable future. Their entire ethic system contradicts the choir to which they preach, and in this small niche market, that just doesn't fly.

    3. A more wide spread acceptance of lesser known distros (lesser known to non-long time Linux users, that is) distros like Slackware and Debian will spread. As Linux is more widely used on the desktop, casual users will start to become famailar with it, and many will yearn to have that "complete control" over their system that their guru friends keep telling them about.

    I do not believe that any of the distros will ever "die", as each and every one of them has a large developer base. Now which one will turn little to no profits, well, that's another question entirely.

  95. Another College Comp Sci Major by Prien715 · · Score: 1

    Yay for college comp sci majors. Anyway, I started using Linux my freshman year. The sound card, nor the video card, nor the modem worked on install. Eventually, the community solved the problem by releasing new drivers. I then began poking around and reading stuff casually. I now know my way around a Linux system pretty well, but this stuff takes time. What new Linux users need to realize is two things. First, you've probably been using windows for years. Just cause you can stick a Redhat CD in your drive, doesn't make you a Linux pro, it takes years of use. Secondly, Linux and Windows are both good at different things. Linux is a better programming environment than windows while gaming and office stuff are much easier in windows (especially for the novice). That said, being more experienced, I now use the same products on both platforms (Mozilla/OpenOffice/AIM/XEmacs) and have even achieved uptimes of over 2 weeks in Windows 98SE (which I find amazing=)). However, until my addiction to Warcraft 3 ends (or wine gets faster), I'm afraid I'm stuck in Windows at least part of the time.

    --
    -- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
  96. Old Timer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm surprised anynody else even remembers Yggdrasil.... and SLS too!

    1. Re:Old Timer by farrellj · · Score: 2

      I initially build my own systems...then I started to use Distros as they became available...saved me a lot of time in gopher/ftp space.

      The first distro I used was Soft Landing Systems (SLS), then switched to Slackware. I've tried a number of other distros since then (In a week or so, I am looking forward to trying Gentoo!), and I really like Lycoris's offering...but I keep on comming back to Slackware.

      ttyl
      Farrell

      --
      CAN-CON 2019 - Ottawa's only book oriented Science Fiction Convention! October 18-20, Sheraton Hotel, Ottawa, Canada h
    2. Re:Old Timer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SLS - That was the name. I was like - it has three letters and there is an s in there, LSB, no, but something like that.

      did you know yggdrasil still has a web site, it hasn't been updated since 2000 though, and before that it was 1998!

      i'm not that much of an old timer, but i like to kind of think i am. at least i got on board before the hype. my first distro was slack 3.5 on a umsdos drive, and i made stacks of disks for the basic install and for x. note to self: never try to compile x (3.?) on a 486/33 with 12mb ram! after two days i gave up. luckily now my computer is a little bit better (533mhz/128mb).

      slackware rocks! but debian is pretty sexy too. i keep flipping between them. i installed rh5.1 once, for a little while but i didn't care for it. free (even though slack is not as free as debian) gnu/linux rocks!

      maybe i'll try hurd one of these days... keep my computer on the bleeding edge!

      old timers (4/5 years +) unite! you have nothing to lose but your love of ed!

      ---

      ps. even cooler, i had a old-time un*x sysadmin (female!!!) over at my house and she was very impressed by debian and how much easier things are now.

    3. Re:Old Timer by mooman · · Score: 2

      Yeah, count me in. I remember installing Slack back when all of the various packages had cryptic one-letter names. Like A, D, N, X, etc... You could add in whichever bits you needed. Getting them to work *together* was a bit of a pain though...

      I used to use the Yggdrasil "bible" documentation to help me figure stuff out.

      *sniff* Ah. the good old days ;)

      --
      In the Portland, Ore area and like card games? Check out: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/portlandgames/
  97. FreeBSD by Nick+Driver · · Score: 2

    Oh, wait... it's supposed to be already dead or dying or something like that... NOT!!!

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

      Yeah, it looked dead for a while, but I think I saw it move the other day.

  98. sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Soon as I saw the story on the front page I knew what awaited inside. Hundreds of posts from zitty geeks trying to be punker-than-thou by coming up with ever-more-obscure namedropping to make up for their lack of real style (or to pretend that they are actually old enough to have been involved). Drop the pretension kiddos. We all know that your Blink 182 CD is older than your copy of Bollocks.

    I love how a whole new level of conformity has been created by the average bozo's efforts at individuality. It might almost work if your personal definition of individuality didn't depend so heavily on how you present yourself to others. I mean, what's the sense of being into bullshit like [insert pseudo-non-mainstream hobby here] if you can't talk about it to make yourself superior to your peers?

    Kinda sounds like the Linux crowd, huh? "I'm so ALTERNATIVE by patching my kernel every day while you brainwashed Windows sheep meander in unenlightened tedium." Funny to think that if you had back all the time you spent tweaking and patching (for no good reason other than to say you have the latest version), you wouldn't know what to do with the workstation on your desk.

    *sigh*

    excuse the rant. caffiene has yet to be digested.

  99. Since when is KDE 2.2 up-to-date? by tarzan420 · · Score: 1

    He complains about how it uses Evolution v 1.0.5 and 'thats not the newest version' but raves about the wonderful KDE 2.2 desktop.

    1. Re:Since when is KDE 2.2 up-to-date? by crimsun · · Score: 2

      I can't comment on the stability or usability of Evolution, but when I used KDE 2.2 at Argonne Nat'l Labs two summers ago, it was rock-solid.

  100. Developing an easy to use distro is one thing... by kiwi-matgar · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Heck, anyone can do it, and it has been proven, however, one sticking problem is the fact that there are no high profile, mainstream applications for it, like Lotus Notes, Dreamweaver, Fireworks and so forth.

    If a distro company REALLY want to make a difference:

    1) Embrace United Linux and add to it

    2) License the source code off companies, port it and then, under an agreement with the original company, sell it. For example, there is a big demand for Macromedia software, why not license the source code, and use MainSoft and port it natively to Linux?

    The two above things would push a company not only into the black quickly, but also remove one of the reasons why people can't move to Linux. Hardware support will come with people using Linux, however, people won't use Linux until they can get the exact applications they run on Windows, on Linux.

    Sure, there are "replacements", however, the average Joe and Jane would much rather use something they're familar with.

  101. that would be by BigBir3d · · Score: 2

    the next one i install...

    every damn time i get some freakin' weird hardware issue that hoses the system. new hardware, old, and in between.

    good karma of /. leads to bad karma of the pc for me.

    *sigh*

    (taking laptop to the repair guy tomorrow)

  102. OK, so what editor should we kill? by xixax · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There are too many editors in the market place:

    - sed
    - ex
    - nedit
    - pico
    - emacs
    - vim
    - elvis
    - notepad.exe

    Our insanely expensive consultants report says that the minor editors will be driven out of the market by Microsoft's better integrated offering that will support .NET features, DRM and XML and anything else I read on cnet this morning. And that non-expert users will abandon emacs and vi in favour of GUI editing environmnts with intelligent paperclips that assist with more complex editing tasks. The market just can't support nearly a dozen text editors!

    Xix.

    --
    "Everything is adjustable, provided you have the right tools"
    1. Re:OK, so what editor should we kill? by MrHanky · · Score: 5, Funny

      The only sane thing is a merger. I predict that in 2003 we will se a merger of most of the great editors, as with the distributions. It's name will be Elvim Sexmacs, incorporating the great noobfriendlyness of vim and Elvis, the intuitive interface of sed, yet more friendlyness from ex, all within the smart, light packaging of emacs. It's going to be OSS's notepad-killer, with the most marketing-friendly name since Ogg Vorbis.

    2. Re:OK, so what editor should we kill? by AKnightCowboy · · Score: 1

      Well, since Emacs is the only decent editor among those listed it must be the one to remain. The others should be eliminated. ;-) Flame suit on!

    3. Re:OK, so what editor should we kill? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Emacs rules! I don't even need vi anymore 'cos Knoppix has emacs on it! >^..^

    4. Re:OK, so what editor should we kill? by saintlupus · · Score: 1

      OK, so what editor should we kill?

      I only get to kill one?

      Michael, I guess.

      --saint

    5. Re:OK, so what editor should we kill? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      don't forget:

      - jed
      - gedit
      - xemacs

      and probably 80 or 90 others

    6. Re:OK, so what editor should we kill? by Reziac · · Score: 2

      The forgotten TED will rise again!!

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    7. Re:OK, so what editor should we kill? by ENOENT · · Score: 1

      I would say that someone should mod the parent up, but it's already at a 5. I haven't laughed so hard since... uh... yesterday, I guess. Go figure

      By the way, I'm somewhat confused by the AppAssure ads that have been appearing lately on Slashdot. Are they trying to market their products to all of the sultry female network admins who read Slashdot, or are the ads implying that a geek who goes blinking into the sunlight in the Big Blue Room will suddenly gain sex appeal?

      --
      That's "Mr. Soulless Automaton" to you, Bub.
    8. Re:OK, so what editor should we kill? by Rhone · · Score: 1
      And that non-expert users will abandon emacs and vi in favour of GUI editing environmnts with intelligent paperclips that assist with more complex editing tasks.

      Hey, there's no need to abandon vi to get the paperclip. Just use vigor and get the best of both worlds!

    9. Re:OK, so what editor should we kill? by pmz · · Score: 2

      OK, so what editor should we kill?

      I vote for any text editor that defaults to rendering HTML as a web page rather than just displaying the damn text. All I want is the damn text! That is what text editors are for!

      This sort of feature-creep make some Linux tools extremely annoying. Some people may gasp at this, but I find Solaris' vi very refreshing after working with some of the vi clones out there.

    10. Re:OK, so what editor should we kill? by Tetsujin28 · · Score: 1
      It's name will be Elvim Sexmacs

      Thank you, thank you! Now I'm prepared for the next time I need a player character name in an RPG.

      --
      - - - -
      The real Tetsujin 28 is a giant robot.
  103. Where can I download "UnitedLinux" by z84976 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Sorry to ask a stupid question... I've been a SuSE user for years now, after having graduated from Slackware (go figure, slack still rules tho).... but... where can I download UnitedLinux? Is my SuSE 8.1 "UnitedLinux" and if so what about the SCO and Turbo and Connectiva downloads? Are they, too? If so, the UL group has done a worthless job of branding and consumer-recognition. If not, then this "1.0" release is useless since it can't be readily downloaded. I pay for my Linux distributions (Yes, I did buy Slackware CDs years ago, and yes, I even had a SuSE "subscription" which mysteriously died a few years ago, and I still purchase every other SuSE pro release) but I certainly wouldn't purchase one I couldn't download/test first.

    Am I insane here? (ok bad question) Am I out of line here?

    1. Re:Where can I download "UnitedLinux" by kavau · · Score: 1
      "UnitedLinux" is not a brand, but an attempt to create compatibility between the different participating distros. The SuSE Linux distribution you download from ftp.suse.com will be "UnitedLinux" certified. Although the UnitedLinux website itself talks about a "UnitedLinux distribution", this seems to be rather misleading IMHO. In practice, I guess it means that you can install any Conectiva RPM on your SuSE system without any problems, and that any SCO-trained system administrator can handle your machines running TurboLinux just as well.

      The real question is, of course, with the Linux Standard Base around, why do we need an additional set of standards, driven by a handful of companies as opposed to an independent organisation? I don't know the answer, but I guess it's a good thing that UnitedLinux claims to be open, in the sense that any Linux distribution that chooses to adhere to their standards can join the group. But will we ever see RedHat become part of UnitedLinux? I have my doubts...

    2. Re:Where can I download "UnitedLinux" by FUna · · Score: 1

      "But will we ever see RedHat become part of UnitedLinux?" Ummmmm...no. Because UL was created to more or less compete directly with RedHat.

      --
      "You're a penny in the tip jar of life, but you're shiny and you're mine."
  104. UnitedLinux an Albatross? by einhverfr · · Score: 3, Funny

    Hmmm..... Am I the only one that is amused that an albatross can fly while a penguin can't?

    I actually have very little faith in United Linux, mostly because I don't approve of Caldera's business practices (their main source of revenue has seemed to be lawsuits).

    --

    LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    1. Re:UnitedLinux an Albatross? by fferreres · · Score: 2

      The Albatros can not only fly, but actually is the fastest bird on earth.

      --
      unfinished: (adj.)
    2. Re:UnitedLinux an Albatross? by gr0ngb0t · · Score: 1

      except for when you get a Peregrine Falcon in full dive and it clocks up +150 kmph.

  105. Globally or in the English-speaking world? by eLoco · · Score: 2, Insightful
    One point that I've failed to see mentioned is that the relative popularity of a distribution also depends on where it came from, for various reasons such as
    • loyalty to the locally-produced product
    • language/region specific features
    I've seen various predictions of SuSE and Mandrake headed for the dust bin, but last I heard both of these distributions exceed Redhat in popularity in Europe (SuSE from Germany, Mandrake from France). And Turbolinux might be sputtering here, but I think the Japanese are quite happy with it.

    As for most popular distro in the future, if we're talking sheer numbers I'd say it'll have to be Red Star Linux as soon as there's a PC in every home in China! ;-)

    --
    sig != null
  106. Re:It's like porn sites.... there are enough alrea by redshift-systems · · Score: 1

    So, are you agreeing with me here?

  107. the desktop is dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    like bowling for manteca

    like eating pumpkin from a can

  108. Correct ! by doru · · Score: 1

    It's faster to boot, to boot !

  109. Oh, like Linux has never got a virus? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your comment illusrates the very definition of Linux fanboyism.

    Knock on wood, but I haven't had a virus since 1989. Granted, I went from May 1990 to 1997 without seriously using a computer for any work. But that virus was on a Mac SE20, which somehow got onto my main floppy from the Mac's enormous 20 MB hard drive. This is before student use computers on that campus were even networked.

    To this day I still find it odd that I was a victim of a computer virus in pre-WWW days, yet in this era of widespread connectivity I haven't been affected.

    As for breaking installations, I have been able to make any OS crash just with regular usage (no special tools to "make" it happen), including your precious Linux.

  110. A couple of small points... by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

    1: You say Slackware's user base has dwindled: I wonder about this - many posts I've seen in the forums are from people who have been using Slackware since '93, while there is still a steady number of posts from newbies. Sure, it doesn't have RedHat's market share now, and there has probably been some attrition from the source distros, but If there was any good way to find out, I think we might find Slackware have a larger slice than we might suppose...

    2: What's wrong with Mandrake? Not much: I liked 8.1 and was disappointed with 8.2.

    Now I'm back to using Slackware as my desktop system. Contrary to popular belief, it does this very well - you just have to know what you're doing, that's all :-)

  111. Damn Fine Troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are to be commended Sir for participating in Troll Tuesday!

  112. looks like politics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like everthing in this world, it seems that politics has made it into linux. What a shame. Who the fuck cares about the various licenses. The end-user just wants to use the thing. I reakon there should be just two different licenses, close sources, and one with what ever goes. There are two many companies involved, with there own agenda. Looks like it time to move to FreeBSD.
    Long live the "United States of Linux......

  113. Re:You want Debian? How about Xandros? by Corporate+Troll · · Score: 1
    But what about people you know who are not into computers enough to do it themselves

    Simple: they will not use Linux. Heck they probably haven't even heard of it and think my Pengiun on top of my monitor is a nice decoration. Face it: Linux is for those that want to learn and Windows is for those that stopped caring.
    I remember the day you needed to know what a filesystem is in order to use a computer. Now you just have to know what it is when installing the machine (NTFS or FAT16/FAT32... it is asked during the W2k install), and that is not done by the people you describe. It is done by specialists like you and me.

  114. SuSE - IBM has pulled its funding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    SuSE is largely kept afloat by funding from IBM, who have just pulled that funding. As of last week, SuSE had 40 days of working capital left.

    1. Re:SuSE - IBM has pulled its funding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why thank you for that accreditted information, anonymous coward! I'm quite sure it's true. (I'm posting as anonymous because I moderated in this thread and don't want people to lose their +1's)

      Fellow moderators, please think before you mod up a rumor.

  115. SuSE and Mandrake by theolein · · Score: 3, Informative

    Here in Europe, the picture is reversed. Germany, the country with the highest Linux use per capita in the world (netcraft et al) is mainly SuSE country, this mainly because SuSE is the first distro that people there hear about and because SuSE is German and has, surprise, better German documentation. (Not that I like SuSE though, my own experiences with them and their distro have been very bad). Mandrake also has a higher density in France than elsewhere, and has, surprise, good help in French. The localisation of these distros is what gives them their strength. Internationally though, RedHat has the best chances of success. Debian remains the friendliest non-commercial distro, once it's installed, with apt-get being the real choice item in the distro.

    My prediction: Linux should devise a method of device support that lives outside the kernal and can be changed on the fly without rebooting.

    1. Re:SuSE and Mandrake by morgothan · · Score: 1

      There already is a way to put in new devices with out rebooting, and no im not talking about compiling everything as a module. its easy just run grub instead of lilo with this you can nock the current kernel out of kernel space and put in a new one in affect starting over, however never shutting the system down.

      --
      ---
  116. Why Troll???? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Come on, if you don't see it as a joke you are stupid people...

  117. What happened to SLS and MCC??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think these were precursors to Slackware

  118. This PARENT is a TROLL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    HE IS NOT SERIOUS

  119. I would love Redhat if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would love Redhat if they used apt-get/deb, but that's impossible. Anyway, I think that only a few distros will survive

    The ones targeted to Business: RedHat, and maybe SuSE (unitedLinux).
    The ones ridden by a community of free volunteers and developers: Debian, Gentoo and maybe slackware.

    I don't think any of the desktop distros will have any future if they don't target business...

    Companies will pay for support and warrantie.
    End-users won't pay for that if they can get it for free (Debian, Gentoo, Slack)

  120. Not in Europe by earlydaysofsin · · Score: 1

    RedHat maybe be King in US but in Europe many people use SuSE and in Germany (one of the most pro-open source nations) it beats RedHat hands down.

  121. Missing test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone find it obscure that BeoyndUnreal doesn't test the latest and greatest in Linuxgaming - Unreal Tournament.
    Would have given some ekstra plusses in the bag for Xandros, even if everything else in the review is excellent.

  122. That's NOT TRUE and Lindows violates GPL by TuringTest · · Score: 1
    The GPL requires that everyone who DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY gets a copy of your GPL'ed binaries should be able to download the sources from you.


    Lindows allows to download the sources, but only for their customers. If some gives me a binary GPL'ed program from de Lindows distribution, I can't download its source. So Lindows is taking my rights away. Isn't it?

    --
    Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
    1. Re:That's NOT TRUE and Lindows violates GPL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So that person who gave you only the binary, is violating the GPL not Lindows. Duh!

    2. Re:That's NOT TRUE and Lindows violates GPL by ReelOddeeo · · Score: 2

      The GPL requires that everyone who DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY gets a copy of your GPL'ed binaries should be able to download [fsf.org] the sources from you.

      Not true.

      Everyone who directly gets binaries from you must be able to get sources from you. (B gets binaries from A, therefore, A must provide sources to B, but not necessarily to C or D.)

      As soon as the someone redistributes binaries, then it is THEIR responsibility to provide sources. (B provides binaries to C and D. It is B's responsibility to provide sources to C and D. A has no such responsibility.)

      This is the WHOLE POINT of the GPL. You know the wording, in order to protect your rights, we must forbid anyone from taking away your rights. Threrfore, you cannot take away rights when you redistribute.

      If Lindows provides sources to all GPL'ed works on their disk, then they have met their GPL obligations in full. Ideally, just compress sources and include on CD, then there can be no argument about it.

      --

      Those who would give up liberty in exchange for security and DRM should switch to Microsoft Palladium!
    3. Re:That's NOT TRUE and Lindows violates GPL by TuringTest · · Score: 1
      As soon as the someone redistributes binaries, then it is THEIR responsibility to provide sources. (B provides binaries to C and D. It is B's responsibility to provide sources to C and D. A has no such responsibility.)

      Well, that's not what I've read at the Free Software Foundation site: If you [...] distribute binaries [without source code] you must provide a written offer to distribute the source code later. When users [...] redistribute the binaries [...], they must pass along a copy of this written offer. [...] people who did not get the binaries directly from you can still receive copies of the source code, along with the written offer.

      So A gives B binary code and a promise of sources. B gives C the binary and the promise, so C can ask A to fulfill her promise and give the code away.

      If providing source were a responsability of the intermediates, you couldn't even give a friend a copy of Mandrake CD 1 without violating the GPL.

      I don't know for sure if Lindows provides sources to their GPL'ed work in the distributed CD. I think they don't, they publish the sources only through their web, which are only accesible to their clients (there is no 'fee for transferring the copy', there is actually a subscription to their services).

      So me as a 'third party' can't get the sources from them. If this is the case then Lindows would be actually breaking the GPL, although in a minor form.

      --
      Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
    4. Re:That's NOT TRUE and Lindows violates GPL by TuringTest · · Score: 1

      OK, I'm browsing Lindows.com and it seems that they're actually publishing the source code to everyone as the should, not just their clients, so they are complying with the GPL. Note that publishing for everybody is mandatory for them!

      --
      Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
    5. Re:That's NOT TRUE and Lindows violates GPL by ReelOddeeo · · Score: 3, Informative
      Okay, I take it back.

      You are right and I am wrong.

      Not only does the fsf gpl faq address this, but section 3 of the GPL makes it clear.

      You must either
      • Include source code
      • Accompany with written offer to ANY third party
      • Accompany with written offer received from someone else -- but this option available only if YOU are a NON-commercial distributor, and yourself received the second option above.
      It's the ANY third party that I was hung up over. So yes, Lindows, must either include source on the CD's or include downloadable source to anyone, not just their customers.

      Of course, they don't have to make it easy to find.

      This written offer good for anyone who visits our web site between 2:00 and 3:00 AM CST on the 2nd Tuesday of the month.
      --

      Those who would give up liberty in exchange for security and DRM should switch to Microsoft Palladium!
  123. Shouldn't this be a slashdot poll? by krinsh · · Score: 2

    After all, who better to determine the fate of the great promise that is Linux more than a forum of its most stalwart defenders and evangelists?

    --
    I think with the interesting people, their lives can't possibly be wrapped up into a nice little package.
  124. Distros Don't Die... by Zech+Harvey · · Score: 2


    ...They become the object of zealotry and/or niche markets. Not that this is a bad thing! A distro in a niche market allows that distro to fully grow into what it was best designed for, without having to add in feature-kruft in order to "keep up with the Jones" as they say.

    Plus, a little zealotry never hurt anybody, right Amigaos? Zealotry over a distro low on the radar could end up with some interesting experimental programming and ingenius solutions to common problems (who knows how many home-brew and esoteric languages have found practical applications).

    Remember, distros only die when people stop support. Hug your favorite distro today.

    --
    Zech Harvey, MCSE, MCDBA, CCNA
  125. Simple Answer: None. by Qbertino · · Score: 2

    There is one thing that Mickey$ofters and lot's of Linux advocates often fail to notice:

    When a company offers a Linux distro it's not just offering Software, it's mainly offering a service. The Linux Distro companys are on the way to establish a buisnessmodel that M$ tried/tries to copy with their upgrade lock-in and all that. The model being: charging not for software, but setting it up. M$ makes most of the big money by name and brand, not yet by upgrade lock-ins, the distros make money through the service they offer their users - selling boxed Linux pakages being only a small portion of that service.
    Customer ties are crucial in such an enviroment and usually are very solid too.

    SuSE might not be sitting in butter in full, but they offer a top-notch distro with docs that own any other and they have a firm grip of germany, the country with the highest amount of users per capita. The fact that germany has the highest amount of Linux users per capita is due to SuSE, btw. Allmost the same goes for Mandrake in France. They even managed to 'beg' for funding via a club and a lot of their trusted customers was willing to pitch in. And RedHat...well, I don't think they'll go broke anytime soon either.

    No, there's only one who actually might have a little trouble in getting the curve from an inhouse software only company to a more service orientated one: M$. Aside of that, there's more than enough room for 3 Linux 'Desktop' distros.
    Hancom I really can't tell. They're big in asia, aren't they?

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
  126. Re:SuSE - IBM has pulled its funding (rumour?) by egghat · · Score: 2

    Pulled funding? Link to the story please!

    --
    -- "As a human being I claim the right to be widely inconsistent", John Peel
  127. you could call it by pigpen_ · · Score: 1

    Dead Rat

    --
    Zambozay! My brain must've been eatin' a sandwich!
  128. Will per-seat licensing win or fail? by egghat · · Score: 2

    THAT is the interesting question for Linux distros in the next year!

    I don't have the slightest clue what the answer will be.

    Bye egghat.

    --
    -- "As a human being I claim the right to be widely inconsistent", John Peel
    1. Re:Will per-seat licensing win or fail? by psykocrime · · Score: 1
      Will per-seat licensing win or fail?

      I predict that it will fail. UnitedLinux and their psudeo open-source approach is going to flop miserably, and probably take ruin SuSE, SCO, Turbo and Connectiva in the process.


      Just my opinion, but I don't think that this approach of mixing closed source stuff and open source stuff, and then trying to slap a per-seat license fee on the whole mess, is going to catch on. This is the same reason that I don't expect anything to come of SuSE's so called "Exchange killer." I think people either want (true) open source, or they'd just as soon go with something proprietary anyway.

      --
      // TODO: Insert Cool Sig
  129. I get paid to program linux software by TimmyJoeB · · Score: 1

    Sorry you have not but I do and we have others
    that do as well. And we are paid fairly well. Maybe
    you just did not look in the right place. Who knows. But the financial industry in using Linux and is paying people to program proprietary programs
    for linux everyday. Compnaies like Credit Suiss First Boston and Morgan Stanley.

  130. RH8 is brilliant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just slammed RH8 on a machine here at work.

    It's brilliant. I mean, it's really very good.

    That is why RedHat is succeeding.

    1. Re:RH8 is brilliant by Stardate · · Score: 1
      But the only graphical RPM manager it includes is that weird thing that is waaay to similar to winblows' "add/remove programs" if you ask me. I had to find gnorpm and install it in order to selectively remove things that I didn't want/need on my system that the default RH8 script installs (like PCMCIA stuff, for instance).

      I like RH8 too, although it is overkill for servers (7.2 or 7.3 is fine for them). I can't wait for distros based on the new 2.6 kernel (when it's stable) -- the process and disk improvements will rock!!!

      --
      "... I declare our city to be a free and independent state to be named Tri-Insula!" --Fernando Wood, Mayor of NYC 1861
  131. Okay, so what you are saying is that... by TimmyJoeB · · Score: 1

    All windows users and producing Visual Basic macros that produce pivot point table under Excel. WOW!! I did know that. I that most people use WOrd to do letters and BS spreadsheets about their own personal finances. I had Office97 for 3 years at home and I cannot remember ever using it for anything beyond letter writing. Yea some people have incorporated Excel into apps and Excel is very useful, but 95% of the people out there do not use pivot tables and the like. Therefore any office suit is useful and productive to most people. Redhat is a very weird Linux compnay to me in that they do not promote Linux on the desktop. They only like Server Linux and this is a very distrubing stance to me. I just Biob Young would at least consider it but as far as I know he has not.

  132. The easiest distro will survive by mcgintech · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Look, I'm just as much geek hacker as the rest of you here. Linux is great in that it is powerful and free (yes, as in beer). But to the current windows user base, linux is hard.

    Examples:

    1. Now, how do I start that program now that I installed it?
    2. I have to edit part of what file to make that work? Huh?
    3. I wonder what software I could install from the CD and what it does...lets see there is

      • 4Suite-0.11-2.i386.rpm
      • Canna-3.5b2-50.i386.rpm
      • Canna-libs-3.5b2-50.i386.rpm
      • FreeWnn-1.11-19.i386.rpm
      • FreeWnn-common-1.11-19.i386.rpm
      • GConf-1.0.4-3.i386.rpm
      • ImageMagick-5.3.8-3.i386.rpm
      • XtrmelyCnfsingNme-4.5.3.4.45.56.4.3.3.rmp
      • etc...
    4. 400 Hours trying to make wine work
    5. Not knowing what to do with attachments from friends in MS format

    Any distro that can remove some of these confusing things and make it super easy for ANYONE, not just us geeks, will have the ultimate success on the desktop or anywhere else for that matter. Even some IT people don't want to have to struggle to do things that should be simple. The fact is that easy things should be easy...maybe most users don't need 700 ways to do the same thing. Linux has how many text editors and I still can't find one that I like. Yes, I take pride in the fact that I can hack the crap out of a linux box and make it do what I want and even put it to use in critical business applications, but most people couldn't give a rat's ass about that.

    --

    Uhhhh, yeah, thath dithgustin. [The lady's man]

  133. Re:Abiword MS Word? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    Professional writers do use Abiword.

    It will support tables soon, like before the end of the year.* For many people Abiword is already a usable word processor that imports and exports .docs. And it has a lot of features--check out the plugins.




    *And footnotes, IIRC.

  134. Who cares? by complexmath · · Score: 1

    There are more desktop linux distributions than there are desktop linux users. It's no wonder linux still can't compete with windows on the desktop. If a few distros die off it would be a good thing. Linux proves that open source will never be able to compete with proprietary software in novie markets because there's no one forcing everyone to agree on anything. This might be okay if the product is for a geek who's just going to want to rip it apart and customize it anyway, but it's tantamount to suicide if you want to market the product to someone who just learned what a mouse is.

  135. we are slave labor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let me get this straight if commercial distros like Lindows etc. do not allow us access to source, or let us redistribute the software aren't we in essence free labor for them? They are using our work, while laughing all the way to the bank

  136. Separate purchases?? by Reziac · · Score: 2

    [reading GPL clause]

    Um.. does the GPL say anywhere else that you must provide source code for FREE? Or even that the ourchase of the binary distribution must include the cost of getting the source?

    All I see in your post is a requirement to make the source *available*. It doesn't say you *can't* charge for source, or even that you can't charge a *separate* price for it. If this is the case, it's a huge loophole. (Binaries, $1. Source, $1M.)

    Someone clarify this for me, please!

    --
    ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    1. Re:Separate purchases?? by ReelOddeeo · · Score: 2

      Binaries, $1. Source, $1M.

      Don't you mean: Binaries, $1. Source, priceless.

      But seriously, see section 3 of GPL. You must either (A) include source with binary. [Parphrased], or (B) include with binary a written offer for source for a charge of no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution...

      Now, I suppose that your cost of performing source distribution could be high if you run your server on, say, big proprietary overpriced OS. Say, your friend licenses you an expensive proprietary server that you only have to make payments on per download from the server. This becomes your cost of performing the download, which you pass on to those who want to download source.

      --

      Those who would give up liberty in exchange for security and DRM should switch to Microsoft Palladium!
    2. Re:Separate purchases?? by Reziac · · Score: 2

      "Binaries $1; Source, priceless" -- yeah, there have been a few apps I've felt that way about, and I'm not even a programmer :) Sometimes one is paranoid about some program falling off the face of the earth, and that's when I personally feel a need for source.

      Thanks for info from 3B... yeah, the definition of distribution costs is kinda loose. I can see someone not wanting to absorb the cost of multiple gigs of source code dls that bring no income, but.. do you count TCO for what it takes to keep that dl server going, or just that day's bandwidth expenses?

      Maybe I'm still missing something, but it doesn't say you have to give the entire world the source, right? Just to those people to whom you're providing binaries, yes?

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    3. Re:Separate purchases?? by MrResistor · · Score: 2

      Actually, the GPL specifically says that you can charge for the source, but you can't charge more than the actual cost of physical transfer. So, Binaries $1, Source $1M would be a violation of the GPL, but Binaries $1M, Source $1 is perfectly acceptable.

      --
      Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
  137. Poll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This really should've been a poll, not an article ;)

  138. forget the office stuff... by Machine9 · · Score: 1

    ...and hook the gamers! IMHO Linux is quite capable of doing ye standard boring office work, and despite "die-hard" users' opinions, the bluecurve interface on RedHat is what convinced my boss that I WAS RIGHT about ordering it, and placing it on the 25 new desktop pc's we got here at the office. (and, get this, their DELL computers! oh the blasphemy! but it sure looks good when clients come to visit) that said, we need gamers, gamers actually have quite a lot of BUYING power, even if a significant amount of games is pirated, I know a whole lot of gamers who WILL buy the products if they like them... ...most of them profess a distinct distaste for M$ and it's crappy OS and future DRM plans. But, they CAN'T switch, they WON'T switch because their games just aren't there. now, I know LOKI went under, but is that reason enough to stop linux game developement? I know good old Q3 runs a lot better when I boot to linux then under windowsXP (which, despite my feelings towards microsoft, REALLY isn't so bad.) the question is: HOW do we do it? and more precisely, how do we do it without it costing future linux gamers a single dime... (read: no wineX please.) not too mention the amount of cash serious players blow on top of the line hardware...

  139. "Mandrake users - Shut up" by EdlinUser · · Score: 1

    >Asking for money is no model for a business.

    And neither is telling people to go to CheapBytes for the newly released versions if they can't wait a few weeks for the boxed version. Really dumb business model; they'll never get rich that way.

    But they will thrive. It's obvious to me that Mandrake was created for the joy of creation and not to get rich. That joy is passed on to an increasing number of Mandrake users.

    Mandrake lover since 7.0.
    Mandrake Club member since 12/01.

  140. All I'm saying... by Mustang+Matt · · Score: 2

    If you want to run linux on the desktop as a replacement for the normal computer user, SuSE or Mandrake will probably do a better job from what I've seen.

    --
    The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
  141. Re:It's like porn sites.... there are enough alrea by Rick+the+Red · · Score: 2
    the day I *don't* have mod points
    The day? The day? Geeze, how often do you get mod points? What's your karma, "Cowboy Neal"?

    --
    If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
  142. Pronounciation is key by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the gnu/linux world suffers from horrible pronunciation issues:

    guh-nu
    lee-nux
    dehb-ian
    yggdrasil (prounounce that!)

    i don't know about all those "desktop linux" crap distros but i know that i can't pronounce some of them and that is a BadThingTM

    remember corel linux? "desktop linux" is a bad idea! even red hat (no, i won't stoop to "rat hat", but almost) has sufficiently shown how freedom doesn't work that well for business and makes crappy products (although i haven't tried it since 5.1, sorry).

    keep gnu/linux free!
    screw kde v. gnome, use wm2 or a wm _under_ 20 mb!
    both debian and slackware rock!

    -- the elitist flaming bastard

  143. Re:You want Debian? How about Xandros? by Skapare · · Score: 2

    Knowing the difference between Red Hat and Debian, or FreeBSD and Solaris, or Linux and Windows ... is for you. If you want to get your non-computer friends and relatives off Windows and on to something like Linux, then by all means go for it. You know you'll have to be in a position to help them out. Have they not already asked you why their computer did this or did that, and you get flustered because it due to it being Windows and it might not be a problem if it is Linux, or if there was a problem, you could more quickly fix it? So you know you want to get them on Linux. But if you're into Debian, but don't think vanilla Debian is right to put on their computer (because they aren't computer oriented), I'm just saying you should have Xandros in your "computer help kit" for them. Some might even be able to do the install themselves. But if they need some package added from the net, you can tell them how in Debian terms, or do it for them in a familiar way.

    --
    now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
  144. Free .iso=Winner $99 CD=Loser by techstar25 · · Score: 2

    I would think that the one that offers the free downloadable iso, for anybody to try will prevail. Who is going to pay $99 for an operating system they know nothing about. The WinXP upgrade was only $99, and I already know how to use that. These companies seem to have forgotten that the problem with MS is that it's expensive to own and update, whereas Linux is free(XP is as stable as any Linux distro out there).

  145. why one distro? by Lewis+Mettler,+Esq. · · Score: 2

    There is no reason for a single Linux distro anymore than a need for one of the many to go away.

    Diversity is the key advantage that Linux has to offer over the Microsoft idiots.

    Why?

    Because everyone does not have the same needs.

    Just look at the diversity of Linux distros now.

    Xandros (including CrossOverOffice and clone of Windows Explorer, Openoffice).

    SUSE desktop (to include crossOverOffice but not a clone of Windows Explorer).

    Lindows (neither one of the above but a nice click & run package to simplify downloading and installing software- plus StarOffice).

    Mandrake (nice distro but hard to network with windows and no CrossOverOffice).

    RedHat (not really a viable desktop option at this point).

    The point being that a good Linux desktop can include all of the above if that is what you want. But, when it comes to packaging systems you simply can not bundled it all without raising the price to everyone. Lindows includes StarOffice but not CrossOverOffice. Xandros includes CrossOver but not StarOffice. Puts OpenOffice in instead. That may mean they cost about the same but are packaged differently.

    And, of course you can always add all that stuff you want on any distro.

    The Microsoft approach is to bundle everything and make it cost prohibitive to all but those forced to use Microsoft technology for other reasons.

    But, notwithstanding the above that does not mean that one of those distros will go away anytime soon. They do target different market segments. And, as long as their targeting is valid, they will survive. They will survive to serve those markets and be around to focus upon others later.

    Just look at what SUN is doing. You may not like SUN at all. Who cares? But, SUN is targeting their Linux systems to a particular market. Guess what? If you are a individual, the chances are high you will not be interested in a SUN Linux box. If you are a corporation needing 10,000 + boxes to do this or that, you may very well be interested. And, if you are not going to network with Microsoft crap, you do not need the nifty clone of Windows Explorer that comes with Xandros. If you do network with Windows you might very much appreciate it and avoid Mandrake, SuSE, Lindows and others.

    Linux is not a singular product as Microsoft wants all idiots to think they need. Consumers are different. They have different needs. Their needs include different or alternative licenses as well.

    Read the StarOffice license for a fresh idea. 5 installs for you. Read the Lindows License. Install it all over the machines in your family. That makes it much more economical than the "everyone pays top dollar" from the monopolist.

    So distributions will differ. And, licensing will differ. And, many of those differences are put in place because of the target market they are after. It is just like the auto industry. 80% of all of the car models available are not appropriate for you, right? But, at least one is.

    Microsoft will not compete with that because they loose the benefit of illegal bundling and illegal marketing. They hate choice on the part of consumers and spend their entire day trying to figure out how to screw all consumers into buying only and all of the Microsoft products.

    You do not need CrossOverOffice? Fine, buy a distro without it and save some money.

    You do not need to network with Windows? Fine, buy a distro that does not easily do that. You can save and not know the difference.

    Microsoft is just stupid enough to think they will cram a home PC version and an office PC version down the throats of all consumers. But, that only means that everyone pays too high a price.

    --
    NexuSys - Linux support by the best
  146. U forgot highly over-priced... by Lewis+Mettler,+Esq. · · Score: 2

    The Microsoft crap is also highly overpriced feeding upon those who must use it for reasons independant of the OS.

    --
    NexuSys - Linux support by the best
  147. a lot of room for Linux desktop growth by Lewis+Mettler,+Esq. · · Score: 2

    Before you just assume one Linux distro or another will not make past the year you have to first look at the marketplace developing.

    For Linux desktop distributors the market can grow 50-100 times slowly eating away at the share currently consumed by Microsoft. Can Microsoft grow by 100 times in one year? Absolutely not. Microsoft's growth is extremely limited. And, as the Linux desktop market begins to open up, Microsoft's share may reduce significantly. How much?

    Well. It is not really a zero sum game as some would suggest. As the price for software drops (thanks to Linux) the market can actually expand. But that expansion is only available to the low cost distros not the high priced monopoly products. Must be why Microsoft looks to other markets for growth.

    The Linux desktop distros have a wide open field. They do have to compete with each other as far as packaging goes. (And, services, support and price.) And, they compete with the over priced Microsoft products. But, on price they will always beat out Microsoft by substantial margins.

    And, there are other reasons for just not buying proprietary products. See the article today in regard to India. That kind fellow just told Gates point blank that they will not deal with monopolists selling proprietary products. That sale is lost for good.

    And, the idiots at Microsoft have earned that.

    --
    NexuSys - Linux support by the best
  148. Re:You want Debian? How about Xandros? by Corporate+Troll · · Score: 1
    Well, I have to plaid guilty for being free Microsoft support, yes. I help a lot of families when their computers go down, or when the latest virus hit them. I'd love to give them Linux, but most of them already whine when I lock down Windows 2000 too much because I don't want them to install "that great shareware program that came with this magazine", or that "nice purple monkey". It's for their protection, but they don't see it that way.
    You see: the problem with normal users is that they do not comprehend enough of their system to be aware that if I install Linux (or BSD) those applications won't work. From my point of view, that is a good thing, from theirs I did a bad job. This means they won't call me again ever, which means the "less competent uncle that has meddled with computers" will "fix" the machine.

    I have installed computers for educated people, ranging from Biologists, to Marketing Majors. Unfortunately they always want something I cannot offer: the Biologist wanted a statistical package that runs only under Windows and the Marketing guy wanted to develop Flash stuff with Macromedia. These are just examples, but I'm even having a hard time to explain them about Spyware, about the dangers of Outlook and so on. (Sidenote: when the Marketing Major found out about spyware he was outraged and told me that must be illegal) Others are into video-editing, another is a bus chauffeur that insist on having Autoroute Express. While alteratives may exist for any of those programs, many want to stay with what they know. See, I didn't even start about games, just "casual apps".
    For some I do install dual-boot systems, and while my distrib of choice is Slackware, I tend to install the Desktop-friendly ones for them, just like Xandros and Lycoris. Both are much easier to setup than Windows 2000 (I don't do XP). However I fear that this is not enough exposure. Often I feel of it as if the few Gigs on their (way too big harddisks) are wasted.

    As I see it, installing Linux for the commoner is a nice political statement and perhaps the best advice a computer scientist can give. However the commoner sees it as if his freedom is robbed, because he cannot install whatever he wants or buys at the local computer store. In the end I want to help people, and I'm just not doing that by installing Linux. Linux gives the geek freedom, but limits the normal user.
    It's a sad state of affairs. Yes, I'm bitter... Sorry, I hope I din't rant too much.

  149. Which one of your children are the least important by oldstrat · · Score: 2

    /.
    Really, I hate answering this at all.
    The easiest answer is to pick the ones who seem to think they have the right to release only the changes from some other standard distribution.
    But they are not, as much as I wish they were the most likely to go away first.

    The most likely, as painful as the prediction is, is YellowDog.
    I don't think the distro will flat die, but come on, how many nix's does the Mac need, or should I say current production Mac.

    YellowDog is really really good, but OSX has a lot more weight behind it.

  150. it is called perlScript on win32 you dolt. by woogieoogieboogie · · Score: 1
    You don't get it do you. WSH + COM gives you the full power of a half dozen scripting languages plus the full power of ANY compiled programming language. Perl is not even in the same ballpark.

    You do not install Perl to use Perl on a winbox, yopu install PerlScript http://aspn.activestate.com/ASPN/Perl/Products/Act ivePerl/Components/Windows/PerlScript.html

    Obviously you do not do ANY crossplatform programming because you know nothign about the most prevelant platform on the planet.

    Design of HTML - I win.
    HTML hiding - I win.
    CSS "!important" - I win.

    What exactly did you win in you pathetic little mind?
    1. What have you proven about the design of html? 2. You still have not explained how you can tcpdump an encrypted HTML file and deencrypt it, not have you proven you can even use tcpdump to recreate an HTML file. 3. CSS !important rule in a CSS class will override any !important rule you have for the parent element. Why is this so difficult for you to understand? The only way for you to override that is to override every class in the every style sheet and if someone wanted you, they could give random classnames and make it impossible for you to override.

    People like you are so amusing, you have less than a basic understanding of a topic but pretend you have a clue. All it does is show how moronic you are.

    Now where is that html file you recreated from atcpdump file?

    --
    ... Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed...
  151. Last Post! by alpg · · Score: 1

    In the middle of a wide field is a pot of gold. 100 feet to the north stands
    a smart manager. 100 feet to the south stands a dumb manager. 100 feet to
    the east is the Easter Bunny, and 100 feet to the west is Santa Claus.

    Q: Who gets to the pot of gold first?
    A: The dumb manager. All the rest are myths.

    - this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...