Lycoris Build 71 Beckons For Your Desktop

Linux Lite by Captain_SpankMunki · 2003-04-13 22:17 · Score: 1

So they're taking out all the good bits and making a doze clone? I'll only d/l it if it comes with minesweeper. I'd hate to loose out on that.

Liam.

--
The opinions contained in this document are in no way expressed.

Re:Linux Lite by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-13 22:19 · Score: 0, Funny

There is no true Minesweeper for Linux, unfortunately. The version that comes with GNOME is a cheap knock-off which does not support all of the original Minesweeper's features. And it's a damn shame, too, because it's the one killer app which is keeping me a slave to my Windows partition. :-(

Don't believe me? Press under Windows Minesweeper after you have lost a game. Then do the same under GNOME's version.
Re:Linux Lite by TheCrimsonUnbeliever · 2003-04-13 22:25 · Score: 3, Funny

Stop whineing and start WINEing
Re:Linux Lite by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-13 22:30 · Score: 0

Crashdot stripped the angle brackets from my sentence. It should have read:

Don't believe me? Press [F2] under Windows Minesweeper after you have lost a game. Then do the same under GNOME's version.
Re:Linux Lite by iapetus · 2003-04-13 22:37 · Score: 2, Interesting

The 'original'? Was MS actually the first company to release a Minesweeper-esque game, or did they embrace and extend it from somewhere else?

I certainly remember playing the vastly superior variant 'Mined Out' or 'Rescue Bill The Worm From Certain Old Age' back in 1984 or so...

--
++ Say to Elrond "Hello.".
Elrond says "No.". Elrond gives you some lunch.
Re:Linux Lite by pldms · 2003-04-13 22:57 · Score: 2, Informative

I certainly remember playing the vastly superior variant 'Mined Out' or 'Rescue Bill The Worm From Certain Old Age' back in 1984 or so...
Now that brings back some memories. It was the only spectrum game my parents played. They'd stay up late muttering darkly about it while I lurked in the background suggesting Knightlore was infinitely superior, 3d and all.

Were there any earlier variants?

Mined Out (link for my parents :-)

--
Slashdot looked deep within my soul and assigned
me a number based on the order in which I joined
Re:Linux Lite by cscx · 2003-04-14 08:45 · Score: 1

You're not going to accuse them of "stealing" Solitaire now, are you?

i just hope they cash flow this stand by tooninja · 2003-04-13 22:20 · Score: 2, Interesting

wal-mart is excellent for making a stand on something like this; I hope they continue to make offers like this. It would be interesting to see how many of these boxes are selling.

Re:i just hope they cash flow this stand by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-13 22:28 · Score: 0

Oh yea, WalMart is REALLY making a stand against MS. Just like they're making a stand against Microsoft on the console end. Really, I bet it comes down to if you can afford the shelf space or not. I bet that could all come to end if MS said to WalMart, hey we'll give you an extra 5% if you no longer sell any machines w/o a MS OS.

If best buy started to sell macines preloaded with Lycoris and/or Lindows, that would be more significant. But I really dont think Wal Mart gives a fuck. Its just another product to them. Its no different than if a drug dealer decided to stop selling blow and decided to only sell heoin.
Re:i just hope they cash flow this stand by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-13 22:49 · Score: 1, Insightful

if you can afford the shelf space or not.

This (and other Linux products) is not sold in stores -- they are sold is at walmart.com, which is a minor, minor player in the retail Internet field. People bandy about the Walmart name, but it's an illusion of success. All this means is six boxes are sitting in some warehouse waiting be to sold online.

Re:ENOUGH! by nano2nd · 2003-04-13 22:24 · Score: 4, Interesting

Unfortunately, the only way that Linux will have a chance to take greater market share in the desktop or server arenas is through consolidation.

There are simply too many different flavours out there and this causes the problem of limited takeup beyond die-hard Linux users and the wider problem of quality.

As someone else on /. said recently, too much free software (whether different distros of Linux or office suites or whatever) can be a bad thing for quality. Paraphrasing, you can probably download 10 different programs that do A-B-C functionality. But none of them do it 100%.

In any other movement/"industry", there are periods of rapid growth followed by consolidation. Some might say this is when monopolies form - look at the motor industry or telecoms or computing. There used to be dozens of players in each field but this has shrunk down to a handful.

So - what's more important, diversity or quality? Only one of these will lead to greater adoption in the mainstream...

--
G4 Hackintosh

Walmart is excellent? Visit their dungeon! by irishkev · 2003-04-13 22:27 · Score: 1

http://www.nlcnet.org/report00/walmart.htm

Re:Walmart is excellent? Visit their dungeon! by tooninja · 2003-04-13 23:40 · Score: 1

Take the production issues up with Wal-Mart; They are supporting a non-MS OS software company. I'm not supporting their practices, however, THIS would be worse if they were supporting sweat-shops and Microsoft (Who is in bed with Disney asshole); This an excellent alternative to people who cannot afford high end systems, or the education to understand why the product that is bundled with their system is an alternative and crtical point in future innovations and freedoms. While Wal-Mart might not see this side of the picture, it doesn't hurt to have them as an advocate and mass distabutor of what is likely favorable for helping the chinse sweat shop employee who make 8 cents a week. Don't make me the asshole out of this.
Re:Walmart is excellent? Visit their dungeon! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-13 23:48 · Score: 0

This has to be one of the more bizarre mumbles I have come across on Slashdot. What exactly are you trying to say?
Re:Walmart is excellent? Visit their dungeon! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-14 00:39 · Score: 0

8 cents a week for an 8 year old sweat shop computer programmer. Is this why the OS isn't a free download?

I see double! (Lycoris vs XP) by Martin+Kallisti · 2003-04-13 22:27 · Score: 3, Interesting

Honestly, I haven't been looking at Lycoris earlier, but judging from the screenshots, I'd not say that they are making a migration easier. They're just cloning Microsoft Windows XP, right down to the default (I suppose) desktop picture. Luna is really one of the ugliest interface designs ever, but I guess that if this helps spread an IMHO superior desktop operating system to the unwashed masses who are still caught in Microsoft's web of darkness, the cloning is somewhat excusable. They could have made it a _little_ bit different, though. I wonder if a lawsuit's coming up...

Re:I see double! (Lycoris vs XP) by peachboy · 2003-04-14 00:46 · Score: 2, Informative

if microsoft were to try to stop them, lycoris could simply pull up the case of microsoft v. apple, where apple lost in exactly the same situation, the court deciding that you couldn't prevent someone from creating a similar "look and feel". microsoft won't do anything about this... it would be just like flushing money down the toilet for the hell of it: pointless.

--
"I just want to thank my coach Eric a.k.a. Disco for shattering my reality..."
Re:I see double! (Lycoris vs XP) by Martin+Kallisti · 2003-04-14 02:22 · Score: 1

Ah, but Microsoft need not win the lawsuit. They might just need to stay in court for a really long time (which they are very good at) with lawsuits this way and that, to make Lycoris suffer financially and possibly going under.
Re:I see double! (Lycoris vs XP) by Cryptnotic · 2003-04-14 05:51 · Score: 1

I thought apple sued Microsoft (i.e., Apple vs. Microsoft), not the other way around. Microsoft stole the look and feel of the Apple's Mac OS and used it in Windows. If I recall, the trial dragged on for 10 years, ending with Microsoft paying a $100 million settlement to Apple and agreeing to make Mac versions of Office and IE.

--
My other first post is car post.
Re:I see double! (Lycoris vs XP) by Dausha · 2003-04-15 01:40 · Score: 1

Except Microsoft has the cash and Lycoris does not. So, Microsoft can get this into court and spend Lycoris out of business. Victory is pointless when you're unemployed.

Rule #6 of the Rules of Eight: "Justice can be dictated!"

--
What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.

Great. by nigel.selke · 2003-04-13 22:27 · Score: 5, Interesting

I think it's great that people and companies supporting Linux are finally starting to reach the masses with their message. It seems the only things that are really missing from Linux (and other *ixes, for the most part) are games and a few key apps like Photoshop, Flash, Dreamweaver etc etc. Since I'm not a graphics guy and I don't play games, the switch was pretty easy for me to make on the majority of my PCs.

Personally I prefer FreeBSD + KDE, but I think any market share taken away from Microsoft on the desktop will be good for diversity. Of course, for gamers and graphics nuts, switching over will be more troublesome. Hopefully even that will change as Linux gains more market share and companies start realizing it and diverting more development efforts towards non-MS platforms (ideally cross-platform, although I'd imagine the prospect of supporting too many platforms would be prohibitive for some companies).

--

We hang the petty thieves, but appoint the great ones to public office. - Aesop

Re:Great. by Troed · 2003-04-13 22:46 · Score: 1

Actually Microsoft might be killing themselves. For gaming, a lot of people turn to consoles. Microsoft bringing out the Xbox with the numerous PC-like games (or straight conversions) actually help a gamer run Linux on his PC instead - playing on the Xbox (or if you're like me, Gamecube .. )

I hadn't thought about this before. Interesting.

--
it's in my head
Re:Great. by Telex4 · 2003-04-13 23:28 · Score: 1

I'd personally like to see a distributor put a lot of effort into making gaming easy. Gentoo is a great platform for gaming, if you are geeky enough to know how to install and maintain it, but for the rest, there really isn't much out there.

It would be relatively simple for Lycoris to spend some time tweaking WINE and/or WINEX to work with the most well known and played games that work fairly well, though not often by default on newbie distros (e.g. Half-Life), and to provide the binaries/source for ported games like the Quake series, UT2003, etc.

Oh, and as for Dreamweaver, there's already something even better out - Quanta+ :)
Re:Great. by Glamdrlng · 2003-04-14 00:54 · Score: 2, Funny

Since I'm not a graphics guy and I don't play games, the switch was pretty easy for me

You don't play games?>> Infidel!

--

Yes, my only tool is a hammer. And you're starting to look like a nail.
Re:Great. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-14 01:34 · Score: 1, Interesting

Why is Gentoo any better for playing games than the other distros? Personally I found Gentoo to not be that great. And I'm as geeky as they come (I've been using Linux since the 0.99 kernel days). Although the very low level installs (stage 1 and 2) seem to work OK, I found it extremely annoying to have to compile everything (hell, I hadn't recompiled GCC in YEARS). There is really no point in recompiling everything unless you just like wasting time and feeling geeky about it. There is no noticable performance to be gained by recompiling everything and tweeking out all those settings (which in itself takes serious time). The more complete installs (Stage 3 with the large prebuilt applications like X, KDE, etc.) didn't work. The stage 3 stuff installed mostly OK (minor tweeking to get it to work), but there were all sorts of things that were broken when I tried to install the prebuild packages like KDE. So I abandoned it. Gentoo for people who want to play around in the details but for people who actually want to get work done then I always suggest something else.
Re:Great. by Andrewkov · 2003-04-14 02:40 · Score: 1

One big problem with Linux is video playback. Windows Media Player is much better than any of the Linux players I've seen (except for the DRM crap in Windows). Windows also has better codec support (but they pay licenses for that?). Anyway, watching videos on linux is tedious at best, and often impossible. If anyone can recomend a good player for Linux I'd be happy to hear about it, the ones that come bundled with distros usually aren't that great.
Re:Great. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-14 04:36 · Score: 0

get mplayer. It is pretty much equivalent, if not better than Windows (TM) Media (TM) Player (TM) , with more out-of-the-box codec support , and FAR better performance. Might a bit be hard to configure though, but definitely worth it.
Re:Great. by Telex4 · 2003-04-14 04:55 · Score: 1

Maybe you didn't, but I have noticed very big differences between games performance in a vanilla Gentoo install and a SuSE install on the same system. I get an extra 20fps in Half-Life under Wine, which is quite handy given that it now runs at 30fps, and even bigger jumps in Quake3.

There is also a set of kernel sources tweaked for gaming, which is meant to squeeze out even more performance. I'mt not that bothered, as my performance is acceptable and I don't want to mess anything else up, but for hardcore gamers, especially on borderline systems, I can see it making a great difference.
Re:Great. by Andrewkov · 2003-04-14 05:12 · Score: 1

Cool, I'll check it out, thanks!
Re:Great. by Moloch666 · 2003-04-14 06:19 · Score: 1

I've noticed a lot of Windows people like Window Media Player. I can't stand it, I actually prefer BSPlayer on Windows. I know everybody rants and raves about mplayer, but that would be my pick on Linux. Make sure install or compile mplayer with the GUI and the skins pack. I find mplayer very easy to use with the GUI and it plays just about every format. A lot of people really like Xine, although I tried to compile it last week and kept messing up on compile errors.

So I actually find video playing easier or at least equal to Windows.

BTW, I use Gentoo Linux, maybe it's more of a pain on the distro you are using.

--
Understanding is a three-edged sword. -- Kosh Naranek
Re:Great. by Arandir · 2003-04-14 07:23 · Score: 1

I'm not even running Linux, but FreeBSD, and I'm not having a problem at all with video playback. Except for Quicktime, I get smooth responsive playback of all other formats (that I've tried). Thanks primarily to MPlayer.

I'm not really sure what I'm missing other than games and viruses by using FreeBSD instead of Windows.

--
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Re:Great. by Slack3r78 · 2003-04-14 14:06 · Score: 1

Question - are you sure you were using the same video drivers on the SuSE install as you were with Gentoo? Unless you specifically went in and added in the latest drivers for your card in SuSE, it wouldn't surprise me that Gentoo would be using newer, more optimized drivers simply due to the bleeding edge nature of the distro. Just a thought.
Re:Great. by Slack3r78 · 2003-04-14 14:21 · Score: 1

I don't see how increased console gaming == increased linux gaming. The reason you see so many straight PC ports on XBox is the fact that it's essentially running a stripped Windows 2000 kernel and DirectX, meaning that compared to some of the other consoles, porting to XBox is a much more trivial excercise.

And this ignoring the fact that Microsoft would really, really like the XBox to replace the PC completely in home entertainments areas. It's been pointed out that 'X' is Microsoft slang for "Anything." Hence ActiveX, DirectX, XBox, etc. Microsoft wants to eventually make the XBox an all-in-one device that essentially becomes the users' new home theater. This doesn't however, threaten their PC stronghold at all IMO. Outside of console-style RPG and anime fans, hardcore gamers generally stick to the PC for their gaming machine.

There's just no contesting the fact that the PC as a rapidly evolving platform is just plain capable of doing more - be it in general or as a gaming platform. At this point the hardcore console fans are ready to form a lynch mob and take me out. :) But even if you look at a straight PC to XBox port, there are almost always things missing in the XBox version, or comprimises made to the control system due to having to use a gamepad. (Gamepad vs KB + Mouse is another endless debate with console people). Anyway, I'm starting to ramble now, but the point remains - that among people really serious about their games, consoles will never be an adequate replacement. And neither will Linux until it can run them flawlessly out of the box, which is mainly a matter of developer support.
Re:Great. by Telex4 · 2003-04-15 00:15 · Score: 1

Yep, same versions, different results, which I assume must be due to the kernel and other bits 'n' bobs being compiled & optimised in Gentoo.

Lycoris dropping the ball with version numbering by sc00p18 · 2003-04-13 22:28 · Score: 4, Insightful

It seems like their target audience is the kind of audience who is wooed by flashy 1.0's and doesn't want to have anything to do with the word build. So why don't they leverage that to their advantage? Is Lycoris still so unfinished that they can't slap a 1.0 on it?

Linux for the masses... by MosesJones · 2003-04-13 22:29 · Score: 3, Funny

Like Windows for the enterprise.

Its just plain Howard Stern style wrong.

--
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi

Re:Linux for the masses... by boaworm · 2003-04-13 22:35 · Score: 3, Insightful

Have to agree. Linux wont be mainstream until John Doe can bring a copy home, install it with a few curses and reboots, and then install all the crappy software/games on "2003 Demo Game PC Gamers" DVD and run them without a huzz.
Its kinda absurd to choose an OS based on personal affection rather than knowing it supports the applications you want to run. I can actually understand why companies run Windows. They like (ms) office, (ms) office runs on windows, they run windows. Quite easy.

--
Probable impossibilities are to be preferred to improbable possibilities.
Aristotele
Re:Linux for the masses... by fsmunoz · 2003-04-13 23:01 · Score: 3, Funny

until John Doe can bring a copy home, install it with a few curses and reboots,

Well, then consider it done! Debian has always provided a nice (n)curses interface to installation! ;)
Re:Linux for the masses... by Gordonjcp · 2003-04-13 23:26 · Score: 1, Funny

Not at all. Linux is already far easier to install than Windows for even moderately competent home users. I can talk my mother through an install of Linux and only tear out a few handfuls of my hair, as opposed to even trying to get Windows to boot more than twice in a row - a sure cause of early baldness.
Re:Linux for the masses... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-13 23:36 · Score: 0

NO! YOU IS WRONG! LINUX=TEH LEET ROXOR OS OMG STFU LIARFAG

This has been an issue of the typical Slashdotter opinion brought to you by the Idiot Awareness Foundation.
Re:Linux for the masses... by sn0wcrash · 2003-04-13 23:41 · Score: 1

John Doe??? That dude knows EVERYTHING. I guess linux is ready for the mainstream???
Re:Linux for the masses... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-14 00:36 · Score: 0

"Eye" isn't a proper noun....so why capitalize it?
Re:Linux for the masses... by $rtbl_this · 2003-04-14 00:39 · Score: 2, Insightful

Or, of course, until it's pre-installed on more than a handful of systems. For most end-users any OS is too difficult to install. I end up having to install/upgrade OSes for my non-techie friends regularly, including Windows.

Personally I haven't found a modern Linux distro that isn't easier to install than Windows, and, while I'm willing to accept that at least part of that may be down to me knowing what I'm doing, I don't think your Mr. Doe is going to have an easier time installing Windows.

--
"Are you being weird, or sarcastic?" said Emma. I said I didn't know because I get the two feelings mixed up.
Re:Linux for the masses... by penguinrenegade · 2003-04-14 04:17 · Score: 1

Takes about 10-15 minutes to install Lycoris. And it gives you a solitaire game to play once you've finished entering your information and configuring hardware.
Re:Linux for the masses... by TheNetAvenger · 2003-04-14 05:31 · Score: 1

Yes the installations are getting better, but you still have to overcome the hundreds of thousands of applications the user will want to run that are Windows based.

The Linux world needs better development enviroments that don't confuse the users with the libraries available, etc, etc.

Kylix is a product that could help to make this happen, just like Visual Basic brought simple programming to Windows.
Re:Linux for the masses... by hal200 · 2003-04-14 06:35 · Score: 1

Indeed. I know exactly what you mean about doing installs/upgrades for family and friends. I'm going home for easter and so far I'm scheduled to rebuild 3 windows PCs for my family. On the bright side, they did pay for my flight out, so I won't complain too much. :)

Of all the machines in the house, the only one that's running reliably is the Debian firewall/router I set up for them almost 2 years ago now, which I administer remotely via SSH. Usually that means apt-get update once a week or so to keep up on security updates...barring some catastrophic hardware failure, the system pretty much runs itself at this point.

Incidentally, I'm not saying it's stable because it's Linux; it's stable because nobody touches it! Users...always the weakest link. ;)

--
I just want to take over the world...Why does that automatically make me EVIL?
Re:Linux for the masses... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-14 06:56 · Score: 0

So you mom knows how big a /boot to have and what goes into /tmp versus /var?
Re:Linux for the masses... by anarxia · 2003-04-14 09:19 · Score: 1

What about the reboots? Maybe Debian people should do something about it. A reboot after installing a new package should make John Doe fell right at home.
Re:Linux for the masses... by bhtooefr · 2003-04-14 11:54 · Score: 1

RedHat did all that automatically - and coexisted with WinME pretty darn well (it was an experiment on Linux!) I simply FDISKed the system's NTFS (it had an f---ed up XP install) partition off, replaced it with a FAT32 partition that took half of the HDD, installed WinME (not without some trouble - the DVD drive was f----ed up), then installed RedHat 8. It just did what it wanted to, and I could dual boot easily.

BTW, a complete idiot with a 73 IQ "figgered out that linnex was more better".
Re:Linux for the masses... by Gordonjcp · 2003-04-14 21:39 · Score: 1

She does now, because I told her. For home users, there's no point going for some kinky-ass partition arrangement, just make / and swap and have done with it.

I can't begin to describe the number of ways that Windows installs can go wrong, and trying to describe the exact moment to hit keys to get it into the right modes and stuff is impossible over the phone.

This is exactly what Linux needs. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-13 22:29 · Score: 4, Insightful

The thing about Linux is that it has always been designed by geeks for geeks, this is its biggest strength but also its biggest weakness.

Now Linux is very stable (although not with Gnome, if there are any Gnome developers reading this please make it more stable as the user interface is far better than KDE IMO), it supports OGG, it is incredibly secure and it is lightning fast when compared to the bloat that is windows.

Unfortunately most usrs can't get along with it. The command line is a clunky way of doing things compared to an intuitive GUI and simply a throwback to when computers didn't do graphics. Tweaking things is difficult, sure there are lots of options but I still couldn't figure out an easy way of chjanging the screen resolution.
It lacks style. This isn't such a problem for us geeks as we want something that is clean and functional but mr windows user wants anti aliased fonts and fading effects on the menubar.

The good thing is that the Lycoris guys look they are sloving some of these problems with their no nonsence distribution. If we can give people something that looks like windows but has the stability and speed of Linux we can go a long way to establishing linux as a major player in the OS arena.

Re:This is exactly what Linux needs. by flend · 2003-04-13 22:51 · Score: 2, Insightful

The command line is a clunky way of doing things compared to an intuitive GUI and simply a throwback to when computers didn't do graphics.

This statement alone makes me doubt the rest of what this guy has to say. GUIs are good for simple tasks you don't do very often. The command line and scripting languages have the power to automate and achieve complex tasks.
Re:This is exactly what Linux needs. by Vodak · 2003-04-13 23:06 · Score: 2, Informative

Recently I downloaded and installed the Mandrake 9.0 free distro. The installer was a lot simpler then I remember it ever to be before(last time I used mandrake it was a 6.0). And it found all my hardware without me putting in any effort. When it came to booting the system up for the very first time I looked very nice and "pretty" from the [OK] screen that had a nifty little background, to the x windows system automatically logging me into one of my normal user accounts without me being forced to input a username password. I can see that distro have grown up a lot while Debian and Slackware users were not looking.

After looking it over a while I found it to be a nice OS, though I uninstalled it quickly for Debian because apt-get just rocks.
Re:This is exactly what Linux needs. by Telex4 · 2003-04-13 23:34 · Score: 4, Insightful

The command line is a clunky way of doing things compared to an intuitive GUI

In my experience, teaching newcomers, the GUI is more intuitive but the command line is more powerful, and many are very grateful for having learnt how to use it. Not everyone likes it, but let's not try to bury it like Windows has. You don't need to use it anyway, so I don't see what the problem is :)

Tweaking things is difficult, sure there are lots of options but I still couldn't figure out an easy way of chjanging the screen resolution.

This makes me wonder what distribution you're using. Every newbie-orientated one I've ever come across has a really easy to use control center with an obvious option to change the screen resolution. And tweaking things isn't really possible in Windows, so it's a credit to GNU/Linux that you even can :)

This isn't such a problem for us geeks as we want something that is clean and functional but mr windows user wants anti aliased fonts and fading effects on the menubar.

If you install any of the recent distros (Mandrake 9.1, RedHat 9, SuSE 8.2) you'll fidn both these things there. In fact, they've been there for a while. KDE is now able to look a whole lot more stylish than Windows, and does so by default.

I don't want to sound like another advocate pretending it's all there, but your complaints are mostly outdated or wrong :)
Re:This is exactly what Linux needs. by s0m3body · 2003-04-13 23:43 · Score: 2, Insightful

usualy you don't need to touch commandline, if you don't want to and you have chosen newbie distro

the *big* difference is - when windows corrupts, you go reinstall, os, all software, etc ...

when linux corrupts - you can reinstall os, you don't need to reinstall most of the apps, and you can have a friend (or support for your distro) to fix the problem without reinstalling

the only reason why nobody is using commandline on windows is, that it can't do almost anything
Re:This is exactly what Linux needs. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-14 00:11 · Score: 0

"The command line and scripting languages have the power to automate and achieve complex tasks."

As a server admin you have to automate and achieve complex tasks.

The requirements for a home user or even an office worker are quite different, don't you think?

Just my 2 cents.
Re:This is exactly what Linux needs. by xanadu-xtroot.com · 2003-04-14 01:01 · Score: 1

though I uninstalled it quickly for Debian because apt-get just rocks.

man urpmi

(although I do have to agree on apt. Portage is just as wonderful as well.)

--
I'm not a prophet or a stone-age man,
I'm just a mortal with potential of a super man.
Re:This is exactly what Linux needs. by shellbeach · 2003-04-14 11:54 · Score: 1

GUIs are good for simple tasks you don't do very often. The command line and scripting languages have the power to automate and achieve complex tasks.
Yes, you're right. Only I've never heard anyone who's not a geek praise the command line. Most users complain that "you have to remember all these complicated commands" ... and you'd have to admit that for a new user a command line has a steeper learning curve - especially when they don't know about tab-completion and command history.
Part of the problem is that Microsoft never had a decent command-line shell ... hell, they still don't even after decades of DOS! In Windows, Microsoft has always presented the command-line to users as a frightening thing that they don't want to go near to save themselves; is it any wonder that a new linux user like the anonymous parent poster thinks the same way?
I think most users simply want a nice little icon they can click on the panel to start their favourite web browser or word-processor, and that's about it. They're not going to worry about writing little shell scripts, and they're certainly not going to run batch comands! And even if it's about three hundred times slower to extract a tarball with a GUI than with the command line, that never seems to bother them.
Re:This is exactly what Linux needs. by bhtooefr · 2003-04-14 12:00 · Score: 1

To do any file ops on my Win95b laptop, I just go -, , com, . (I don't have Windows keys, and IE5.5 autocompletes command for me by the time I've typed com).
Re:This is exactly what Linux needs. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-14 12:40 · Score: 0

Can I tell you something, the amount of computer users that have heard of Ogg/Vorbis is probably on the order of 5% -- which is a VERY VERY VERY liberal over estimate. I bet 99% of those people are users of OSS/FS operating systems. Then if you throw in the percentage of them that use Ogg's, and I'm assuming you mean Ogg Vorbis, on a regular basis -- meaning they have at least SOME of their "favorite" songs on Ogg Vorbis format -- and I bet you can town that way overboard 5% down to a way overboard 1%.

Ogg/Vorbis is not the "killer" application. As for "lightning fast" I can dispute that. I have both XP and I run Debian. I have a 750Mhz Athlon, NVidia GeForce MX420, and 256MB of PC133 memory. Playing the latest Matrix 2 trailer, with mplayer 0.90, I get out of sync by at least 20sec by the end of the trailer or with framedrops I get about 5fps. In XP, I get about 15fps. Then if you compare Openoffice.org to Office XP, well you really shouldnt compare. I will never use OOo again -- until it really improves that is. It crashes on a consistent basis when writing my lab reports -- inserting tables from OOo spreadsheet into OOo word and then inserting a OOo drawing is a good way to craash it. If inserting other OOo "objects" don't crash, it likes to start dragging my whole system down until the OOM Killer kills it. Also, just inserting a OOo "object" takes a good 10-15sec. Office XP performs very well on my system. If I insert a a Office XP object, it takes about 5-6 sec, it has only crashed on me twice and that is suspect because both times I was playing Oggs (I use them I admit) with the DirectPlay WMP drivers.
The crashes brought my whole system down, basically.

Currently, Linux is the hotrods of OS's. Its fun to tinker with and add on to. Its "fun" to use, but really only other "hackers" like to use it because its in the hacked-together state. While there are protocol and API standards and even some file-format standards, there are no system-wide standards. KDE and GNOME start to accomplish this, but fall on their face. The system-wide standards (LSB is a good start) are what makes it go from functional to Mom Usable.
Re:This is exactly what Linux needs. by bhtooefr · 2003-04-15 02:49 · Score: 1

ARRGH! It should have been [ctrl]-[esc], [r], com, [enter]!

Re:ENOUGH! by torpor · 2003-04-13 22:32 · Score: 5, Insightful

No, I disagree.

The fact that Linux can be forked off into a gazillion distro's, freely and willingly, is a *GOOD THING*.

Okay, so the old market forces may not agree with this.

But OS's are fast becoming irrelevant. Linux' dominance in the 'adapt to all environments' arena cannot be stopped: it runs on *EVERYTHING*, practically, whereas Windows only runs on PC's.

("PC's are not the most predominant computer platform. Cell phones are.")

What matters is the document formats.

--
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --

wow, misread THAT one by lingqi · 2003-04-13 22:35 · Score: 3, Funny

...Registered users get REAL e-mail support and full access to IRIS...

I thought it read "IRIX" and the train of thought went something alone the lines of

euphoria: IRIX boxens for $289 from Wal-mart!

dawn of disillusionment: Why would I use a hacked up linux distro if IRIX came with it for free?

total disallusionment: Awww crap it's IRIS, not IRIX.

bitterness and depression: Awww crap it's IRIS based on PRMs.

[goes back to Gentoo, sighing]

--

My life in the land of the rising sun.

Re:wow, misread THAT one by Amer · 2003-04-14 05:21 · Score: 0

I'll sell you an Indy with IRIX for $289 :)

--
-- To gain that which is worth having, it may be necessary to lose everything else. Bernadette Devlin McAliskey

Re:ENOUGH! by Scumbag+Tracker · 2003-04-13 22:36 · Score: 2, Insightful

But which end distribution do you expect ISV's like Oracle to support? Debian which is the "official" GNU version? Red Hat because of its popularity? Slackware because of its stability? SuSe because of...well, I can't think of a single good damn reason to support Suse, but I digress.

Ideally, we'd have an LSB standard to follow and these wouldn't be issues, but unfortunately, there are enough differences between distributions that a software vendor _has_ to make these kinds of decisions. Consolidation, or at the very least strictly following established standards would go a long way towards bringing Linux to the masses.

--
I track known Slashdot scumbags on my foes list!

Click on... by cs02rm0 · 2003-04-13 22:37 · Score: 5, Funny

...hardware compatibility list. You've got to appreciate a 404 for that!

Defaults to non-root account by arvindn · 2003-04-13 22:39 · Score: 4, Insightful

Among the newbie friendly distros I'd pick this one because it defaults (IIRC) to a non-root account. If distros like Lindows that set you up as root become popular, it would kill off the perception of Linux as a secure OS. People don't care/understand how secure the kernel/servers are etc; if you have a bunch of newbies clicking on executable attachments then the public is going to perceive it as virus prone. Therefore if you are going to encourage your granny to try linux pick a distro that doesn't follow Bad Computing Practices(TM).

Re:Defaults to non-root account by Vodak · 2003-04-13 22:53 · Score: 1

I am in total agreement with you on that issue, but at the same time there are many people coming from a windows world that don't get the whole multi-user aspect of Linux. Because of this I understand why companies would default to a root user. We also have to remember that many people are very forgetful. How many times have you heard people who are forced to use multi-user operating systems forgetting their root/administrator account because they never used it and wrote the thing down.
Re:Defaults to non-root account by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-13 23:18 · Score: 0

"but at the same time there are many people coming from a windows world that don't get the whole mutli-user aspect of Linux."

So what? They'll get used to it, it's part of the "learning" process.
Re:Defaults to non-root account by Vodak · 2003-04-13 23:54 · Score: 1

"So what? They'll get used to it, it's part of the 'learning' process."

That is a great attitude if a UNIX like operating system was the monopoly. But of course it isn't otherwise there would not be so much hatred for Microsoft.

There is a point in every person's life where they stop learning because they are against change. So by your statement you have given up on the older people in the society because they won't learn it. That is a real shame since the majority of the population in many Western Cultures are getting older and for a Linux system to succeed you need to get a good segment of that age segment to switch to Linux in order to have it become a desktop system.
Re:Defaults to non-root account by Trurl's+Machine · 2003-04-14 00:49 · Score: 1

I like the way it's solved in MacOS X - by default, the person who installed the OS (or the person who bought the computer and turned it on for the first time) becomes an admin user. Admin is not root, but he is privileged to do pretty much anything Average Joe wants to do: install apps, change some basic OS settings, even create other users. He just cannot seriously shoot himself in the foot - system files are off-limits to him (e.g. he can't trash /bin directory just because he doesn't know what is it for). Root user is by default disabled in OS X and you have to enable it in an easy, but deliberately cryptic way (in the classic Apple manner: if you don't know how to do that, you probably shouldn't).
Re:Defaults to non-root account by TheNetAvenger · 2003-04-14 05:46 · Score: 1

I like how it is done in WindowsXP.

The main user gets admin privledges, but the Administrator account is left alone unless it is needed.

I also like the security of XP, so that power users can install software without having to be an administrator. (Which is also flexible to be turned on or off.)

The whole security root security architecture of the unix world is really screwed, especially when used on a desktop.

(I'm still waiting for the Unix variant that finds a nifty way to avoid the root headaches and gives us something approaching the object and token based security of Windows(NT)XP.)
Re:Defaults to non-root account by Arandir · 2003-04-14 08:14 · Score: 1

The main user gets admin privledges, but the Administrator account is left alone unless it is needed.

Ditto for UNIX. If you don't need to be root, don't log in as root!

I also like the security of XP, so that power users can install software without having to be an administrator.

What makes you think UNIX is excluded from this capability? As a lowly user, I built and installed KDE on my Solaris workstation. How? It's called the home directory. Duh! Other possibilities abound to allow users to install their own software, limited by only your imagination.

The whole security root security architecture of the unix world is really screwed, especially when used on a desktop.

I haven't seen this "screwed" attribute you're talking of. Certainly it isn't the end-all of security administration, but it is a solid and robust foundation to build upon.

The basic problem I see with your perspective is that it conveniently overlooks one important factor. Who should be the administrator? From the UNIX perspective the answer is simple: who ever owns the machine has the ultimate responsibility to administer it. In the case of the corporate desktop, the corporate IT department should be the administrator. In the case of the home desktop, then it is the owner. In other words, if Fred bought and installed the system, then Fred is the sysadmin, like it or not.

If you own an automobile, then you are ultimately responsible for maintaining it. As the owner of an automobile it is your responsibility to change the oil on a regular basis. Ford or Chrysler won't do it for you. When it breaks down due to lack of maintenance you have no one to blame but yourself. Ditto for computer systems. Either you maintain the system yourself, or you find someone to do it for you.

This does NOT mean that UNIX is inappropriate for the home desktop. It just means that the home user must find someone else to maintain their system, or educate themselves a tiny bit. It's not hard to change the oil in an automobile. And it's not hard to log in as root to install software.

--
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Re:Defaults to non-root account by TheNetAvenger · 2003-04-14 19:35 · Score: 1

What makes you think UNIX is excluded from this capability? As a lowly user, I built and installed KDE on my Solaris workstation. How? It's called the home directory. Duh! Other possibilities abound to allow users to install their own software, limited by only your imagination

Ok, lets start with removing the DUH, and then remove the condescension from your post assuming I know very little about the 'overall picture' of UNIX and OS architecture. I have been involved in OS engineering for far too long to get a lecture from an apparent UNIX zealot with little knowledge of both OSes.

Now with that said, you seem to miss many points and don't seem to understand what I was conveying.

#1. Whoever 'owns' the Windows machine also is the 'ADMINISTRATOR' however, they can BE AN ADMINISTRATOR without actually using the administrator account. This was my point. They do not need to re-login as ROOT to ADMINISTER any part of the OS, and the Administrator account itself is left in case it is needed for maintenance or emergencies. Now I am talking about this scenario in a single desktop configuration. As in a Domain or even local network, the concept of the Administrator account has other functions, even though a whole domain or network can STILL BE ADMINISTERED by a user with administrator privileges without logging in as ROOT.

#2. My point about 'power users' installing software is something that can be set and controlled so that the software can also be available to ALL users on the machine. Not just in the home directory for the user that installed it. I have seen too many senerios where there have been 10 different Mozilla installations for 10 different users. This is just ridiculous.

Besides, having the granule control of security that the NT model has is really nice when you want to give someone like Grandma the ability to install software and yet not make her an administrator to accidentally mess up system settings. Additionally it is also nice that she can install her new solitaire game and NOT NEED TO LOGIN as an administrator and yet Grandpa's account can then also use the solitaire game. In real world desktop scenarios like this, Grandma and Grandpa really shouldn't have to install the software twice in each of their 'home' directories and they also don't need whoever helped setup the computer to come out and login as an administrator and install the software to make it available to both of them.

Administration and the diversity of the token/object security model is far more thought out in Windows NT than the security model in UNIX, and this is ONE of the reasons Cutler and the other OS designers of NT choose not to mimic the UNIX security system in NT and go a new route using new the upcoming OS architecture security theories of the time.

How do I know this, I was as an OS architecture engineer at the time and was involved with this process. :)

As I have said before, there are reasons that some of the top UNIX and OS gurus, such as Cutler, choose to divert from UNIX concepts and build NT from scratch using the latest OS engineering technologies instead.

Keeping UNIX variants on par with what NT was doing 10 years ago is still a process of catch up, and yet the UNIX 'ideology' is far older. And its age of older 'ideologies' is not a plus in the technology world, instead they have to be molded and kludged to make them mimic what is natural in newer OS architectures like NT.
Re:Defaults to non-root account by Arandir · 2003-04-15 09:21 · Score: 1

My point about 'power users' installing software is something that can be set and controlled so that the software can also be available to ALL users on the machine. Not just in the home directory for the user that installed it. I have seen too many senerios where there have been 10 different Mozilla installations for 10 different users. This is just ridiculous.

And I've seen the case where one user wanted to update StarOffice and ruined the install for everyone because they didn't do it right. Whether it's NT or UNIX, one person needs to be in charge of the system. It may be inconvenient, but as the adage says, convenience is the inverse of security.

Keeping UNIX variants on par with what NT was doing 10 years ago is still a process of catch up, and yet the UNIX 'ideology' is far older. And its age of older 'ideologies' is not a plus in the technology world, instead they have to be molded and kludged to make them mimic what is natural in newer OS architectures like NT.

Were you able to see past the single word "duh" and understand the point I was trying to make? UNIX is not obsolete, it's just different paradigm. You don't throw away a technology just because it's old, not even software technology.

The UNIX philosophy that there shall be one and only one ultimate administration account is no less valid than NT's philosophy that there can be multiple ultimate administration accounts. Both can be used to implement a practical easy-to-use system for home desktop systems. XP and OSX are prime examples.

The most important part of token/object security model is its practical effect. You can achieve the same practical effect with UNIX using owners and groups. But to make it easy, it needs to be done by the system integrator (the distro) and not by the system administrator.

This story is about Lycoris. There is no reason an "entry-level" UNIX of any sort cannot implement a model similar in effect to NT's if they wanted to. The problem with many newbie Linux distros is that they don't want to remove themselves too far from the traditional server model of Linux.

--
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned

Re:Lycoris dropping the ball with version numberin by IamTheRealMike · 2003-04-13 22:44 · Score: 4, Informative

This is a beta release, not a final product.

Ogg Support by Trepidity · 2003-04-13 22:54 · Score: 1

Given that the most popular Windows audio player -- Winamp -- comes with Ogg support built into the default install, how does this differentiate Linux?

--
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10

Re:Ogg Support by PhysicsExpert · 2003-04-14 00:41 · Score: 1

is winamp the most popular windows audio player? I'd be surprised if it wasn't Windows Media Player. Still your point is valid.

--
All that glitters has a high refractive index.

Lawsuit pending by ElGanzoLoco · 2003-04-13 23:02 · Score: 2, Interesting

From Lycoris's Website (http://lycoris.com/products/desktoplx/)
"Power Flower", it says.
Their XMMS skin looks like iTunes, too...

These guys will face lawsuits both by Microsoft AND Apple... Yay! That's what I call platform oecumenism!

--
Hello! I'm a disaster waiting to happen!

Re:Lawsuit pending by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-14 00:59 · Score: 0

And debians logo might get a visit from Sega or maybe even eFax

And Lindows.com might get a visit from Apple

if your looking for originality in design, your not gonna find much, ask parc.xerox
Re:Lawsuit pending by McVeigh · 2003-04-14 01:43 · Score: 1

that itunes skin looks like the standard "ultrafina" XMMS skin to me

look at it here:
http://xmms.org/files/Skins/images/ultrafina_sem.j pg

--
"I drank what?" - Socrates
Re:Lawsuit pending by TheNetAvenger · 2003-04-14 05:49 · Score: 1

Maybe we should to a pool to see who sues first.

I'll go first and bet on Apple, as the unix core is in their league and more of a competitor.

Microsoft is more app to sue for trademarks than if the computer can have a trash can on the desktop.

Linux at work vs. linux on the desktop by skillet-thief · 2003-04-13 23:03 · Score: 5, Insightful

Have to agree. Linux wont be mainstream until John Doe can bring a copy home, install it with a few curses and reboots, and then install all the crappy software/games on "2003 Demo Game PC Gamers" DVD and run them without a huzz.

Linux will not be a home entertainment OS until it becomes used more at work. The way I see it working is like this:

Linux takes over web server market... done;
Linux takes over office server market... coming fairly soon;
Linux slowly works its way onto the office desktop... next few years.
Linux starts to become accepted at home by people who have learned to use it at work (and know what permissions are, stuff like that).

By the time we get to the last step, all the frustrating things for n00bs should be pretty much worked out. I don't think that Linux needs to start by being a home user OS. It will end up that way, if all goes well.

--

Congratulations! Now we are the Evil Empire

Re:Linux at work vs. linux on the desktop by Trurl's+Machine · 2003-04-13 23:56 · Score: 1

Linux starts to become accepted at home by people who have learned to use it at work (and know what permissions are, stuff like that).

Do you really think this is going to happen? Apart from being free (both as "beer" and as "speech"), Linux is attractive for company/office use because it is much easier to LOCK user only to perform certain tasks. One of the side-effects will be this association imprinted in the Average Joe's mind: "Linux is the system where I cannot play mp3's, download pr0n or play games. It is only good for some dumb office terminal. I will not install it on my home computer in a million years".
Seriously, I don't think all those non-voluntary Linux users in offices will ever become Linux-fans. I expect something quite contrary. Linux is a dream for sysadmins with fascist tendencies (to almost all of them, that is). This means it is also a nightmare for office workers, students etc.
But prove me wrong: show me a message board, where office workers (etc.) write something like "I am very happy that my company switched to Linux, now I am locked more securely than before". From what I hear, the reactions are rather "Damn recession! First they cancelled free coffee and now they forced us to use this crappy OS from hell just because it's free".
Re:Linux at work vs. linux on the desktop by skillet-thief · 2003-04-14 01:11 · Score: 1

Do you really think this is going to happen? Apart from being free (both as "beer" and as "speech"), Linux is attractive for company/office use because it is much easier to LOCK user only to perform certain tasks. One of the side-effects will be this association imprinted in the Average Joe's mind: "Linux is the system where I cannot play mp3's, download pr0n or play games. It is only good for some dumb office terminal. I will not install it on my home computer in a million years".

I am not promising that this is going to happen, fer sure. If Linux is going to "happen" at home, I just think it will happen at work first.

Whether people like it or not, if they are forced to use it at work, they will become competent. If people are Linux-competent from work, they then (and only then) might consider using it at home. Use at work builds a potential home-user base. I'm not sure there are that many reasons for either Joe Average or Joe Sixpack to switch from MS, yet. They're getting all the pr0n they need from Windows.

You would probably hear the same level of griping about any change in OS. People are so damned attached to their little computer world, that with any change they are lost. They have to write new Post-Its, to replace those where they wrote down how to save a file, etc. It is hell for them.

Another way of looking at this whole thing is to realize that, if Linux is going to fly in the non-geek market, it isn't going to be because all the non-geeks suddenly became geeks. They aren't interested in the same things we are. ("Wow, finally, an OS that ships with a great C compiler!...")

--
Congratulations! Now we are the Evil Empire
Re:Linux at work vs. linux on the desktop by Slack3r78 · 2003-04-14 14:50 · Score: 1

Linux starts to become accepted at home by people who have learned to use it at work (and know what permissions are, stuff like that)
My emphasis. Reason being that that part has already been taken care of by windows. Win9x could be made to have permissions with 3rd party software like the Novell clients, and with 2000/XP it's a native part of the operating system. Sure, the home PCs HP, Dell, etc. sell are all set up to run in "System Administrator" (root) mode, but at work in a corporate environment, they're generally going to have a regular user account, along with the account permissions and restrictions that go with it. The key during your 3rd phase is going to be convincing users that linux isn't all THAT hard to use, which hopefully will be the case by that point. Personally, I think your timeline is a little on the ambitious side, but perhaps that's just optimism on your part? :)

Re:minesweeper by bjpirt · 2003-04-13 23:04 · Score: 1

not the original, but check the games menu

Re:ENOUGH! by pfb · 2003-04-13 23:05 · Score: 1

/me remembers something from his economics lessons...

plenty of distros could lead to Perfect Competition, where market forces force all the 'many firms' into homogenous products where everyone must innovate to keep up with each other but equals the 'Perfect Product' (at that time)

my economics is probs a bit dodgy but that's the gist...

--
-- ribbit

Re:Lycoris dropping the ball with version numberin by dotgod · 2003-04-13 23:17 · Score: 1

Actually I think the type of audience about which you spead doesn't even know the difference between a "flashy 1.0" and anything with the word build in the title. (Or anything 1.0 for that matter). Heck they'll probably be like "Whoa, build 72?!? Right now I have AOL and it's only 8.0. I got to get this Lycoris thingie."

Re:ENOUGH! by pmsr · 2003-04-13 23:18 · Score: 1

Easy. They will go for RedHat and SuSe. They aren't less stable than Slackware, but they are "official" (whatever that is) by the rule of the marketplace. So, they are very popular and better yet, they target enterprises and have enterprise quality support behind them. Yes mate, SuSe included, either you know a "single good damn reason" or not.

In my company we use RedHat for all our servers, and we subscribe to RedHat network. If we had to change to some other distribution, SuSe would be next in line. Linux is Linux, after all. Thousands of businesses around the world exist that think alike, and Oracle knows that. As such it's easy for them to decide. Their market is the "enterprise" market (i don't see anyone keeping their recipes in an Oracle database) so they will support a couple top "enterprise" level distributions used by these companies.

/Pedro

Mandrake does that too by abhikhurana · 2003-04-13 23:20 · Score: 2, Informative

If you set mandrake to boot the gui interface by default after startup, it automatically logs in to the non root account.

--
What's under yellowstone?

Re:Mandrake does that too by HiThere · 2003-04-14 04:14 · Score: 1

?? You need to be more specific in some way. A GUI startup just gets you to the login prompt in a graphic screen. Perhaps it's running as root, but it doesn't matter, as it's just a login screen.

OTOH, I do seem to remember that there was some choice of selecting an account to automatically log into. I never used it, but the language seemed to suggest that it would use whichever account you selected. Perhaps root is the default choice for that configuration? But I'm rather sure that the language indicated that you could choose which account it would log into.

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Re:Mandrake does that too by abhikhurana · 2003-04-14 04:25 · Score: 1

It has been sometime since I last installed mandrake thanks to urpmi (that is what makes mandrake my dfault choice among all linux distros) but what I meant was that mandrake asks you if you want to start x by default. And in such a case it doesnt even ask you for a password while logging in, much like XP. But that means that the auto login option doesn't, IIRC, work with a root account. I think then you have to enter a password. And in any case root is not the default configuration, that much I remember distinctly. Unfortunately even I dont use this option so I cant say for sure whether you can select root to auto login or not

--
What's under yellowstone?
Re:Mandrake does that too by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-14 06:26 · Score: 0

I'd second the Mandrake distro. While I would *never* tell a friend (that I wanted to KEEP) that Linux is a good replacement for Windows I would tell a friend who wanted to install a Linux distro that Mandrake is a great place to start (in fact I have and I do).

The hardware detection and setup is AWESOME and urpmi (with the help of The Penguin Liberation Front) is just about as nice to use as Debian's famed apt-get. Of course with rpmdrake, its even newbie friendly (and for those of us who want to be a little lazy after work).

Re:Lycoris dropping the ball with version numberin by JimDabell · 2003-04-13 23:22 · Score: 1

Scenario: newbie installs unfinished 1.0. Newbie gets frustrated by a buggy, incomplete product. Newbie thinks that Linux is trash and never installs it again.

So Linux became Windows XP for the cheap ? by Bender_ · 2003-04-13 23:27 · Score: 4, Insightful

The frequent usage of the word "familiar" hints very much at what lycoris became: A cheap Windows XP clone. All the description and advertising is trying to explain that I almost get the functionality of Windows XP. However why dont buy the real thing then ? I want extended functionality and improvements.

Yeah, but I guess it will just end like: "Oh, you are using lycoris/linux. Can't you afford Windows?"

Re:So Linux became Windows XP for the cheap ? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-14 00:05 · Score: 0

What is wrong with trying to build a Linux-based Windows clone? I think transitional software is a great idea.
Re:So Linux became Windows XP for the cheap ? by realnowhereman · 2003-04-14 00:12 · Score: 1

Yeah, but I guess it will just end like: "Oh, you are using lycoris/linux. Can't you afford Windows?"

What if the answer is "no"?

--
Carpe Daemon
Re:So Linux became Windows XP for the cheap ? by afree87 · 2003-04-14 00:18 · Score: 1

More like: "Oh, you are using Lycoris/Linux. Can't you afford to pirate a copy of Windows?"
Re:So Linux became Windows XP for the cheap ? by matvei · 2003-04-14 00:48 · Score: 1

Yeah, but I guess it will just end like: "Oh, you are using lycoris/linux. Can't you afford Windows?"
It's GNU/Linux you insensitive clod!
Re:So Linux became Windows XP for the cheap ? by EpsCylonB · 2003-04-14 00:56 · Score: 1

Dude no one pays for windows...
Re:So Linux became Windows XP for the cheap ? by FooBarWidget · 2003-04-14 01:59 · Score: 1

Just like how the superior (but more expensive) Betamax lost and the inferior (but cheaper) VHS won?
Re:So Linux became Windows XP for the cheap ? by antiMStroll · 2003-04-14 03:13 · Score: 1

In a home environment the extra functionality is argueable. Linux does more than enough: well, fast and securely. You make it sound as if Windows is becoming the Hugo Boss sweater of the OS world, spend more to be seen spending more.

Meandering thoughts by ZiZ · 2003-04-13 23:30 · Score: 1

And interestingly enough, Oracle for (RedHat) Linux runs without a hitch in FreeBSD. Yay FreeBSD! I'm about to order one of these boxes to play around with. I don't know if I'll be keeping Lycoris on it, but it'll be a fun couple of days...

--
This flies in the face of science.

Re:Meandering thoughts by quantum+bit · 2003-04-14 02:50 · Score: 1

Offtopic, but how did you manage that? I've had zero luck getting 9i to run under FreeBSD -- we had to set up a Gentoo box for our test environment...

yawn by CoolGuySteve · 2003-04-13 23:31 · Score: 0, Offtopic

I've been tweaking my redhat 8.0 install to boot in something like 15 seconds. kudzu, dhcp and gnome were the biggest offenders here and I haven't even compiled a new kernel yet. I was surprised at how fast X can go with WindowMaker instead of the 'Desktop Environment's.

Is there a distribution that's meant to be fast instead of bloated? Just because something's user friendly doesn't mean it can't also be minimilast, BeOS was good for that. With a few config utils and only the best apps (OOo, konquerer/pheonix, ximian) there could be a really cool dist the size and speed of a fresh win98 install without the part about it sucking.

Re:yawn by p00ya · 2003-04-13 23:39 · Score: 1

why don't you stop using rh/mdk/bloateddistros and start using a distro where the default/base really is just a base.
gentoo is good, and even debian can be "a really cool dist the size and speed of a fresh win98 install", but dependencies may introduce a bit of bloat.

That flower makes no sense to me... by Styx · 2003-04-13 23:31 · Score: 1

On the other hand, neither does the Gnome foot, Apples Apple nor the Windows logo, so I suppose they're in good company.

--
/Styx

Who says slashdot has gone down hill? by Mr.+Smoove · 2003-04-13 23:31 · Score: 2, Informative

This announcement was sent out 5 days ago via email and is announcing the new release of a **beta** with their new daily build system. It was even posted to distrowatch two days ago.

This is not "News for Nerds", this is old info which for those people who are interested will ahve already received via email or on other websites.

On the plus side surely it makes it easier for /. to brush of the duplicate posting of this story in future as they can claim it is a new daily build ;-)

--
Mr. Smoove

Re:Who says slashdot has gone down hill? by jgp · 2003-04-14 00:23 · Score: 0

Stop your bitching. Not *everyone* polls /. 4 times a day. Weeks old, common knowledge news is bad, but disregarding news worthy news because its not z3r0-D^y is stupid.
Re:Who says slashdot has gone down hill? by penguinrenegade · 2003-04-14 03:10 · Score: 1

Actually it was posted not by e-mail but by me, through the slashdot postings, as it should be. And posted yesterday. It IS news because not everyone has heard of it. Did you download it?

It might not be your favorite, but have you tried getting your mom to run Debian?

Re:ENOUGH! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-13 23:34 · Score: 1

Windows only runs on PC's.

Never let the truth stand in the way of your argument:-

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/embedded/ce.net/

Beh by empathy808 · 2003-04-13 23:37 · Score: 2, Interesting

I don't use linux. The closest I've come is one failed attempt to make redhat work. It didn't. It just pissed me off. I'd like to run linux. But I'm not sure what the point would be. Once you took away all of my Adobe/Macromedia programs and my Win32 Quake 3, there isn't a whole lot appealing about running a *nix. I think that the only other thing I really use my computer for would be roaming around the internet. And yes, WIN2k sucks a bit for doing anything, but its not bad enough that I'd want to install a completely unfamiliar OS, learn how to use it and boot into, just so I can sit on IRC and look at webpages. Things like Lycoris are more appealing because I don't think I would end up as confuzed and annoyed. But I put it out to all you linux lovers - Why would I actually want to install linux? Security? Dont care. Speed? Mirc opens up fast enough thank you. L33Tness? I might be able to make linux boot, but I still wont understand half the crap you people go on about. Please - convert me.

Re:Beh by methodic · 2003-04-13 23:49 · Score: 2, Interesting

Might I suggest VMware?

Im a diehard UNIX user; I love Slackware, I love Debian, I love OpenBSD. Unfortunately, like you, Adobe isn't porting Photoshop and Macromedia isn't porting flash to UNIX anytime soon.

So I have XP Professional installed (which runs fine), and I use VMware for all my UNIX needs. I track -current in OpenBSD and I check out any new releases (like Slackware 9.0). The best part, you dont need a new computer or hard drive. Once youre done messing around or testing or whatever, delete the file VMware uses as the disk.
Re:Beh by empathy808 · 2003-04-13 23:54 · Score: 1

Again, slightly more appealing. But I can still think of no actual reason to do it.
Re:Beh by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-14 00:34 · Score: 0

There are actually "replacement" programs for most of the stuff you find on Windows. Can't use Photoshop? use Gimp!, etc. And Quake3 runs just fine under Linux.

Primary reason to switch: not to be tied up in Microsoft (and other) licencing. If you're not paying anything now, you will soon (software will be service licenced; you wanna use Office for an hour? pay for an hour).

Also, if you look at current trends, commercial software (Windows, etc.,) is slowly but surely grows on you, and makes it extremely hard to switch later. If you think it's a challenge to switch now, wait a few more years, it will get even worse (you won't be able to move data from Windows to Linux as easily as you can today).

Some of the people I know who switched did it because of "morals". They said they didn't want to "steal" software, and didn't want to pay for Windows. (if you intend not to pay for software, why not use one that is already free?)

Also, open source software (linux, etc.,) has a different lifetime cycle. Your Windows gets outdated in a matter of a few years (just as soon as next version is out, old one is outdated). With Linux, the time it is outdated is mostly your decision.
Re:Beh by amcguinn · 2003-04-14 00:39 · Score: 1
Good question.

The advantages Linux has for a desktop user:
- Stability. I've heard of people not having crashes on Windows, but I have to reboot my work PC every few days, and I lose 15 mins waiting for it to come up. I have only ever seen Linux crash once, and that was when I tried to hot-swap an ATAPI DVD drive.
- Security. You say you don't care, but if something bad happens, you might suddenly start caring.
- Remote Administration. Probably not relevant to you, but an end-user who has access to expert help could gain massively from having their machines remotely administered. True, Windows has remote administration too, but kind of like Linux has games...
- Networking. Again, the difference between Linux networking and Windows networking is like the difference between Windows games and Linux games. If you have two or more machines in the house, and you don't have a separate box as an internet gateway / fileserver / printserver etc, you don't know the convenience you're missing.
- Price. Don't knock it.
Against those, you have the drawbacks that
- You're not using the same as what everyone else is using. This is the biggest problem.
- If you're a serious gamer, forget it.
- It's going to be more hassle to get set up to start with, compared to buying Windows pre-installed. (not compared to installing Windows yourself)
Re:Beh by Glamdrlng · 2003-04-14 00:47 · Score: 1

Again, slightly more appealing. But I can still think of no actual reason to do it.

Hey flamebait, you're posting on the wrong website.

You do it because you can. You do it to have the flexibility and granularity of a unix command prompt on a windows box. You do it for the satisfaction of figuring something out on your own and demonstrating your resourcefulness. You do it because there are some things you just don't learn until you force yourself to work with an OS with which you're unfamiliar.
Most importantly, you do it for fun... and of course profit.

--

Yes, my only tool is a hammer. And you're starting to look like a nail.
Re:Beh by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-14 00:47 · Score: 0
This is not a conversion attempt, as I have recently given up on my own 5 year journey with Linux and BSD systems for the most part. This is instead a small and list of activities that are better suited to Linux systems. If you participate in any of the below, give Linux a try.
- Gateway Services: Firewalls, NAT, IDS, etc
- File Server: Samba, NFS, even WebDAV
- Web Development: On the server side, Apache, PHP, and MySQL make for a really nice dev platform
- Network Analysis: Linux has a horde of apps well suited to capturing traffic, performing security audits, etc.
- Internet PC: decent web browsers an email clients (Sylpheed!), and IRC / Chat clients make for a nice online experience
For anything else I do, I much prefer Windows 2000. Hope this helps.
Re:Beh by be-fan · 2003-04-14 00:55 · Score: 5, Informative

If you have no reason to use it, then you probably shouldn't be using it. Don't fix what isn't broke. On the other hand, there are a lot of reasons to use Linux, if you have the right usage patterns. Why I use Linux.

1) I program. Development tools (especially GCC) are better on the Linux side, and free to boot. I don't like IDE's I prefer a bunch of xterms and VIM. Sure I could do the same thing in Windows, but Cygwin is a little too laggy for my taste (fork() is really slow).

2) My gaming is limited to a few Linux games (NWN, Quake), a few older WINE-able Windows games (CounterStrike, StarCraft), and PSX emulators. They all work fine enough in Linux to suit me. For real gaming, I turn to my Gamecube, which I like better than 99% of PC games anyway :)

3) I've got a lot of freedom to choose software file formats. My usage of MS Office formats isn't anything that KWord or (in a pinch) OpenOffice can't handle. Usually, all my communication with the outside world is done with standard file formats like PDF, HTML, etc.

4) I run Mathematica and Matlab on occasion, which have (cheap!) Linux student versions.

5) I do 3D modeling, and SideFX has an Apprentice version of Houdini available for Linux.

Other than that, I do the same stuff everyone else does. I listen to MP3s on JuK (a KDE jukebox), I talk with my friends on AIM, send funny pictures over the school network, the usual. Since I'm used to Linux, and not very used to Windows (I stopped using it around when XP came out) my workflow is a lot faster, and the tweekability of KDE allows me to optimize the computer to my work habits much more than I can in Windows.

--
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Re:Beh by Diabolical · 2003-04-14 01:20 · Score: 1

Why bother? You seem to have your mind made up allready.

If you are not interested in an environment which is more stable, faster, gets the most out of your hardware then why would i put my time into converting you. If you are only interested in using name brand software (Adobe and Macromedia are) then hey, please stay with your current setup.

If you would like to explore new ways, tools and software and if you aren't afraid of investing time into learning new tricks then i would probably invite you to give the new versions of the popular distro's a look. But not until then.

Most of us started out with little or no knowledge besides windows/dos/mac. But eventually we learned . Either through trial and error, reading books or asking for help from those "in the know". It's all a matter of wanting to know, not being forced to do so.
Re:Beh by xanadu-xtroot.com · 2003-04-14 01:28 · Score: 1

I have to reboot my work PC every few days, and I lose 15 mins waiting for it to come up.

Days?!? Dude, and I'm not exagrating, I have to reboot my XP machine every few hours most days. I hibernate it to take it home at night, but usually still endup rebooting when I bring it out of hibernation in the morning.

This Linux (Gentoo / KDE3.1) box has been running for the better part of a month (I rebooted to test one of Linus' dev kernels).

~~~

If you have two or more machines in the house, and you don't have a separate box as an internet gateway / fileserver / printserver etc, you don't know the convenience you're missing.

I couldn't agree with you more, brother. And especially when that gateway / fileserver / printserver is running a tight (and REAL!) firewall and a fast as hell machine (meant as REALLY low overhead), it's really nice. My parents are finding this out. Long story short, When I lived there, My machine was the Gateway, et al. Now that they have a dumb '98 machine that they use to dial-out to teh internet, they are really starting to see all the shit that most Win* users (and myself and other *NIX heads talk about) that Win* users think is "normal". All teh net send spam that's going around, all the pop-ups, the mails spam, etc. If I had a spare macine (that I don't use for beating up testing distros and such... :-) ), I'd slap it in the basement over there so they can go back to being secure, as well as reduce the annoyance factor, again. They had to reinstall '98 this past weekend apperently. This is the 3rd or 4th time in about as many weeks. heh...

~~~

You're not using the same as what everyone else is using. This is the biggest problem.

I don't know that I agree with this. So Someone IM'ing me some .VBS file won't run on my Gentoo box? Boy, that does suck... :-)

--
I'm not a prophet or a stone-age man,
I'm just a mortal with potential of a super man.
Re:Beh by empathy808 · 2003-04-14 01:55 · Score: 1

Hmm.. seems I made some linux lovers a little unhappy with my comments. I'm not trolling. I'd like to know how to use linux. But I'd like to have a reason to learn it. I'm sure I could manage to get it up and running, but beyond that its likely to just gather dust.
Some of this 'brand name software' has a pretty steep learning curve. Spending a few more years learning similiar programs - which in the best case scenario could do exactly what I can do now - doesn't sound all that appealing.
So far the best reason seems to be learn it now so that if/when stability/speed/security start to matter to me, I will already be comfortable in the OS.
I'd simply like to have a practical use for linux.
Thank you to those who answered my questions without getting tetchy about it.
Re:Beh by empathy808 · 2003-04-14 01:59 · Score: 1

Hey flamebait, you're posting on the wrong website Ahh. But if I was after 1001 good reasons to use linux, shouldn't slashdot be the perfect site for me? Learning is all good, but applying the knowledge to achieve something I consider productive would be a whole lot better.
Re:Beh by SCHecklerX · 2003-04-14 02:25 · Score: 1

But I'm not sure what the point would be. Once you took away all of my Adobe/Macromedia programs and my Win32 Quake 3, there isn't a whole lot appealing about running a *nix

In my experience, quake 3 runs much better under linux than it ever did in windoze. If you aren't willing to learn just a little bit, and understand the reasons for using linux over that other OS, that's too bad for you. I prefer to be productive with my machines, rather than me having to serve them. This is why I use linux, and before that OS/2. I've been windoze free since 1994.
Once you understand how to use the tool (linux is a tool, nothing more), you would realize that it is much more powerful, easier to use, easier to maintain and easier to customize to specific tasks than windoze can ever hope to be.
Re:Beh by quantum+bit · 2003-04-14 02:42 · Score: 1

I have to reboot my XP machine every few hours most days.

Dude, what did you do to that poor XP box? Granted, I hate XP's interface and will never use it, but it is based on the NT kernel. My coworker's Win2k box is up to 52 days uptime, and is neck-and-neck with my FreeBSD 5.0 desktop in our uptime battle. I managed to hit 120 days once in Win2k back when I ran it on my desktop -- his record is 97.

I can't imagine XP being that much worse.
Re:Beh by empathy808 · 2003-04-14 02:58 · Score: 1

Ok then. If I were to say whats a good starting distro I'd get 500 different answers wouldn't I? Downloading them is a bit of an issue. On cable. I can download 5gig before I'm capped to 20Kbits/sec. And of course I'm n00b. Once I'm running, what should I check out program wise? Who can I blame when I break everything? ;)
Re:Beh by Glamdrlng · 2003-04-14 03:05 · Score: 1

Against my better judgement, I'll bite. You really do seem like you're trolling, but I have a few minutes to kill this morning. In fact, because I'm in such a good mood, I'll even explain why so many people are giving you flack in this thread, just in case you don't already know. Then I'll include a few reasons to consider a linux platform.
First, the flack: You're asking a robust community a very simple question to which you could easily get a plethora of answers. This is akin to asking every professor in the math department of a university what 2+2 is.
This is actually one of the more annoying characteristics of many (but not all) windows users, not to mention non-geeks in general: an overall lack of resourcefulness. You want the answers to all of life's questions handed to you. When something doesn't work, you steadfastly refuse to think beyond "I clicked here and it didn't work. I clicked here again, and it still didn't work. It must be broke!
For the record, the bullets that I'm copying and pasting from http://linux-newbie.sunsite.dk are from the first search result on a google search for "linux benefits". With that, here are a few reasons to consider a linux platform:
A modern, very stable, multi-user, multitasking environment on your inexpensive PC hardware, at no (or almost no) monetary cost for the software. Linux is a rich and powerful platform--don't think of it as a "poor people" operating system. Out-of-box Linux has as much capability as MS Windows NT with $5000 in software add-ons, is more stable, and requires less powerful hardware for comparable tasks.
Standard platform. Linux is VERY standard--it is essentially a POSIX compliant UNIX. (Yes, Linux is a best-of-the-breed UNIX. The word "UNIX" is not used in conjunction with Linux because "UNIX" is a registered trademark.) Linux includes all the UNIX standard tools and utilities.
Unsurpassed computing power, portability, and flexibility. A Linux cluster recently (April 1999) beat a Cray supercomputer in a standard benchmark. Linux is most popular on Intel-based PCs (price of the hardware), but it runs very well on numerous other hardware platforms, from toy-like to mainframes. One distribution (Debian) expresses the idea like this: "Linux, The Universal Operating System." Linux can be customized to perform almost any computing task.
Advanced graphical user interface. Linux uses a standard, network-transparent X-windowing system with a "window manager" (typically KDE or GNOME).
Dozens of excellent, free, general-interest desktop applications. This include a range of web browsers, email programs, word processors, spreadsheets, bitmap and vector graphics programs, file managers, audio players, CD writers, some games, etc.
Thousands of free applets, tools, and smaller programs. "Small is beautiful" goes well with Linux philosophy. The small Linux tools and applets often work in tandem to perform more complex tasks.
Hundreds of specialized applications built by researchers around the world (astronomy, information technology, chemistry, physics, engineering, linguistics, biology, ...). In many fields, Linux seems like "the only" operating system in existence (try to find out what your friend astronomer runs on her computer). The software in this category is typically not very easy to use, but if you want the power, it is the best software that humanity has in these areas. Doubtful? Have a look at: http://SAL.KachinaTech.COM/Z/2/index.shtml for examples.
Scores of top-of-the line commercial programs including all the big databases (e.g., Oracle, Sybase, but no Microsoft's). Many (most?) of these are offered free for developers and for personal

--

Yes, my only tool is a hammer. And you're starting to look like a nail.
Re:Beh by penguinrenegade · 2003-04-14 03:14 · Score: 1

Empathy808 - you can send me an e-mail at dot.slash.rus@spamgourmet.com and I'll help you get converted to Lycoris.
Re:Beh by xanadu-xtroot.com · 2003-04-14 03:18 · Score: 1

I can't imagine XP being that much worse.

Two things:

I (personally) freakin' HATE the Luna garbage. I put in "Calssic" mode.
Yes, XP is indeed that much worse.
I'm not that much of a Win* fan these days, but I still will always say (and I have a lot of people that will say the same thing, and no, they aren't *NIX heads), w2k was the best thing they EVER put out. I REALLY miss using w2k. I never had any severe prblems with it and I've been using it since Beta-2 (that MCSP subscription used to be REALLY nice... :-)). XP is indeed crap. It feels like '95a did. It was pushed out of the house before it was ready.

--
I'm not a prophet or a stone-age man,
I'm just a mortal with potential of a super man.
Re:Beh by zog+karndon · 2003-04-14 04:39 · Score: 1

Development tools are better on Linux? Obviously you've never used Visual Studio for any length of time. GDB/Insight is such a pain in the ass that I can't imagine anybody using it for any length of time.

Hmm. Maybe that's why all the linux devs say that they use printf() for debugging....

Where are the conditional breakpoints? Where are the data breakpoints? Where are the variable inspectors?

On VS 2002/2003, you've even got decent interlanguage and inter-host debugging. Step from ASP to VB to C++.

I've never seen anybody do that with GDB.
Re:Beh by TheNetAvenger · 2003-04-14 05:52 · Score: 1

Days?!? Dude, and I'm not exagrating, I have to reboot my XP machine every few hours most days

Dude if that is the case you have serious Hardware problem.

Been running XP since Beta 1, and the ONLY crashes our tech team have seen is hardware related.

And I'm not talking about one computer, think 100s that are tested and used hard.
Re:Beh by TheNetAvenger · 2003-04-14 06:02 · Score: 1

Two issues with your statement...

#1) Stability, Win2k And XP simply don't crash unless there is a hardware problem or a really bad driver for some crap hardware. I have 200mhz Laptop that has been run Win2K Beta 1 since 1997 (yes 1997) and the only time it has EVER crashed when I a tech accidentally popped the hard drive out.

#2) Remote administration. Windows has a better implementation that you realize. Just because it doesn't have the 'network GUI' XWindows, doesn't mean that the NT OS was not designed for multi-user and remote access. Just to name a couple of the 'lacking remote admin features': Remote Desktop, Remote Registry, Remote Computer Management, Automated Active Directory, Automated Network Install of OS and Applicaitons, Domain Policies, and even Telnet.
Re:Beh by Cro+Magnon · 2003-04-14 06:33 · Score: 1

Reasons to use Linux:

1. Security. Linux is much more secure than any Windows OS.

2. Stability. My NT4 box at work crashes several times a week. The old Win95 box crashed several times a DAY! My Linux box at home hasn't crashed in YEARS!

3. Price. Although Windows itself comes with your PC, Windows software does not! I don't remember exactly what Office costs these days, but it's WAY more than Star Office. And Open Office is FREE!

4. Fun. You don't sound like someone who would appriciate the fun part of Linux, but I included it anyway.

--
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
Re:Beh by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-14 06:53 · Score: 0

No reason to convert you really. It all depends upon what you use your system for.

Many people don't care to constantly tinker with their systems, max them out as fast as possible, and would rather focus on using a computer instead of sucking up free time for them. In that case, operating systems like Windows or even a Mac (if you feel so inclined) are perfect. They do the job, you don't have to mess with it (unless there's a problem), they are supported by nearly all companys.

So yes, I understand your arguement pefectly. The same arguement can be made for anything. Why code in notepad or vi when you can use dreamweaver, for example? It's all a matter of personal preference. Sure you can learn Linux if you want to learn about security, don't feel like paying for programs (although who does now adays) or maybe want to play with something different, but to be honest if you have everything you need on your OS don't bother. People don't use Linux unless they a) know something about computers, b) have plenty of time to spare (you might as well forget about a social life until you learn it), and c) are very very patient. It's tough to learn for someone coming from another computing environment or maybe isn't technically inclined (which is 90% of the people online). However, for the right types of applications and people, it's very useful.

Good luck,

ShadowEyes.
Re:Beh by steve's+nose+is+blee · 2003-04-14 09:13 · Score: 1

Just to name a couple of the 'lacking remote admin features': Remote Desktop, Remote Registry, Remote Computer Management,

I dual boot w2k and mandrake 9.1 and being something of a windows guru and a *NIX n00b let me point out that those "features" you're sporting are also turned on by default leaving you wide open to your "friends" messing with your system from the safety and convienence of their home.
Re:Beh by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-14 09:35 · Score: 0

I agree that VS has the best debugger that I have ever used. But guess what, you saying that printf's are wrong and that a debugger is better is purely a matter of preference and also of application. I haven't done any programming on windows for a bit over a year now. What do I use? Emacs and a terminal with printf's, cout, print's and System.out.println. Just because a debugger is nice doesn't make it the only way nor the best.
Re:Beh by timmyf2371 · 2003-04-14 09:46 · Score: 1

1. Security. Linux is much more secure than any Windows OS.
A properly configured Windows box is more secure than a badly configured Linux box - it all depends on the user.

--

Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (P)anic
Re:Beh by anarxia · 2003-04-14 10:23 · Score: 1

You are right you do need a good motive other than the l33tness factor. Set up a dual boot configuration and play with linux whenever you feel like it. It takes some time to get used to it, so don't expect to get comfortable from the 1st week. After some months you can make a good decision if Linux is better for you rather than relying on rumors. Make sure you try more than one distro. I suggest you at least try Debian, Mandrake and RH or one of their variants.
Re:Beh by be-fan · 2003-04-14 12:14 · Score: 1

I've used VB for several years. While Visual Studio has a good debugger, there is nothing I need that gdb doesn't do. Beyond that, I do C++, and Visual C++ 6.x is just borked when it comes to standards complience. All the debugging in the world won't help you if it doesn't compile. Now, VS 2003 should fix most issues, but g++ has been very complient for years now, and VS 2003 isn't even out yet.

--
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Re:Beh by bhtooefr · 2003-04-14 12:32 · Score: 1

Stability: (this is scary) RARELY does my Win95B laptop crash (even individual programs). Granted, my Win98SE desktop crashed at least once a day (until the PSU went out, that is), and the WinXPPro boxes at my school crash once a week (the OS, too - damn buggy Sega Genesis and Super Nintendo emulators).
Security: Got me there. Windows security SUCKS! Although, ZoneAlarm is a GREAT Windows firewall...
Remote Admin: Why? XP has Remote Assistance, and when I need to add users to my school's network, I use Remote Desktop Connection to access the server, rather than go down to the first floor of the school (I'm usually on the third floor).
Networking: The only networking problems I've had are when the hub gets unplugged (the damn bastards need to watch their feet) and when the ISP went down.
Price: DAMN! Our old sysadmin pirated everything too!
Re:Beh by abirdman · 2003-04-14 14:04 · Score: 1

That was awesome. Thanks for all the typing. If I wasn't already a member of the choir, I would be after reading that.

--
Everything I've ever learned the hard way was based on a statistically invalid sample.
Re:Beh by TheNetAvenger · 2003-04-15 08:54 · Score: 1

let me point out that those "features" you're sporting are also turned on by default leaving you wide open to your "friends" messing with your system from the safety and convienence of their home.

Yeah, if you give them your password...

Security is only as good as the physical access to the equipment, the idiots holding the passwords, and the need to access the 'top secret data'.

I love how everyone thinks the data on the PC is so top secret that someone would actually take the time to hack into it. Sorry, but I have no desire to see your donkey porn collection.

BTW Remote Desktop is not turned on by default, and the other two need administrator privledges to access.

Geesh.
Re:Beh by steve's+nose+is+blee · 2003-04-15 10:59 · Score: 1

Yeah, if you give them your password...

As you pointed out password security is only as good as the "idiot" that makes it up.

I love how everyone thinks the data on the PC is so top secret that someone would actually take the time to hack into it. Sorry, but I have no desire to see your donkey porn collection.

Who said you had to have valuable information to be a target, ANYONE is a target to the right audience. A home system connected to broadband is a very convienient target, most home users have no idea how to protect themselves or how to strike back. And while you may not have sensitive info to steal, it's a PITA to restore your system when you weren't planning any downtime.

BTW Remote Desktop is not turned on by default,

I beg to differ, remote assistance IS turned on by default on a fresh XP install, and while that only allows the home user to "request assistance" how hard is it to code an app that will use the os's hoooks and send itself a request?

and the other two need administrator privledges to access
We already talked about passwords didn't we?? Further study, search for L0phtCrack on google. l0phtcrack [Google]
Re:Beh by TheNetAvenger · 2003-04-15 21:10 · Score: 1

BTW Remote Desktop is not turned on by default,

I beg to differ, remote assistance IS turned on by default on a fresh XP install, and while that only allows the home user to "request assistance" how hard is it to code an app that will use the os's hoooks and send itself a request?

Beg all you want...

Remote assistance is NOT ALWAYS running, the client has to be initiated by the user at the console and then be VERIFIED to give the user access to the system. It is not left running. Period.

Even if you could script a virus to TURN on the Remote Assistance Client and get into the Remote assistance screen, all you could do is see the screen.

Remote assistance and Remote Desktop use TWO different implementations and are not the same thing at ALL.

Remote assistance uses the applicaiton sharing modules that were originally a part of netmeeting and Remote Desktop uses Terminal Services technology.

Next time do some homework before you decide to give another pronouncement of your superior understanding.

As for hacking the XP password, give me a break.

Getting past kerbos and the password encryption in XP is not something that is as easy as you make it sound.

If you want to get into a non-secure OS like Win98, then you have a chance. But unless you have physical access to a Win2K/XP machine, you better have some processing power and a few years to devote to getting the password.

From experience, in emergency support cases for corporations, cracking into a UNIX box is far easier than a NT box, and you must have physical access to the NT/XP box.

Once again you know very little about this subject, so lets just move on. Ok?
Re:Beh by steve's+nose+is+blee · 2003-04-16 03:44 · Score: 1

I'll admit I know very little about remote desktop and assistance, so if you're happy in your assurance that it's 100% secure and can never be cracked more power to you, I hope you sleep well at night.

As for your claim that XP passwords are secure, hmmm, well, I'd agree with you but I just can't. You see, I work for a large network, and we DO use strong passwords as policy, and that site I pointed you to above does a great job from anywhere in your network grabbing user names and passwords from a 2000/xp box, an NT workstation, your PDC if you're still using one (we are) any of your servers, or from the AD controller.

Years of my life, sheesh, how about a boring weekend? This is also true if you have SYSKEY installed, Physical access? Nah, maybe to the network, oh, what's that?? You have wifi in your network, ok, I just need to be close to your network.

If you want to claim your network is secure using microsoft products, hell if you want to claim it's secure using anything, be my guest, have a nice life.

Steve
Re:Beh by TheNetAvenger · 2003-04-16 15:45 · Score: 1

If you want to claim your network is secure using microsoft products, hell if you want to claim it's secure using anything, be my guest, have a nice life.

Finally we agree... Complete security is not something that will ever be possible with ANY OS. Dogging Linux, Windows, or Macs become pretty irrelevant, they all have vulnerabilities, even if they are not yet known.

No I don't put complete faith Microsoft's Security implementation any more than I would a Linux or other UNIX box.

There are so many factors to security, even a strong OS that was built with security at its core like NT and Unix can be a pawn of a hacker.

Thanks for the debate and take care,
The Net Avenger

Supportless Linux by lateralus · 2003-04-13 23:51 · Score: 5, Insightful

My father runs Linux at home and is as happy as can be. The only reason this situation exists is that I SSH into his machine every week and build/fix/configure/backup whatever is wrong or out of date.

I'm happy he runs Linux. He's happy that his box magically updates without him every seeing or doing anything. This is the kind of hands off tech support I like to get from my plumber, mechanic and company IT department. Why shouldn't the end user enjoy this model as well? I could theoretically fix and update a dozen Linux boxes per day through SSH. A room full of geeks could take care of hundreds a day.

Anyone can run Linux if they have a dedicated geek or live support contract. Currently the clueless have only geeks to turn to. With a company that does everything (I repeat: everything) through live support there can be a Linux box anywhere anytime.

Companies are not leveraging Linux's remote access abilities for the end users. This gives the user a perfect box an a constant stream of cash for the support company. Most will not care if you log into a part of their system and do a weekly fix/backup/upgrade as long as you present it in the right way. The privacy concern is no greater than giving your box to a computer shop for a couple of day.

I doubt that any given mob of customers can be more difficult and demanding than my dad, but I guess we all feel like that sometimes.

The above model is actually taking place right now. How many of you log into another Linux box and fix it every week? All I'm suggesting is to put a bunch of us in the same room while we do it and place a company logo outside the door.

The above idea has some obvious problems with it but I'd like to think that what we all do for our families family could possibly scale.

--
If you outlaw the law, only criminals will have laws

Re:Supportless Linux by RAMMS+EIN · 2003-04-14 00:38 · Score: 1

...and I thought the beauty of Linux was that it _didn't_ need weekly fixen because the registry got messed up. Besides, what do you do if the box breaks in such a way that you can't SSH to it anymore? I know, that will still only as bad as a Windows box where anything breaks, namely you have to provide on site support. However, I think your story sounds all wrong. One of the gripes people have with Linux is that they can't go about installing and tweaking, which they can on Windows. Your remote maintanance makes that worse rather than better, IMHO.

---
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
-- H.L. Mencken

--
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
Re:Supportless Linux by lateralus · 2003-04-14 01:08 · Score: 2, Interesting

We have a misunderstanding. For the geek "broken" means one thing and for the would be live support client it would mean something else completely. When my father's computer needs fixing it means that he has an rpm dependency problem, wants Sorenson for his Xine or wants new fonts copied into the right directory. These things are very simple to a geek and would not be classified as a fault or instability.

The end user usually can not and should not have to deal with these issues. The automation of these simple tasks usually creates more trouble by introducing a vastly more complex layer of GUI above simple software that really works.

and I thought the beauty of Linux was that it _didn't_ need weekly fixen because the registry got messed up.

The registry really doesn't get messed up but from my father's viewpoint there is no noticeable difference. How can he tell the difference between the registry messing up the sound and Redhat not including mp3 support (real example). He simply noticed that the sound was not working and therefore for all intents and purposes "broken". It took me 5 minutes with SSH and Lynx to download and install it for him one night.

This distinction is crucial. The very fact that you mix the two levels of proficiency mirrors the corporate stance. The would be company will be free from fixing really broken (geek level broken) machines and will deal with fonts, installation of newer software and such. It's Linux's reliability that makes such an enterprise plausible. When I log into my dad's machine I'm never looking for kernel errors and the uptime is usually measure of time between power failures.

--
If you outlaw the law, only criminals will have laws
Re:Supportless Linux by Hard_Code · 2003-04-14 01:23 · Score: 0, Flamebait

I SSH into his machine every week and build/fix/configure/backup whatever is wrong or out of date.

This is the kind of hands off tech support I like to get from my plumber, mechanic and company IT department.
HUH? Logging in weekly to "build/fix/configure/backup whatever is wrong" is "hands off"?

All I'm suggesting is to put a bunch of us in the same room while we do it and place a company logo outside the door.
My god, what a hideous hideous failure of technology. "LINUX IS GREAT (except you have to hire a bunch of geeks to log in weekly to fix it)". And we wonder why there is little mainstream desktop adoption...

--

It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Re:Supportless Linux by bruthasj · 2003-04-14 01:47 · Score: 2, Interesting

The difference is that you know it's in the shop for a couple of days, but you don't know who or when someone is crawling around their computer via the Internet. (Unless your dad knows w, who, last or lastlogin and /var/log/secure, etc.) There's a blame factor here, too. If it's in someone's shop, it better be secured, or it's their fault. How do you draw the same analogy over to the Internet and this service?

I had this problem with one of my customer's. We have a multi-million dollar software package that is supported via a dial-up modem. I could neither successfully convince them to get broadband, nor could I convince them to leave the modem on all the time. With broadband, they were concerned with trying to push the idea with their own IT dept, who in turn want control over everything and ensure crackers do not get in. With leaving the modem all the time, the customer wanted to know when we logged in and did stuff. It's a control thing, but usually only comes up when mysterious things happen that we say is not our fault.

Anyway, if you have some answers to these, I would be most greatful to hear!
Re:Supportless Linux by xanadu-xtroot.com · 2003-04-14 01:58 · Score: 1

I think you're either trolling, making bad jokes, or just un-informed (tm).

I thought the beauty of Linux was that it _didn't_ need weekly fixen because the registry got messed up.

Beside the obvious troll of the registry comment (since there isn't one), Yea. For the most part, you are exactly right. No one is perfect. There are "oops" things that make it's way into ANY program on ANY platform. We all know who is the leader in that department, however...

~~~

what do you do if the box breaks in such a way that you can't SSH to it anymore?

Ummm... he makes a road-trip home and gets a non Ramen Pride or TV dinner meal for a change? And depending on his parents, he might get a couple free beers out of the deal too. I see nothing wrong in the whole situation. :-)

~~~

One of the gripes people have with Linux is that they can't go about installing and tweaking, which they can on Windows.

Damn, now it really looks like I did feed a troll... Aside, it doesn't even sound like you even use "Linux". OK, so let's say that the system is THAT messed up and needs to be "re-installed" (I've only had that situation twice, but that was about 5 years ago or so when I was a totall *NIX n00b (tm)), the OP sounds like he has a pretty decent brain in his head. I HIGHLY doubt that his Dad would lose anything. That's *WHY* you put /home on a different mount point (or better yet, another physical drive. I learned my lesson on that one this past summer when a Drive died...). You just re-install and don't format /home. Bingo. 45 mins later (depending on your distro) you're back up and running and have lost NOTHING. Not even your choice of screen saver or color sheme or anything minor like that that the (L)users look for when they re-install Windows. Try that trick on Win*. It's not possible.

I'm not saying "Linux" is perfect, and I'm not saying KDE is either (my personal prefered desktop), but what I'm saying is that it's really hard to beat. I think only Apple can wear that crown (man I wish I could afford a Jaguar box...). And... oh... wait... It's *NIX based now. Hmmm... I guess that leaves BillyG all alone now... (just a personal kick :-) ).

Thanx for the time to rant. :-)

--
I'm not a prophet or a stone-age man,
I'm just a mortal with potential of a super man.
Re:Supportless Linux by lateralus · 2003-04-14 02:21 · Score: 1

"With broadband, they were concerned with trying to push the idea with their own IT dept..."
I cannot follow the logic behind the IT department issue. My company does not deal primarily over the Internet and yet we have tens of different services running software in and out of corporate ports. We have Citrix and different VPNs running all the time. We have people dialing into their accounts from abroad 24 hours a day. Almost all the routers and hubs accept remote administration. Where do you think the vast and overwhelming majority of security issues lie? Emails of course! While one hacker is trying to jump through the corporate firewall through an open port two scores of infected Emails are being opened by the end users. Every user clicks away at javascripts and VM apps without discretion every day and the IT department is usually working hard just keeping everyones global time synced in MS Outlook for meeting and conference calls.

How many break ins through SSH? Asymptotic to zero I presume, barring stupid passwords and their ilk. I really don't have the numbers so please take that as my opinion only.

I remain unconvinced that a modern sizable company is afraid of having a port open. How do they deal with the rest of the gamut and why should this service be any different? Never heard of the concept behind "unpriveledged account"? People read off their Web servers every day using one. It probably boils down to being afraid of the wording "remote administration". If it were dressed up as a Fancy GUI with a name like "your screen away from home V7.0 professional" they would probably feel allot better (at least thats what happens in our company).

--
If you outlaw the law, only criminals will have laws
Re:Supportless Linux by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-14 03:13 · Score: 0

My father runs Linux at home and is as happy as can be. The only reason this situation exists is that I SSH into his machine every week and build/fix/configure/backup whatever is wrong or out of date.
you're not alone. i do the same with my mother's computer. works great.
Re:Supportless Linux by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-14 03:32 · Score: 0

I thought the beauty of Linux was that it _didn't_ need weekly fixen because the registry got messed up. Beside the obvious troll of the registry comment (since there isn't one), Yea.

He's not a troll. You're simply illiterate.
Re:Supportless Linux by PD · 2003-04-14 03:53 · Score: 2, Interesting

Windows needs the same kind of tender loving care. One time my Dad was using his PC in safe mode for 6 months before he had someone take a look at it. If he was running Linux I could have fixed it remotely.

--
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
Re:Supportless Linux by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-14 04:43 · Score: 0

You're suggesting that "fixen" is a word. And no, I'm not illiterate. However, I see your point, AC. He was indeed saying that because "of the lack of the "Registry", Linux shouldn't need ROUTINE maintenance?" is more what he was asking/saying. Either way, it's still a troll-ish statement. Anyone with half-a-brain in their head knows that ANYTHING needs maintenance from time to time (and that doesn't even apply to computers - When did you change teh oil in your car last? Oh. I thought today's cars were better - but you still have to cahnge the oil. OK... Hmmm...). You could just hit NetCraft though and see for yourself which is the more reliable OS...
Re:Supportless Linux by RAMMS+EIN · 2003-04-14 04:51 · Score: 1

Ouch. I'd better wear asbestos next time.
``I thought the beauty of Linux was that it _didn't_ need weekly fixen because the registry got messed up.

Beside the obvious troll of the registry comment (since there isn't one)''
Ok, I should have been clearer. I know Linux doesn't have a monstrosity like the Windows registry. My comment was sarcastic, hinting at the fact that Windows needs regular fixing because its registry gets clobbered. In Linux, it never gets that bad, AFAIK, although people can get pretty panicky over broken mailcap files.

``One of the gripes people have with Linux is that they can't go about installing and tweaking, which they can on Windows.

Damn, now it really looks like I did feed a troll...''
Makes me wanna scream YHBT YHL HAND!

Seriously, I know that Linux is one of the major tinkering systems, and Windows's complexity and closedness practically make it impossible to do anything meaningful with it (from a hacker's pov), but keep in mind that we're talking about Real Users here. Everything they know relates to Windows. On a decent system, they get Permission denied for everything. Or they run their machines as root, and mess them up, after which Linux gets messier than Windows ever was (remember that Unix was not designed to prevent you from doing stupid things).

``That's *WHY* you put /home on a different mount point (or better yet, another physical drive. I learned my lesson on that one this past summer when a Drive died...). You just re-install and don't format /home. Bingo. 45 mins later (depending on your distro) you're back up and running and have lost NOTHING. Not even your choice of screen saver or color sheme or anything minor like that that the (L)users look for when they re-install Windows. Try that trick on Win*. It's not possible.''
You are mistaken. WIndows does not do this for you by default, but it is perfectly possible to put the personal files and settings on a different partition. If you use NTFS, you also get file permissions, increasing security a whole lot. Of course, real security is not for Windows users, but it's not as bad as it used to be.

---
You are in a maze of twisted little characters, all different.
-- Inglorion, while learding chinese

--
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
Re:Supportless Linux by Soko · 2003-04-14 04:58 · Score: 2, Funny

Companies are not leveraging Linux's remote access abilities for the end users. This gives the user a perfect box an a constant stream of cash for the support company. Most will not care if you log into a part of their system and do a weekly fix/backup/upgrade as long as you present it in the right way. The privacy concern is no greater than giving your box to a computer shop for a couple of day.

OMG, imagine the possibilities!

_BOFH_Mode=ON_
SCANNING...
open /home/victoria/MyPics/me&jennie.PNG
+gulp+
"Hmmm mrrrr..."
Clickety-Click".
Heh.
*RINGRING*
"Hi, this is Victoria. My machine seems to be broken. Any idea what happened? I realise it's late..."
"Oh, Hi, Victoria. Shame you're having trouble. Let me see here....Yup. Can't log in - seems dead."
"Oh no. Jenny and I are here in our PJs studying for our "Human Sexuality" final exam tomorrow. In our PJs..."
"I'll be right there..."

>:-]

Soko

--
"Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
Re:Supportless Linux by umoto · 2003-04-14 05:27 · Score: 1

To avoid the need for your customer to leave the modem connected all the time (and to get through firewalls, etc), you need to get the customer's computer to originate a TCP connection that lets you tunnel an SSH connection from your system back to the customer. I haven't heard of anyone doing this, but it should be possible.

Now, I doubt you really want to perform upgrades without the customers' knowledge. The mysterious nature of that arrangement could lead them to blame anything out of the ordinary on you. Instead, send them an email requesting that they leave the modem connected for a certain period. If you have to connect frequently, ask that they allow the computer to phone home on a regular basis, but make sure they know exactly what your schedule is.
Re:Supportless Linux by xanadu-xtroot.com · 2003-04-14 05:59 · Score: 1

Ok, I should have been clearer. I know Linux doesn't have a monstrosity like the Windows registry. My comment was sarcastic, hinting at the fact that Windows needs regular fixing because its registry gets clobbered.

I was the AC that replied to the AC that replied to my comment. I realized I didn't read your comment right. I agree with you though, the registry is a really Bad Idea (tm)... I'm sorry that I didn't read your comment right the first time and gave kind of a knee-jerk reaction to it.

~~~

Everything they know relates to Windows. On a decent system, they get Permission denied for everything. Or they run their machines as root, and mess them up, after which Linux gets messier than Windows ever was (remember that Unix was not designed to prevent you from doing stupid things).

Yes. I agree with this. As much as I TRULY like working in a more *NIX-ish enviroment, it does indeed have it's short-commings. If someone is logged in to X as root and right-clicks /usr and accidentally chooses Delete...
Can you say Hiroshima?

--
I'm not a prophet or a stone-age man,
I'm just a mortal with potential of a super man.

The biggest hurdle to the Linux desktop... by ites · 2003-04-13 23:52 · Score: 2, Insightful

... is the attitude of Linux purists whenever a company releases something designed for the masses. Face it: any product that will be acceptable to the hundreds of millions of desktop Windows users is going to *have* to be dumbed down, commercial, and over-prettified. Something like Lindows.

--
Sig for sale or rent. One previous user. Inquire within.

Re:The biggest hurdle to the Linux desktop... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-14 00:37 · Score: 0

...attitude of Linux purists... desktop Windows users is going to *have* to be dumbed down...

You sure don't have that negative attitude...
Re:The biggest hurdle to the Linux desktop... by antiMStroll · 2003-04-14 03:23 · Score: 1

Please make my day and back that up this time. All the Lycoris slams I read before your post were from Windows users. Show me the 'Linux purist' in contact with regular users advising them not to use Lycoris. You can't because they don't exist. Your post is just another of the false, ad hominem Windows trolls that makes Slashdot so much less than it used to be.
Re:The biggest hurdle to the Linux desktop... by ites · 2003-04-14 03:53 · Score: 1

To be accurate, my comment was based on responses I've seen from many people - on and off /. - to Lindows, not Lycoris. A definite elitist sense that populism OS somehow devalues Linux. Now, I'm a Linux user since early Slackware days, but this lack of empathy with the bulk of PC users, who simply want something that will install by itself, put the most important icons large and friendly on the desktop, not show a single message unless something is actually wrong, automatically configure its network, allow them to update software easily,... it's a problem in itself.
I was not trolling. Most of the criticism of Lindows (again, just taking an example I know) was along the lines that it does not make its source code available, that it runs as root, and that it looks too much like WindowsXP. Nothing about 'does it actually work, if you give it to a naive user'. Nothing about 'my mother has tried it and found the icons too confusing'.
The standard of constructive criticism is that it leads the discussion in a positive direction. My point is that too much of the discussion around Linux consumer distributions is patronising and irrelevant and act as a barrier in itself.

--
Sig for sale or rent. One previous user. Inquire within.

Slashdot announcing beta of niche Distro? by Ur@eus · 2003-04-13 23:53 · Score: 0

I think Slashdot gets to close to freshmeat.net when
the editors feel that the BETA of a small and trivial linux distro is a good news story. Consider that the betas of Red Hat, Mandrake and Suse are not considered news I can't see why the beta of obscuris
is considering headline news.

Re:ENOUGH! by krray · 2003-04-13 23:55 · Score: 2, Interesting

Yet Winodws has taken the greater market share on the desktop and continued to do so (up until now it seems :).

There aren't too many flavors of Windows that cause major problems for business' and home users alike?

Let's -- forgetting Windows 3.1 and Windows for Workgroups 3.11 we now have in the wilds and widely used: Windows 95, Windows 95B, Windows 95C, Windows 98, Windows 98se, Windows 98Bse, Windows NT 4.5x, Windows NT 5.x, Windows Me (how many builds?), Windows 2000 Home Edition, Windows 2000 Professional, Windows XP Home Edition, Windows XP Professional. The sad thing is that I know I missed many releases.

And yes, even for Windows I too can get 10 different programs (free) that do A-B-C in functionality -- but none of them do it 100%. Heck, this is true for very expensive programs like Microsoft Word, Microsoft Excel, Microsoft Money, Microsoft Project, etc...

"What's more important, diversity or quality?" you asked. Obviously diversity will lead to qualityy as we've tried it the other way for the last decade+ and where IS the quality with Windows so far???

Acceptance by rf0 · 2003-04-13 23:55 · Score: 4, Insightful

Not trolling but what I think people would expect:

I like to see thing that will help Linux be accept by the masses but what I would want to make sure that any Linux distro should be able to do the following without me having to open a command window

Open MS Office files
Play games
Surf the net

As much a M$ might be a monopoly they have spent millions on the UI which works for 95% of the people 95% of the time. Why would someone accept anything less even if it a 1/3 or the price? I use Linux all the time and its great, but would my dad? Don't think so

Rus

--
Cheap UK and US VPS

Re:Acceptance by penguinrenegade · 2003-04-14 04:44 · Score: 1

Rus - (that's also my name, same spelling!!)

Why don't you try Lycoris for your dad? e-mail me at dot.slash.penguinrenegade@spamgourmet.com and I'll help get you going.

Lycoris DOES have the ability to open MS Office Files, play games (Over 150 Windows games under TransGaming/WineX through the GamePak), and surf the Net - Mozilla, Konquerer. It's aimed more squarely at mom & pop, but does give the flexibility of the CLI ONLY if you wish! A GREAT starter Linux system.

Again, e-mail me and I'll answer anything.

Rus
Re:Acceptance by ralico · 2003-04-14 04:45 · Score: 1

I don't recall hearing the company, Lycoris, before. When I read the title it made me think of a mouthwash (then a candy).

So will this be the great mouthwash for people to wash the taste of windows out?

--

SCO to Hell
Re:Acceptance by ndogg · 2003-04-14 07:06 · Score: 1

No, it doesn't work for 95% of the people. 95% of people happen to understand how it works, and they take advantage of that.

--
// file: mice.h
#include "frickin_lasers.h"
Re:Acceptance by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-14 12:34 · Score: 0

It used to be named 'Redmond Linux'.
Re:Acceptance by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-14 12:39 · Score: 0

And 95% of the people in the United States speak english, so what?

It is called a common frame of reference, and contrary to popular Linux Geek belief the consumers actually like that. The average ordinary computer user wants to be able to speak to other average ordinary computer users and share knowledge. A common frame of reference aids in this.

The Installation Issue. by Bocaj · 2003-04-14 00:00 · Score: 5, Interesting

For those of you saying that "Linux won't work for the desktop until my grandma can install it.", please remember your grandma can't install Windows either. Being mainstream is not about how easy it is to install. It's about being OEM installed by major retailers. Most people never install a version of Windows from scratch. The upgrade releases are usually easy, but you get driver and dependancy problems sometimes. This is especially true of the NT/2000/XP line. I find that anyone who can run Windows preinstalled can run Linux preinstalled.

Re:The Installation Issue. by FooBarWidget · 2003-04-14 02:05 · Score: 1

But, if we can make Linux so easy that even grandma can install it, then we are even easier than Windows and have won.
Re:The Installation Issue. by antiMStroll · 2003-04-14 03:27 · Score: 1

Actually, some distributions make Linux trival to install. From what I've seen Knoppix is easier then 2K in this regard. The real next hurdle is post-installation maintenance.
Re:The Installation Issue. by Guilly · 2003-04-14 04:05 · Score: 1

Knoppix is used to boot Linux from a CD only, usually to use a computer without an OS installed or with a broken OS (e.g. when your grandpa clicked on too many 'make money fast' links the previous night and screwed his installation up). It doesn't require any installation to use, that's why its useful. It is not meant to be a linux distribution for every day use.
Re:The Installation Issue. by penguinrenegade · 2003-04-14 04:56 · Score: 1

Try it. Help your grandma put it on her system! She'll love it!
Re:The Installation Issue. by Dan+Ost · 2003-04-14 05:05 · Score: 1

But if you boot from Knoppix, it is trivial to
copy a bootable image from the CD to the hard
drive, essentially giving you a fully functional
Debian installation. I believe that Knoppix even
comes with instructions on how to do this.

--

*sigh* back to work...
Re:The Installation Issue. by Quino · 2003-04-14 08:36 · Score: 1

Yeah, you can either make a permanent config file, a permanent home (even on a dos partition), install the compressed image to hardrive (700MB), or do a full install like you mentioned (I think 1.7 GB).

I have only tried the permanent config and home folder, but I think it even comes with a script to install for you on to the hardrive ....

too cool!

History of Minesweeper by iapetus · 2003-04-14 00:08 · Score: 1

A little searching doesn't reveal anything earlier, though I feel sure there must have been something. FWIW, Minesweeper didn't make it into Windows until version 3.1, apparently, circa 1992.

--
++ Say to Elrond "Hello.".
Elrond says "No.". Elrond gives you some lunch.

Re:History of Minesweeper by bhtooefr · 2003-04-14 11:32 · Score: 1

It was available from M$' BBS (long distance if you didn't live in M$ville) in 1991 for Windows 3.0, and came with Windows Entertainment Pack 1 in 1991.

Consider the following by ewanrg · 2003-04-14 00:09 · Score: 4, Informative

Our company has Windows on the desktop, and Red Hat Advanced Server on our servers. Our programmers have to X-Window into the Linux servers when they do server programming.
Why don't they have Linux on their desktops? When we looked at moving folks over, we ran into the following:

Testing the Red Hat, Lycoris, and Lindows desktop offerings we would have to buy a number of additional licenses - while we already have a campus license for MS Windows and Office.

Both Lycoris and Lindows seemed to have trouble recognizing some of our hardware - particularly Firewire and Wireless Networking.

In all three cases trying to use the available options for working with MS Word documents (used by virtually all our clients) showed compatibility problems with any of them that had a large number of tables or that used automatic labelling of Figures.

As a final straw, there is currently no way to sync a PocketPC with appointment and contact data on any of the Linux offerings.
My point is that no one is going to switch to Linux just to be running Linux to do the same things they do on Windows. The ONLY way that folks are going to be convinced to make the switch is to have a Linux that does something folks can't do easily or cheaply in Windows, and then promote the heck out of that.
Personally, I think that the Gimp is a start in the right direction - and that Lycoris and Lindows isn't.
Just my .02 worth...
Please take a moment and check out some soothing images if my commentary has stressed you :-)

Re:Consider the following by GigsVT · 2003-04-14 00:23 · Score: 1

Linux that does something folks can't do easily or cheaply in Windows, and then promote the heck out of that.

Completely native network-transparent X sessions integrated with ssh isn't enough?

Once you get used to just sshing to any computer and running any app, X or console, it really becomes an insanely useful feature.

Re: Testing all those distros, don't bother with non-free distros like Lindows. It's not worth the effort. If your programmers can't figure out a slightly different UI, then they aren't very good programmers.

--
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Re:Consider the following by b17bmbr · 2003-04-14 03:45 · Score: 3, Informative

Testing the Red Hat, Lycoris, and Lindows desktop offerings we would have to buy a number of additional licenses - while we already have a campus license for MS Windows and Office.

huh? even if you bought a copy instead of a downloaded version, you still install it on unlimited machines. methinks you are unaware of the GPL. for hardware compat. try mandrake. yes, there is going to be file problems, but you were talking about programmers for your servers. and what exactly do you mean they have to "X-window into the linux servers..." how else might you do this other than on *nix?

i have used linux as a desktop OS for a few years. the problem is that everyone expects windows. it's like going into a great sushi restaraunt when all you've ever eating is fried catfish.

--
My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
Re:Consider the following by GiMP · 2003-04-14 06:02 · Score: 3, Interesting

Instead of ruling out options due to your own ignorance, hire a consultant/contractor who has extensive experience with Linux and have him select the distribution and develop a written routine for installation (since he will likely not install more than a couple machines himself).

If you stick with Lindows or Lycoris, sure you won't be able to copy it due to the license of software bundled with Linux; however, Redhat does not require a license, although Redhat does sell support contracts.

In regards to hardware 'not working', there is a lot of hardware that works in Linux. You should not simply skip a distribution because IT didn't setup the Cd burner, setup the CD burner yourself.

You could use completely for free: Debian, Gentoo, Mandrake, Slackware, and a horde of others.

I personally recommend Debian because it has APT which allows you to download and install programs via 3 simple words ('apt-get install name-of-program). Gentoo is a great distribution; however, it requires more effort to install and will require you to compile all software from portage (like APT) which you wish to use. You may like Mandrake 9, it sets up a lot of hardware for you (more than any other distribution); however, it uses RPMs like Redhat so it is not as easy to maintain as Debian and Gentoo.
Re:Consider the following by Arandir · 2003-04-14 08:26 · Score: 1

Bingo! But even beyond this, Linux (or FreeBSD which is my favorite) provides a "smart" thin client for free. Sit in front of any workstation, login, and bang you're in you're own home environment. The only software on the PC is the base operating system.

--
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Re:Consider the following by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-14 12:47 · Score: 0

Methinks you do not understand the GPL. It allows you to get the source code of any GPL'ed components of the software that you received from someone. It's FREE, but not necessarily free. This means that you do no necessarily have the right to install the binaries as many times as you wish. However, you can take the source code, sans any non-GPL'ed components, re-compile it and distribute it as you wish. Of course, the non-GPL'ed components may be the reason you purchased it in the first place.
Re:Consider the following by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-14 13:13 · Score: 0

Have you ever read the GPL, or are you just talking out your ass? Without even getting into the legalese, the first few paragraphs of it make it very clear that you are free to make copies of the software, meaning either binaries or source. And GPLed programs can't have non-GPL components. But of course you knew that, right?
Re:Consider the following by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-14 19:24 · Score: 0

>> it uses RPMs like Redhat so it is not as easy to maintain as Debian and Gentoo

I would like to point out that things have changed since the last time you looked a mandrake. Since version 9.0 it uses urpmi to install rpms. It's basically apt with a different name. I must admit that two years ago you were certainly right: now that I use urpmi, I don't know how could I use rpm instead of apt before.

Salva.
Re:Consider the following by cschmidt · 2003-04-15 01:47 · Score: 1

what exactly do you mean they have to "X-window into the linux servers..."

The Cygwin install contains a Windows binary of XWindows. It works great!

--

Who am I to blow against the wind? -- Paul Simon

Walmart = The Home of Cheap Crap by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-14 00:18 · Score: 0

It's only natural something like this would end up there.

Free (Unsupported) Download by CyberPsyko · 2003-04-14 00:18 · Score: 3, Informative

You can choose from these mirrors. This is the full version, but with no tech support.

Re:hi by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-14 00:32 · Score: 0

A bit tired and pointless, maybe. Hence not at job, yes? Been up to some nastiness last night, yes?

Linux Needs Distros Like This by roomisigloomis · 2003-04-14 00:34 · Score: 4, Insightful

I am not a coder or sysadmin but I do love technology, especially Linux. I have gone through a number of distros since 1999 and I think the move toward more user-friendly desktop Linux distros is great. Those that can and enjoy getting into the guts of an OS should do it no matter what distro they choose. The rest of us just want something that works and isn't owned by a monopoly. I've been using Xandros 1.0 for the past month and I must say this: it just works! Sure, I have some print over the network issues which will get ironed out in time. But, really, it's the first distro that has allowed me to turn off my Windoze box for a week. I woke it up to get some files I need and also to use Quark Xpress. Just my two bits; I could be wrong.

--
"We are accountable for not only what we do, but also that which we don't do." -- Moliere

Re:ENOUGH! by torpor · 2003-04-14 00:45 · Score: 1

Yeah, ummm ... right.

CE != Windows

Good luck doing your 'ports' ...

--
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --

Re:ENOUGH! by torpor · 2003-04-14 00:47 · Score: 1

Sheesh. It's not *THAT* hard to write software which runs well and good on all Linux distro's.

You can find plenty of good examples on freshmeat. Why should it be any different for so-called 'commercial' vendors?

--
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --

Re:Lycoris dropping the ball with version numberin by TrekkieGod · 2003-04-14 00:51 · Score: 2, Interesting

Scenario: newbie installs unfinished 1.0. Newbie gets frustrated by a buggy, incomplete product. Newbie thinks that Linux is trash and never installs it again.

Scenario: newbie installs "finished" winMe. Newbie gets frustrated by blue screens of death. Newbie thinks this is normal, and reboots.

--

Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.

wump by BrokenHalo · 2003-04-14 01:02 · Score: 0

I still like Hunt The Wumpus :-)

They're missing... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-14 01:17 · Score: 0

...The IE Skin to make mozilla look just like Internet Explorer, and mozilla mail like outlook. There's even an IE XP mozilla theme...

Not a bad OS at all! by zachjb · 2003-04-14 01:35 · Score: 2, Informative

After looking through their web site and reading what is actually contained inside of this OS, I am actually curious enough to download it and give it a look-see.

It has everything that everyone would need in an OS, plus a lot more. That's one thing that I love about Linux. It comes of literally hundreds of applications to get your jobs done quickly and easily.

Now one of the best attributes of this distribution was mentioned in the description of the story; a free online-rpm based installer. Lindows wants you to pay money for access to their dump of RPMs, but not Lycoris. Also included are media players for almost every type of media (including TV tuner cards), the ability to burn CDs, a full office suite, nice "control panel", an update-wizard, built in firewall, and a recovery mode. What more could you ask for in a "general" Linux distro!? Plus it looks nice!

--

--If only there was a license required to use a computer.

Re:Not a bad OS at all! by AELinuxGuy · 2003-04-14 14:23 · Score: 1

Now one of the best attributes of this distribution was mentioned in the description of the story; a free online-rpm based installer. Lindows wants you to pay money for access to their dump of RPMs, but not Lycoris.
A week or so ago I read a post about Synaptic, which uses apt and rpm to provide a free online-rpm based installer. I was floored by how good it is...makes Click-N-Run irrelevant. I cannot find the original post, but here is the jist of the installation:
1. Download apt for RedHat Linux: http://apt.freshrpms.net/
2. Once you've got the RPM installed, log into a terminal as root and run the following command: 'apt-get update && apt-get install synaptic'
Re:Not a bad OS at all! by zachjb · 2003-04-15 01:11 · Score: 1

Awesome. I'll have to check that out. Thanks for the information.

--

--If only there was a license required to use a computer.

Re:Lycoris dropping the ball with version numberin by Speare · 2003-04-14 01:53 · Score: 1

This is a beta release, not a final product.

If it's being sold on machines in Wal*Mart, it's not a beta.

--
[ .sig file not found ]

GNOME instability by FooBarWidget · 2003-04-14 01:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

"Now Linux is very stable (although not with Gnome, if there are any Gnome developers reading this please make it more stable"

GNOME is very stable for me. It (the core components like panel and Nautilus) almost never crash, and if one core component crashes it will just restart and everything else will continue like nothing happened.

If GNOME crashes very often then you should fill a bug report and telling the developers exactly what crashes, when, and how to reproduce it. Just saying "it's unstable" doesn't really help since we can't read your mind, and we can only fix a problem if we are able to reproduce it.

Something about "Lycoris customers" by presroi · 2003-04-14 02:07 · Score: 2, Interesting

This page from my website shows some interesting thing. How often are pictures recycled?

Re:Something about "Lycoris customers" by crlf · 2003-04-14 06:01 · Score: 1

Usually you can buy tens of thousands of images in clipart packs. Whoever posted that page on your site was lucky enough to come across two individuals that used the same one..

Windows is SysFascist Friendly as well by dmaxwell · 2003-04-14 02:19 · Score: 1

"Linux is the system where I cannot play mp3's, download pr0n or play games. It is only good for some dumb office terminal. I will not install it on my home computer in a million years".

I think that argument is a red herring. A Windows network with tight mandatory profiles and a strict proxy server can be just as "fascistic". A clued Windows admin can lock down a client every bit as tightly as Unix admins can lock down theirs. I know of school Windows networks that are indeed difficult to "download pr0n, play games and mp3s". Even with the "buy Microsoft" mentality that is prevalent, I don't believe most enterprises would deploy Windows clients if they couldn't lock them down. Well, the MIS managers will insist on the ability anyway.

Re:Windows is SysFascist Friendly as well by bhtooefr · 2003-04-14 11:50 · Score: 1

Oh so true. My high school network blocks EVERYTHING. pr0n of course is blocked:

"The Websense category ''Sex'' is blocked."

MP3 files are blocked:

"The Websense category ''MP3'' is blocked."

Games are blocked:

"The Websense category ''Games'' is blocked."

Hell, even the Onion is blocked:

"The Websens category ''Tasteless'' is blocked."

Actually, most of this is from the ISP. Our old sysadmin was nice to us. We could install/dl anything we could (and we have). Even pr0n occasionally gets through the filters (can only block text, and Websense is only "block these URLs for these reasons", so not even text is blocked).

-- Where do you REALLY want to go today?
Re:Windows is SysFascist Friendly as well by Slack3r78 · 2003-04-14 14:41 · Score: 1

Does your's block images.google.com for "Pornography" like mine does? It's a pain in the ass when a teacher expects you to go to the library and slap together a stupid powerpoint presentation and you can't get into ANY of the image search engines. They claim it's because of the child protection acts, but personally I think it's going a bit far to block ANYTHING that could possibly offend ANYONE. I honestly believe that simply blocking obvious porn sites and the like would cover the schools under the CPAs, especially since (at least in my district) you have to sign a rather draconian AUP before they even let you touch the machines. Oh well, I guess we have to save the kids from the evils of the internet.
Re:Windows is SysFascist Friendly as well by bhtooefr · 2003-04-15 02:51 · Score: 1

Last year they blocked ALL of google through their own proxy, instead of our isp's. They unblocked it all. BTW, they did have a NETWORK policy (in other words, hack it as much as you can to run off the network, and you're home free) that was eight pages long that was obviously a state form (it had blanks for the school's name). I never signed it! :-) And I'm assistant sysadmin, too.
Re:Windows is SysFascist Friendly as well by Slack3r78 · 2003-04-15 08:21 · Score: 1

Damn, it makes me wonder about the people in charge of this kind of stuff. I've pretty much come to the conclusion that in at least 95% of all cases, people who work for schools in "IT" don't know what they're doing. Personally, I'd think that it'd be a far more effective detterent to just enforce the AUP rather than block half the internet. Still block the obvious stuff ie: sites that serve porn, but if a kid obviously makes a point of circumventing the AUP, yank their network privleges for a while the first time, permanently the second. It's the fact that I know the admins don't know what they're doing that's led me to working on setting up a proxy of my own here at the house and leaving it running in case of the off chance I need to use the net while at school. I can get to the legit sites I need to, ignoring their crappy filter, and they'll never know the difference.
Re:Windows is SysFascist Friendly as well by bhtooefr · 2003-04-17 11:10 · Score: 1

My school's ISP blocks all of this, so our admins can't do anything. Although, they DID block anything that wasn't HTTP or FTP. IM, Telnet, E-mail, music sharing, anything not quite kosher was blocked. AND, that was at the SCHOOL's proxy this time

If you don't mind Links, and they allow Telnet (I think that's why they blocked it), try Super Dimensional Fortress. You can get a 60-day account for free, and if you send $1 (or 2 Euros), they'll make it lifetime (it's to ward off hackers).
SDF
This'll telnet right in. If you'd rather go to their site first, try:
SDF's site
Re:Windows is SysFascist Friendly as well by Slack3r78 · 2003-04-17 15:41 · Score: 1

Hm, cool link, thanks for the info. I may very well make use of this in the near future. I think I'm gonna go ahead and set up the proxy anyway though, just to fiddle with a server some. I do a lot of programming, but I've never really messed with much server set up type stuff, so it'll be good for a little diversion and learning. :)

Desktop Linux? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-14 02:25 · Score: 0

You can mark this off topic now.

Talking about Lycoris making thinking aobut Redhat Desktop, or Linux Desktop in general. This weekend, I upgrade my system to RH 9. After reading about all 9 this and that, I was fairly disapppointed. Here's how it go.

First, when 9 came out, RH put it in the left bottom corner of their homepage. Something I was shocked. Your major release came out, and not deserved to have sit in the center spot for a day. Until several day later that you can see it under download. Yes, you can say they're not available 7 days later, but you can still sell them under download. Then next...

The graphics is not better at all. Still slow, something I thougth 9 would solve. No wonder the FreeX86 guy wanted to branch out. I think that's a brilliant idea. Running un XP, everything is smooth. How do you compete with that?

Most of applications I run starts up faster on XP.

One thing really bother me is the fact that you click on something, (a button for example), and nothing reponse. No wait/hour glass or anything, and after 15, 20 seconds, it pop up. Slow, frustration, and poor visual response is not good.

The task bar: you can not resize it using your mouse. The ordering of icon on it is not time-based (that is listed by time it's created). The task bar can be made big, but the icon scale up, so you can not put more icon in task bar anyway. Poor design.

The mouse, you can change acceleration, but not speed. So, not feeling as good as XP. I like fast mouse. The acceleration force you to move fast to get far. This put more movement of your hand. That's stressful. Add speed and keep acceleration will be better.

No GUI option (off/on) for "show windows content while dragging"

Resize the topleft and bottom left of a window is a daunting task. There's only 2 points on each corner you can use. Initially, I thought it's not even there. This again, put stress on your wrist because to resize a window up or to the left, you have to move your whole window (up in the title bar), then resize (down the bottom). Or you can find those 2 little pixels, and resize it. Stressful for you brain too.

My winmodem stop working. I have to rebuild it because kernel change. Fine, but it also say that if a mini little number change, I have to rebuild the driver. I don't think average Joe can do that.

My external modem stop working. It used to work. and now, it can dial and connect, but I can not browse anything. Then, using wvdial works. Strange.

Installing RH9, it complain tmp is a directory, not symbolic link under /usr/tmp. Well, there's no such a thing under /usr. Then how average users know what to do? Can a suggestion be made? Then I created a symbolic link, it complain that it's a hard link. Boy, I did the trick by providing ln -s tmp tmp. I don't know it's the right thing to do or not, but it works for me.

Do you play solitare on RH 8, 9? (they call it something else RaceRiot or something). Well, RH 8, it crash alot, and 9, it's better, the only thing is that the experience is 10 times worse than windows. Somehow the drag does not do well. The click sometimes pick up sometimes not. Just not pleasant to play. I like this game because it's something to build your statistical sense, and to remind you that going a casino will not do you any good.

The list can go on and on, but I thought people would see this in RH 8, and improve it now, but none of them really show up.

Note: this message is meant for expression my idea, and hope Linux will be better, not to trash it. I still have a great hope for it. Just know that it's not there yet to take on XP. Maybe the next version eh? Let's hope. Or maybe Lycoris would do.

Wtf? by Andrewkov · 2003-04-14 02:53 · Score: 1

Anyone notice on this screenshot that there is an icon labeled "My Linux System" and it looks just like the "My Computer" icon in Windows? I guess any distro is free to configure their desktops how they like, but is this really the direction we want to see Linux heading? Not to mention that the wallpaper looks like the default Win XP one.

And people complain about Redhat's Blue Curve.

Most are older versions by b0bby · 2003-04-14 03:05 · Score: 1

It seems that only the NA mirror linked above has the newer build 71. Most of the others have 46.

Re:Most are older versions by cyborch · 2003-04-14 10:12 · Score: 1

it would seem that the 71 build is under a "beta" sub directory. the 71 build is there, it's just hidden a little bit...

Rip off by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-14 03:24 · Score: 0

Lycoris is a rip off. They sell their lame windows clone to the average Walmart customer who doesn't know the differnce between a floppy disk and a harddisk and for sure not that Windows and Linux are two different OS's. This customer belives he got a good deal until he gets home and his kids want to play all the fancy games their friends at school play. Uhh...how come I can't play??? I just paid $40 for the new Harry Potter game and I can't play it. I don't understand.

I believe the above situation wouldnt be abnormal, and rip offs like Licoris will only give Linux a bad rep.

Version Numbering by DickBreath · 2003-04-14 03:34 · Score: 1

Um, if you give your builds versions such as....

Version 1.0 Build 68
Version 1.0 Build 69
Version 1.0 Build 70
Version 1.0 Build 71
....
(hopefully, slashdot readers begin to see a pattern forming here)

Now, suppose that Build 72 passes all QA tests and is blessed as a final candidate. After yet more testing, it is blessed as an official release. The engineering or "build group" does not need to rebuild the program for release -- thus introducing the possibility of breaking something. The actual binary that was tested by QA (Version 1.0 Build 72) is released into the wild.

It does have a flashy 1.0 on it. Both in the graphics, splash screens, about boxes, and everything else. It always says Version 1.0 Build 72.

This is better than having all your builds say something stupid like Version 0.99 beta 72. Then when it is approved for release, you have to rebuild it. What the QA deperament tested is not actually what you released -- unless you then go through another complete round of testing.

With the "build number" numbering system, it is done when we say it is done. It is an offical release simply by virtue of "Because I Said So". No need to change splash screens, about boxes, etc.

Even though builds 73, 74, 75 and 76 have been made in the meantime, build 72 is now released. If we want to, we can begin calling new builds something like "Version 1.1 Build 1" or "Version 1.1 Build 77". Lots of flexibility. Or even "Version 1.0.1 Build 77". Or, heck, even "Version 1.0 Build 77", and thus still mostly refer to it as "1.0", even though we know that we silently slipped a different build into production without making any major press announcment. So far as everyone else is conerned, we're still shipping 1.0. But our support dept. can ask "Hey tell me what version your About Box says." and immediately know by the build number that you need to download a new version.

The above rationale is what I gave, and what my employer adopted and is using for our version numbering on a product I work on. It gives us a lot of flexibility. Never any lame 0.99 version numbering business. How do you even assign a version number like "1.5"? How do you know you are "halfway" to version 2.0? What if I have twelve major updates before 2.0? Would we call them 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, .... 1.8, 1.9, 1.10, 1.11, 1.12, ...then..., 2.0.? Yes, that is what we do here. We think of the dot as a "field", thus we never have any 0.99 version number nonsense.

I don't mean to rant. But I sure wish open source programmers could figure out version numbering.

Another thing we used to do years ago, as Mac developers, is to use Apple's version numbering scheme. If the product was eventually to be called 1.0, then the versions would be....
1.0 Alpha 1
1.0 Alpha 2
...hopefully you see a pattern...
1.0 Alpha 197
1.0 Beta 1
1.0 Beta 2
...
1.0 Beta 728
1.0

I used to really like this scheme. But I think the advantages of using the "build" numbering are superior. (No need to rebuild a version in order to release it. Silently slip a new build into the production process if needed.) In fact, the "1.0" or "1.1" part of the version number is really a "marketing" version number. The Build number is the real version number that actually means anything.

--

I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.

Re:Version Numbering by DickBreath · 2003-04-14 03:37 · Score: 1

Oh, yeah, I know I suck for replying to my own post, but...

With the Build numbering system, the "Because I Said So" rule also applies to whether a build is "alpha", "beta" or "release".

Today, version 1.0 Bild 72 is "beta". Tomorrow, we may start shipping it and calling it release. It is same actual binary build -- that is Build 72. It is now the "release" version because I said so. (Really, because the QA dept. said so.)

--

I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Re:Version Numbering by NaDrew · 2003-04-14 08:59 · Score: 1

This is brilliant and (not coincidentally) very close to what I have tried to implement at my place of torture^Wwork. It hasn't been easy, mostly because I work with a load of bloody useless loonies^W^W^Wchange-averse individuals.

--
Vista:XPSP2::ME:98SE

Re:Lycoris dropping the ball with version numberin by JimDabell · 2003-04-14 04:01 · Score: 2, Insightful

Windows is the dominant operating system, so there is a double-standard that applies. What is acceptable for Windows is not acceptable for Linux in the eyes of a newbie. Especially if they only installed Linux because they heard how stable it was compared to Windows.

On lycoris being free by bogie · 2003-04-14 04:05 · Score: 1

" It's a great OS for the masses, $30 or less, $19.99 from the company if you download your own and just want the Product ID."

That makes it sound like you can't download it for free. AFAIK you have always been able to download it for free. For example the latest beta is available here. Someone can feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

http://ftp.sunet.se/pub/Linux/distributions/redm on d-linux/beta/

--
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch

Re:ENOUGH! by mgv · 2003-04-14 04:10 · Score: 1

Let's -- forgetting Windows 3.1 and Windows for Workgroups 3.11 we now have in the wilds and widely used: Windows 95, Windows 95B, Windows 95C, Windows 98, Windows 98se, Windows 98Bse, Windows NT 4.5x, Windows NT 5.x, Windows Me (how many builds?), Windows 2000 Home Edition, Windows 2000 Professional, Windows XP Home Edition, Windows XP Professional. The sad thing is that I know I missed many releases.

On the other hand, you compensated for missing releases by making up ones that didn't exist. Windows 2000 does not have a home edition. NT 4.5 is probably NT 4.0, and I didn't know of more than one version of ME. Also, a large number of programs run fine on newer versions of windows.

Windows has problems, but the multiple editions of windows really isn't a big one. And, realistically, the supported base is rapidly moving to win2K/XP, where I suspect it will stick for some time before corporations move to Linux when they have to make their next upgrade.

Michale

--
There is no cryptographic solution to the problem where the intended receiver and the attacker are the same entity.

Re:Lycoris dropping the ball with version numberin by penguinrenegade · 2003-04-14 04:12 · Score: 1

Amethyst. Version 1 if you will. Current release is update 2.

Next is update 3 (after the betas get stabilized), and after that, Beryl. Version 2 if you will.

Lycoris is different, but it is FUN.

Convert you by penguinrenegade · 2003-04-14 04:24 · Score: 2, Informative

Empathy808 - e-mail me at dot.slash.penguinrenegade@spamgourmet.com and I'll help you convert to Lycoris. That goes for anyone who wants to check out Lycoris. PLENTY of volunteers to help answer questions in the forums, too!

I'll answer any questions you might have, too, PERSONALLY.

Charging for Linux? by t0ny · 2003-04-14 04:36 · Score: 1

It's a great OS for the masses, $30 or less, $19.99 from the company if you download your own and just want the Product ID.

Sorry, I choose not to pay the Lycoris tax with any PC I buy. I only drink FREE beer.

--

Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.

I wish I was as leet as you! by RatBastard · 2003-04-14 04:37 · Score: 1

"Doze"! Golly, you're really sticking it to tha Man with that one!

You don't make Linux look any better when you spell Windows "Windoze", or any dirivative, nor when you spell MicroSoft or Bill Gates with a "$", nor when you call Bill "Billgatus". All you do is make Linux users look like 13-year old nerds sitting in their parents basements impotently thrashing in rage that MicroSoft still owns the desktop.

--
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.

Re:I wish I was as leet as you! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-14 09:03 · Score: 0

First off, it is Microsoft, not MicroSoft. Are you a 13-year old nerd who has a Micro Soft and are taking out your inadequacies on other 13-year old nerds? I thought all Linux users were 13-year old nerds anyway.
Re:I wish I was as leet as you! by Captain_SpankMunki · 2003-04-15 23:29 · Score: 1

That's right, I feel like a big man because I said 'doze'. My throw away comment needed discussing at your level did it? I apologise unequivocally to all Linux users that I have made to look like 13 year old nerds.

Liam.

--
The opinions contained in this document are in no way expressed.

Performance? by crivens · 2003-04-14 04:46 · Score: 1

As much as I like the Lycoris distro, I hope they've improved the performance. It seems to run about 25-40% slower than Mandrake for me.

Forking is BAD for consumer products! by RatBastard · 2003-04-14 04:53 · Score: 1

Consumers don't want a bazillion choices. They want something that works and works just like everyone else's system.

The worst support issues I ever had was with an office with three different versions of MS Windows, Win95, Win98, and WinNT. The minor differences in each OS caused immense ammounts of headaches and problems. Things didn't get any better until we nuked every hard drive in the building and put everyone on Windows 2000. And it wasn't Win2K that actually fixed the problem. It was that every system was using the same version of the same platform.

Rampaging multiple choice is good for hobbiests and geeks, but nor for Joe Sixpack computer users.

--
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.

Re:Lycoris dropping the ball with version numberin by metacosm · 2003-04-14 05:34 · Score: 1

I really want to mod up the parent post -- clueful, short and TRUE.

Linux on Desktop is stable!!!??! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-14 05:46 · Score: 0

I keep wondering why people keep repeating that Linux on desktop is stable... dont you people use it? I use SuSe at work Gentoo at home, and yes the Kernel is so stable and fast. it's great. but try explaining what a kernel is and what makes it stable to the mass.

All the mass cares about is the applications they use. are these apps stable on Linux?? NO. Kword crashed on me so many times a day., and dont get me started on abiwork cause it's even worst. ooffice damn good product, but way too slow, it loads all the modules for spreadsheet, presentation, cal, etc. just to open a one page word document. is that good design??

gaim crashes, konqueror crashes, webbased companies dont make their sites Mozilla friendly, and so many more. and everything is a beta release.

Have you guys seen the Mac's i-switched campaign? they say i'm who and who, with such and such job, and i switch becuz of this reason. imagine the same sorta thing for Linux!!! i-switched becuz I like ro use 'grep' and 'sed'. or I switch because I enjoy painful installations.

now befor you slashdot my comment, think a bit. i'm not dissing Linux i LOVE it, i use it all the time. but for the mass, not ready. the mass likes to click on file menu, the click on save to save their image. who can guess that in gimp you have to right click on the image then file, then save. is that intuitive? do you think the developers took the time to ask the users what is good and what is bad?

development it's not all coding, it has to be user friendly, there should be proper help files, and so many more. but unfortunately we have a lot of developers who are willing to spend their time doing this, but we need more, we need technical writers, business minds, designers to join the community. and most important, a SOLID reason for the mass to switch to linux. what is it?

1- for stability? the OS is, but not the applications, Joe Millioner doesn't know what an OS is, but he knows msn doesn't crash when he's sending a file.
2- it's easy to use? is it easy for Joe somebody to figure out how to download pictures from his new digital camera. can he figure out the commands for gphoto2?

please some body give me a good reason. and before you slashdot me, think about what I said

my experience with lycoris by katalyst · 2003-04-14 06:09 · Score: 1

During my experiments with various Linux Distros, I came across Lycoris, it was build47 if I remember correctly. First, I, as many others, was under the impression that Lycoris was for sale only. Later I found out that the unsupported version is available for download, for free from their ftp. Installation was a breeze - The SOLITARE game during installation was a nifty innovation, which made the installation seem to be extremely fast. The desktop was a standard KDE desktop. However the icons were nice XP styled icons. Infact, for icon design help, they LINK you to the XP icon design site!!
The downer: Linux is like am ugly looking hotrod, which is slowly getting its body work done. Under the hood, you expect to find this really powerful engine. Lycoris howeverm hides this engine under many layers and this makes it tougher to play around with.
Lycoris is an good starter/newbie distro - and seems to be more feasible than Lindows, as of now. Xandros however has dollops of value addition thanks to crossover office, which helps a lot of desktop users.
RUMOUR: Office 2003 Disclaimer: This license forbids the user from running this package on Unix, Linux and any of their derivatives .... LMAO

--
|/________
|\A|ALYS|

Re:ENOUGH! by tomkins · 2003-04-14 06:11 · Score: 0

The fact that Linux can be forked off into a gazillion distro's, freely and willingly, is a *GOOD THING*.

The fact that it CAN is a good thing. The fact that it IS isn't.

Not the best idea by NedTheNerd · 2003-04-14 06:17 · Score: 1

lycoris isnt really all that great of an idea but it might be a step in the right direction. It _may_ help people to learn a little bit about linux and what type of animal it really is. but it could allso give a few people some poor opinions about linux in the long run.

lycoris is in _NO WAY_ designed for anyone who is even moderatly experienced with linux it tries to hide the fact that it actualy has a command line. without windows compatability lycoris takes away a lot of the advantages of switching to linux.

Re:Not the best idea by beatniklew · 2003-04-14 07:11 · Score: 1

It isn't even the best way to get people to migrate. If you pretty up your window manager and OS to look like windows, and hide all that is linux about it, you will, in the end, wind up with 1) people getting confused when things look the same but don't work the same, and 2) stupid linux users. I and some of my friends maintain a multi-os Lab, we run some windows boxes, some older macintosh machines, and three linux machines. Two of the linux machines are Debian PPCs, and people who use them don't complain about too much except the speed. I've already gotten complaints from everyone on both sides of the fence about the last machine, the Lycoris box. The windows users feel like its active deception, the linux users feel like its pandering to the masses. If you don't know that you should unmount your disk before you eject it (or any of a hundred other things that one should know about linux), Lycoris is going to cause you some serious problems. The best way to get new linux users is to find people who are _already_ dissatisfied with windows, and educate them towards linux. Don't try and force someone to switch, you'll only wind up frustrating them and you.

Re:ENOUGH! by Strudelkugel · 2003-04-14 06:26 · Score: 1

Righteeo... People seem to forget that Windows, up until NT at least was always an inferior OS compared to OS/2, MacOS, and *nix. Yet it gained dominant market share, because it was cheap and consistent for users, had the Office suite, and had great tools for developers. M$ also spent a fortune ensuring HW support, which made it even easier for the end user.

Linux/OSS is very cool, but you are right - there can really be only one flavor for the masses. But, when that happens, will the price be competitive? Is it worth it to me to save $100-$200 then find out I will waste a few days here and there with compatibility problems during the entire time I own the OS? No way. Linux is an interesting recreational/intellectual diversion, but doesn't make sense yet for my daily use of the PC. This has always been the problem with *nix - Too many flavors. Why else would a technically inferior OS gain market dominance? (Spare the me the "M$ is a monopoly" nonsense. I have always been able to buy an OS free whitebox and put any OS I wanted on it.)

Nothing has changed my mind about the best place for Linux: embedded devices, where license costs really make a difference, among other things. That's why the best Linux "desktop" today is TiVo.

--
Imagine how much harder physics would be if electrons had feelings! -Feynman, maybe

Loki by msimm · 2003-04-14 06:52 · Score: 1

Remember Loki? That was a funny company. You know, I still have my copy of their port of Tribes 2 on my computer. And evertime I upgrade I pop that disk in and install the software, no matter what distro I'm playing with. So the argument about not being able to support different distributions is a little confusing (I mean that, like if there is a good reason this works and that doesn't I want to know).

--
Quack, quack.

Was this an ad? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-14 07:51 · Score: 0

So, how much ARE in-line slashdot story based ads going for these days?

Re:ENOUGH! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-14 10:22 · Score: 0

The thing here, is that all those have been released throughout a time span of 10-15 years, while there are that many current Linux versions.

Re:ENOUGH! by bhtooefr · 2003-04-14 11:29 · Score: 1

Here goes - I'm not listing Windows 3.2 (it's a Chinese thing) and service packs (unless they are also released as a major version):

Windows 1.01-1.04 - 1985
Windows 2.03 - 1987
OS/2 1.1 - 1988
Windows 2.10-2.11 - 1988
OS/2 1.2 - 1989
Windows 3.0 - 1990
Windows 3.00a - 1990
OS/2 1.3 - 1990 (OS/2 timeline doesn't end here - just the part that matters to Windows does)
Windows 3.10 - 1992
Windows For Workgroups 3.10 - 1992 (Don't believe it? Try Nathan's Toasty Technology Page: GUI Gallery in the Windows section)
Windows 3.11 - 1993
Windows For Workgroups 3.11 - 1993
Windows NT 3.10 - 1993
Windows NT 3.50 - 1995
Windows 95 Retail (Win95) - 1995
Windows NT 3.51 - 1995
Windows 95 OSR1 (Win95a) - 1995
Windows 95 OSR2.0 (Win95b) - 1996
Windows NT 4.0 (Server & Workstation) - 1996
Windows 95 OSR2.1 (Win95b) - 1996
Windows 95 OSR2.5 (Win95c) - 1997
Windows NT 4.0 Terminal Server - 1997
Windows 98 - 1998
Windows 98 Second Edition - 1999
Windows 2000 (Server, Advanced Server, Datacenter, Professional) - 1999
Windows ME - 2000
Windows XP (Home & Professional) - 2001
Windows Server 2003 (There are other editions) - 2003
Windows Longhorn 4008 (Illegal leak, older releases available) - 2003

I know I missed a version of NT4 for server appliances, but I don't know the year. All I know about it was that it was installed on a $1500 Intel plug-and-play server that had IIS, and could only be administrated via remote admin.

Re:Lycoris dropping the ball with version numberin by TrekkieGod · 2003-04-14 12:20 · Score: 1

I used windows as an example, but it's not just windows. Just about any commercial software you buy has 1.0 or above slapped as the version number...just about any software you buy have bugs, but the newbie user has learned to accept bugs as normal.

As long as the newbie user is getting the features, the bugs will be accepted, be it windows, aol, printshop, or the latest learn to type program.

--

Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.

Re:Lycoris dropping the ball with version numberin by Slack3r78 · 2003-04-14 14:31 · Score: 1

As long as the newbie user is getting the features, the bugs will be accepted

And you just answered the $50,000 question. This is exactly WHY they'll get frustrated and give up on linux. Sure, it might be possible to play a video of codec XYZ on the machine, but the average user isn't going to jump through the hoops of compiling ANYTHING themselves to make this work. Hell, with Windows Media Player half the time they don't even have to go get the codec themselves, it finds it and installs it for them. Until the OSS community realizes that this is the type of functionallity that's NEEDED to gain share among the average users, Linux is going to continue to meander along a path followed only by geeks.

Linux needs to be more like apple not microsoft by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-14 19:29 · Score: 0

Multimedia:
If Linux distro's want to succeed they need to be more like apple and start including licensed software like dvd and mp3 decoders AND encoders - not that garbage like l.a.m.e. or unencrypted xine. Fast and fully licensed versions with REAL features like adaptive deinterlacing etc. (and no, don't even mention gatos it's garbage and no I'm not interested in blurry software deinterlacement as is done in both xine and mplayer. Do all of you need glasses? WTF) Hint for the mentally-impaired: gogo rules and lame blows. Phony psycho-accoustic visualization tables - BAH.. pseudo reverb, it sounds more like to me.

Concerning office-wares:
Sure openoffice works great (except in tables and a few other things), but it's slow as a dead camel in a sandstorm. Nobody seems to think (as in distro-producer or maintainers) that it needs to be stripped of that garbage and or ported to a more 'native' widget toolkit for lack of better word, no pun intended.

About games:
Games are good and sure there are some great ones both native and through wine. Then again noone seems to care about updating broken DRI drivers in the versions of XFree86 they distribute. Anyone who's ever used a radeon 7xxx on xf86 4.2 and tried to play Q3 knows what I mean. Can you say hardware lockup people? Neither XFree core team nor distro maintainer producers give a rat's ass about this problem really. Sure THEY will tell you different, but force yourself to use radeon dri (for example) for 6 months straight on ANY distro and you'll be running out to buy a video card from a manufacturer that gives a flying fugnugget about releasing binary drivers (think firegl or nv here). Installing dri via cvs (dri.sf.net) is the only fix, and don't even pretend to play it like joe blow is going to attempt - let alone even accomplish this. The versions in dri cvs are more stable than ANY XF86 4.x release to date kid you not. Take to updating you lazy XF86 bastards, I thought that was the opensource way... guess not if you're on xf86 core team.

If not then it's just a waste of time.

Last Post! by alpg · 2003-04-28 18:05 · Score: 0

... a thing called Ethics, whose nature was confusing but if you had it you
were a High-Class Realtor and if you hadn't you were a shyster, a piker and
a fly-by-night. These virtues awakened Confidence and enabled you to handle
Bigger Propositions. But they didn't imply that you were to be impractical
and refuse to take twice the value for a house if a buyer was such an idiot
that he didn't force you down on the asking price.
-- Sinclair Lewis, "Babbitt"

- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...

Slashdot Mirror

Lycoris Build 71 Beckons For Your Desktop

263 comments