Slashdot Mirror
Lycoris Build 71 Beckons For Your Desktop
PenguinRenegade writes "Lycoris has released a new Beta, Build 71. Lycoris is not a Linux distro for those who already know Linux, but more for the masses, for those who want to migrate from Windows, and don't really want anything to do with the command line. Lycoris Desktop/LX equipped computers are available from Wal-Mart starting at $268.00 (build 46). 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. Registered users get REAL e-mail support and full access to IRIS, an RPM-based click-to-install program base." (There's no cost to download the beta.)
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?
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.
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. --
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
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!
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).
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.
Linux will not be a home entertainment OS until it becomes used more at work. The way I see it working is like this:
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
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?"
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
... 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.
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
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
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.
"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.
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.