Slashdot Mirror


2004: Year of the Penguin?

houseofmore writes "The Toronto star suggests that things are looking good for the Linux desktop this year as more heavy weight commercial vendors get behind it, including HP, Novell, IBM, Sun and... Walmart. It also mentions Red Hat's plan to offer a new corporate desktop edition of their enterprise desktop sometime this year. The article states that more and more companies are considering (and) switching to Linux for their desktop due to expensive Windows licensing fees and high-profile security vulnerabilities."

427 comments

  1. Maybe when... by spungo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    - one of the big vendors decide to publicly ship a consumer desktop machine with a GNU/Linux install (or even a dual install), will I start to think that the challenge is on.

    1. Re:Maybe when... by AKAImBatman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Agreed. OEM support is a big issue. Many of the problems I ran into when testing various distros wouldn't happen on an OEM machine.

    2. Re:Maybe when... by newell_nicosia · · Score: 4, Informative

      I have to agree. I am a big Linux fan for server apps and writing code. But when it comes to desktop integration and cool little games and utilities, I still have to choose evil MS Windows. The day my mother (who is a total technophobe) can turn on a linux machine and not feel any discomfort is the day when I know Linux has a fair fight with Windows. Unfortunately, that day has not yet arrived. Let's face it, there are a vast majority of computer users out there who do not know what the word "compile" means.

    3. Re:Maybe when... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eh? Keep your eyes open. Walmart ship consumer desktops with Linux (Lindows and JDS). HP are selling machines with Mandrake Linux.

    4. Re:Maybe when... by randall_burns · · Score: 1

      I tend to think it is more when the Linux community views Windows as a nasty app that needs to be controlled and managed. Something like Xen is an interesting step in that direction--but the installation onto a machine that already has Windows on it would need to be really seemless(and Xen appears to only be supporting newer versions of Windows like XP).

    5. Re:Maybe when... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hi,

      Maybe not a big vendor, but Terrasoft ships Mac hardware that dual boot Yellowdog Linux and Mac OS X. Several other small vendors sell Linux systems.

      If you want Windows and Linux, the thing is that vendors have special deal for exclusivity. These systems may cost ~100$ more because the vendors will not give a special. So how do you convince someone to pay more to have a free OS included with their system?

    6. Re:Maybe when... by LoFat+ByLine · · Score: 1

      Maybe the next step for Linux is the corporate desktop space, not the consumer desktop. Makes sense; most corporate users only need a small number of applications (web, email and an office suite pretty much do it for me.) For a lot of CIOs, the fact that many consumer apps (eg games) aren't available for Linux might actually be a good thing ...

      Then of course once Linux is fully entrenched in the corporate workplace, people will start to want Linux in their homes, because it will be what they're used to.

    7. Re:Maybe when... by 00420 · · Score: 1

      The day my mother (who is a total technophobe) can turn on a linux machine and not feel any discomfort is the day when I know Linux has a fair fight with Windows.

      I don't know about your mother, but most technophobes I've met can't even turn on a windows machine and not feel any discomfort.

      Let's face it, there are a vast majority of computer users out there who do not know what the word "compile" means.

      Just about everything comes in binaries too, but unfortunately there are still a few things that don't (mplayer for example). But, with an ideal package manager Joe Schmoe shouldn't even have to worry about whether or not something needs to be compiled anyways. Perhaps while it's compiling it could say "Optimizing the software for your computer" or some similar dumbed-down message.

      While I love Linux, I would have to agree that it's not quite there yet for technophobes, but for everyone else it is (as long as the user has a distro that suits their skill level), and it's great!

      Although, for technophobes with on-call tech support (ie geek relative), Linux may actually be a better solution.

    8. Re:Maybe when... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Walmart ship consumer desktops with Linux (Lindows and JDS)

      off the web, yes. but retail, backed by a strong advertising campaign and a decent warranty? i don't think so on. if you came on Walmart.com's JDS page by chance, you would these systems were limited to running Sun's JAVA office suite.

  2. Seriously... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Don't we hear this every year?

    1. Re:Seriously... by Chip7 · · Score: 1
      yep ... every single year for the past 5 years i'd say. Linux makes greats strides toward a wider acceptance but it will throw off MS as much as it did it last year! Anybody thinks MS is weaker today because the last 5 years was "the year of linux"?

      --
      -- If you actually say LOL instead of laughing, maybe it's time to go outside! --
    2. Re:Seriously... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Joy of Tech. Note the "Year of the Desktop" Calendar.

    3. Re:Seriously... by Soko · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Anybody thinks MS is weaker today because the last 5 years was "the year of linux"?

      Kind of.

      (1999)
      Slashbot: "This is teh year of Linux!!!!"
      Customer: "What's Linux?"
      Microsoft: "What's Linux? *CHACHING*"

      (2000)
      Slashbot: "This is teh year of Linux!!!!"
      Customer: "Linux? Geek toy."
      Microsoft: "Linux? Pffft. *CHACHING*"

      (2001)
      Slashbot: "This is teh year of Linux!!!!"
      Customer: "Gah, viruses - no time to look!!"
      Microsoft: "Ya, sure. We heard some of our customers ask about it in passing. *chaching*"

      (2002)
      Slashbot: "This is teh year of Linux!!!!"
      IBM: "Dude, learn how to spell..."
      Customer: "IBM? Linux? Lemme see what this is all about, OK?"
      Microsoft: "Hmmmm... You guys are getting irritating for our salesdroids. Cut it out or we'll FUD you to death. *CHACHING*"

      (2003)
      Slashbot: "This is the year of Linux!!!!"
      Customer: "Nice, but not yet. This needs fixing here, and this over here could be..."
      Microsoft: "Whoa now, this is getting serious. Send out the Marketing Dept. FUD riders!!! *chaching*"

      (2004)
      Slashbot: "This is the year of Linux."
      Customer: "Hey, this Linux thingy is worth looking at now - still kinds rough in spots though. Can it do $FUNCTION1? Cool. And $FUNCTION2? What about $FUNCTIONn..."
      Microsoft: "WTF??? The FUD Riders failed? Call in the Tactical Lawsuits - we're in trouble! *chaching?*"

      Weaker? Probably not. However, Microsofts feet are being held to the fire by the interest Linux is creating - you can be sure of that.

      Soko

      --
      "Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
    4. Re:Seriously... by FooBarWidget · · Score: 1

      Exactly. We're not there yet but we get closer every year. This is the thing that most Linux critics simply don't recognize: Linux keeps improving and gets closer and closer.

    5. Re:Seriously... by DrCode · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, and now it's time for everyone with a specialized need to proclaim how "Linux will never catch on because the software my company uses to layout dovetails for antique desk reproductions only runs on Windows."

    6. Re:Seriously... by Frizzle+Fry · · Score: 2, Insightful
      This is the thing that most Linux critics simply don't recognize: Linux keeps improving and gets closer and closer.

      Perhaps, but the flipside of that is that most linux advocates don't seem to recognize that other operating systems are improving as well (at least here, where people love to bash Windows or the Mac by pointing out things that were true of them five years ago and are completely untrue now). So Linux can improve and still not be "closer" to them.
      --
      I'd rather be lucky than good.
    7. Re:Seriously... by TechniMyoko · · Score: 0

      what the hell does CHACHING mean, dictionary.com doesnt have that word listed

    8. Re:Seriously... by kin_korn_karn · · Score: 1

      But on the downside, Linux is never DONE. The continual development of it means that it's never finished. It makes a lot of senior management types really nervous to commit to a piece of software that's still in development, even if there are "blessed" stable releases.

    9. Re:Seriously... by zsz2k · · Score: 1


      I think when the original poster said "improving," he meant "appearing increasingly more attractive as an alternative."

      By way of comparison, Windows as the de facto desktop standard cannot improve in that aspect - precisely because it is already the standard.

    10. Re:Seriously... by zsz2k · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So what other OS is actually "done" and neither requires nor receives ongoing development?

    11. Re:Seriously... by Drooling+Iguana · · Score: 1

      Windows isn't done either. If it was, they wouldn't have to keep releasing new versions. The only time any software project is truly finished is when it's abandoned.

      I used a "finished" OS once. OS/2. Not much fun towards the end.

      --
      ... I'm addicted to placebos
    12. Re:Seriously... by Buck2 · · Score: 1

      it's the sound of a cash register (making money)

      --

      As my father lik@(munch munch)... ....
    13. Re:Seriously... by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Hasn't it been true every year? Well...every year for the last two or three. And probably this year too.

      The market is fragmented. Each year Linux is becoming either significan or dominant in one or two new sections. And any of those is sufficient for someone close to that field to feel that this is the year of Linux.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    14. Re:Seriously... by HiThere · · Score: 1

      For instance, I have a need for this program that only runs on MSWind95. Nothing else, not even '98. And certainly not on Wine or WineX or (a few iterations ago of) Win4Lin.

      I'm actually waiting for similar Linux products to become useable. Then I'll write off the "historical files" as unuseable and switch. They're getting quite close. Perhaps this year...??

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    15. Re:Seriously... by HiThere · · Score: 1

      This is inevitable. When someone switches to Linux, they stop upgrading MS. So their last memories refer to the last version they used.

      For instance, my memories predate MSWind2000. Because by the time I was thinking about installing it, the XT EULA was being publicised, and I decided I didn't want to throw good money after bad.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    16. Re:Seriously... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      MS-DOS.

    17. Re:Seriously... by Frizzle+Fry · · Score: 1
      This is inevitable. When someone switches to Linux, they stop upgrading MS. So their last memories refer to the last version they used.

      Yes, this is understandable. As is the other response that says that people don't upgrade because they continue using older versions since that's all that will run on their hardware. My point was just that if you aren't familiar with current versions of windows, you shouldn't make blanket statements about windows. When someone who hasn't used windows server 2003 says "windows is insecure because by default it has all services turned on" or someone who hasn't used windows since 98 says it has no equivalent of sudo without qualifying their statment to not be true for all versions of windows, they mislead others regardless of what their reasons are for not having used windows recently.
      --
      I'd rather be lucky than good.
    18. Re:Seriously... by N1KO · · Score: 1

      Then most companies wouldn't run windows, where you have service packs coming out all the time. They wouldn't be using Java/.Net either, since its constantly changing. And they would still be running Office 95.

    19. Re:Seriously... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hahaha, that's the best thing I've read on Slashdot in years.

  3. Will it ever end? by FreemanPatrickHenry · · Score: 4, Funny

    Previous headlines in the Toronto Star:

    4/2003: "2003: The Year of the Penguin?"
    4/2002: "2002: The Year of the Penguin?"
    4/2001: "2001: The Year of the Penguin?"
    4/2000: "2000: The Year of the Penguin?"
    4/1999: "1999: The Year of the Penguin?"

    --
    I have discovered a truly marvelous .sig which, unfortunately, this space is too small to contain.
    1. Re:Will it ever end? by illuminata · · Score: 4, Funny

      That'd really fuck up the Chinese calendar if those headlines came true.

      --


      Until Slashdot fixes the funny modifier, use insightful or interesting. The poster knows your intentions.
    2. Re:Will it ever end? by good(k)night · · Score: 3, Funny

      or maybe it should be:

      1/4/2004: "2004: The Year of the Penguin?"
      1/4/2003: "2003: The Year of the Penguin?"
      [..]

      --
      my endian is bigger than yours!
    3. Re:Will it ever end? by francium+de+neobie · · Score: 5, Funny

      Toronto Star posts it every year

      Slashdot posts it every month

      Slashdot wins!

    4. Re:Will it ever end? by general_re · · Score: 4, Funny
      1999 is the Year Of The Penguin. And 2002. And 2003. But 2001 apparently wasn't, for some reason.

      2000 was also the Year Of The Penguin, but that turned out to be a bad thing...

      --
      ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
    5. Re:Will it ever end? by CGP314 · · Score: 1

      Repeat ad infinitum.


      -Colin

    6. Re:Will it ever end? by srmalloy · · Score: 1
      Previous headlines in the Toronto Star:

      4/2003: "2003: The Year of the Penguin?"
      4/2002: "2002: The Year of the Penguin?"
      4/2001: "2001: The Year of the Penguin?"
      4/2000: "2000: The Year of the Penguin?"
      4/1999: "1999: The Year of the Penguin?"
      Thereby establishing the Year of the Penguin as a serious candidate for the Vaporware Hall of Fame.
    7. Re:Will it ever end? by Neo's+Nemesis · · Score: 0

      Wasn't this the year of Monkey??

      4/2005: Analysts worldwide agreed that this "really" is the year of the Penguin. Seeing the success of open source.....

    8. Re:Will it ever end? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, Mario can make it to the Stanlry Cup again, 2004 IS the year of the Penguins.

      Oh, Wait, you aren't talking about hockey, are you?

  4. Check this out - very cool IBM Ad for Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    1. Re:Check this out - very cool IBM Ad for Linux by jcinnamond · · Score: 1

      Doubtless developed using Macromedia Studio MX for linux?

    2. Re:Check this out - very cool IBM Ad for Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Anyone else concerned by IBM's decision to make 'Linux' look like a 4 year old Eminem?

    3. Re:Check this out - very cool IBM Ad for Linux by spungo · · Score: 2, Funny

      What, you'd prefer Vanilla Ice? ;-)

    4. Re:Check this out - very cool IBM Ad for Linux by mirko · · Score: 1

      Well, shouldn't we be happy because of the possible come back of variety ?
      I personally look forward a stituation that'd be like 15-20 years ago, when there were many environments and languages, when there was CHOICE.
      So, if IBM want to use their advertising service's Macs to create a Macromedia ad to promote Linux, I say "OK".

      --
      Trolling using another account since 2005.
    5. Re:Check this out - very cool IBM Ad for Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MSN link on IBM ad about Linux Oh the irony!

      "I talked to IBM's Lisa Baird, who is responsible for the company's worldwide advertising. She explained that this ad is actually targeting a highly select group, including "CEOs, CFOs, and prime ministers." Wow. That's not me, and my reader mail suggests that it's not you either. (Or do prime ministers often say, "Suck it, assclown"?) So this ad isn't meant for us, and, although it cost gazillions of dollars to produce and is on television all the time (especially during football games), it also has nothing to sell us.

      At least nothing tangible. Baird says the ad is selling a perception: the perception that Linux is important, that it's here for the long haul, and that it's got some big guns behind it--like IBM, Muhammad Ali, and yes, even Laverne. So when the tech guy at your company proposes a switch to Linux, he's taken seriously. All because you, and more importantly your CEO, watched this ad during the football game."

    6. Re:Check this out - very cool IBM Ad for Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey did they make that cool flash advertising linux on a linux box....Macromedia does make flash for linux...uhhh right?

    7. Re:Check this out - very cool IBM Ad for Linux by Guildencrantz · · Score: 1

      He reminds me of the kids fromVillage of the Damned.

      --

      Penguin Trivia #46: Animals who are not penguins can only wish they were. -- Chicago Reader 10/15/82
    8. Re:Check this out - very cool IBM Ad for Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's got some big guns behind it--like IBM, Muhammad Ali, and yes, even Laverne.

      I, for one, will not use Linux until it is approved by Sqiggy. Maybe the Fonz, too. I take my technology decisions seriously!

    9. Re:Check this out - very cool IBM Ad for Linux by westlake · · Score: 1
      "All because you, and more importantly your CEO, watched this ad during the football game."

      and for weeks after the game the only thing anyone talked about were Janet Jackson's tits. a win for the Geek's true ambitions, perhaps, but not much of a showing for Linux.

    10. Re:Check this out - very cool IBM Ad for Linux by tokabola · · Score: 1

      Or perhaps the Flash export in Open Office Impress?

      --
      Open Source for Open Minds
  5. No mention of SCO... by rf0 · · Score: 0, Troll

    Well actually there is in the article but its under Horoscopes so prehaps thats a pointer to a bright future. Actually what star sign is Linux?

    Rus

    1. Re:No mention of SCO... by spellraiser · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually what star sign is Linux?

      Well, as can been seen here, Torvalds himself is not sure. Anyway, the problem also lies in selecting a specific birthday for Linux. Perhaps the most logical choice is the release of the first version, 0.10. Torvalds has this to say about that:

      Judging from the post, 0.01 wasn't actually out yet, but it's close. I'd guess the first version went out in the middle of September -91. I got some responses to this (most by mail, which I haven't saved), and I even got a few mails asking to be beta-testers for linux.

      Middle of September would indicate that Linux is probably a Virgo (August 24 to September 23), but it could also possibly be a Libra (September 23 to October 23). To decide between the two, I will need to do extensive analysis of Linux's character and disposition. Or I could just flip a coin ...

      --
      I hear there's rumors on the Slashdots
    2. Re:No mention of SCO... by Penguinisto · · Score: 1
      Since it came out and was released to the public originally/officially in October 5 1991, I suspect it would be a Libra...

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    3. Re:No mention of SCO... by good(k)night · · Score: 0

      SCO is like SCOrpio?
      and Tux is what? Virgo? ;->

      --
      my endian is bigger than yours!
    4. Re:No mention of SCO... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1991 was the year of the Goat/Sheep.

    5. Re:No mention of SCO... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Middle of September would indicate that Linux is probably a Virgo

      How very appropriate; as most Slashdotters are virgoes (virgi? virgo?) as well!

    6. Re:No mention of SCO... by myster0n · · Score: 2, Funny

      Is it a libra as in beer or a libra as in speech ?

      --
      Nobody believes the official spokesman, but everybody trusts an unidentified source. -- Ron Nesen
    7. Re:No mention of SCO... by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      It's later on in that section in the Classified ads: "#666 Astrologers, Psychics & Suckholes"

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    8. Re:No mention of SCO... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, that's virgin

    9. Re:No mention of SCO... by Craptastic+Weasel · · Score: 1

      PS. Could someone please try to finger me from overseas, as I've
      > installed...


      (Excerpt from Torvald's discussions in early linux)

      Microsoft must have misunderstood this, figured they couldn't be outdone, and now thousands of Chinese are giving them the finger every day!!!

  6. Sounds Familiar by bsharitt · · Score: 5, Funny

    Okay, we were wrong in 2001, 2002, and 2003, but we really mean it this time.

    I hope it does happen this year though.

    1. Re:Sounds Familiar by AKAImBatman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      From what I've seen so far, there are only two possible desktops for the average user:

      1. SuSE
      2. Java Desktop System (SuSE based)

      I haven't had a chance to try Xandros, so that may be a competitor as well. The biggest problem is that the Linux developers have to get off their high horse and make binary distribution as easy as source distribution. SuSE, RedHat, Mandrake, etc. are all Linux, but all need different RPM files. And then some RPMs may not match the version of libc/glibc you use.

      What's the standard solution? "Just recompile it."

      That is *not* acceptable for the average end user. Take a look at Mac OS X. They got it right. You download the DMG, it mounts as a folder, you copy the "program" (really a folder that the OS makes look like a file) to your Applications directory. Done.

      Linux OTOH, goes like this: Find the RPM you want. Try to install and get a list of dependencies. Go track down every dependency you need (because you should already have libart_gpl and libtheora, right?!) and then install the dependencies. After spending and hour or two just to install one piece of software, log out and log back in so the menus update. Then try to run the software and hope that you didn't accidently install an incompatible binary. ARRRGGGHHH!!!

    2. Re:Sounds Familiar by Overt+Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Exactly. The state of Linux right now is still similar to a car designed by auto enthusiasts -- if you know what you're doing (and enjoy doing it, to boot), it's relatively easy to use and maintain.

      But the average person doesn't tinker under the hood of their car much, or at all. (Heck, most people don't even change their own oil these days.) They just want a product that works with little to no detailed knowledge of what's actually going on, and rely on support (mechanics, JiffyLube, whatever) for keeping the thing working properly.

      Same for operating systems -- most users aren't going to want to spend the time or energy learning how to maintain their own system. Linux "for the masses" will require a system that can be maintained with a minimum amount of effort from the end user. In a corporate setting, this is less important because those machines would be administered by IT specialists, but in a personal/home setting, self-maintaining systems are a must.

    3. Re:Sounds Familiar by AstroDrabb · · Score: 1
      Linux OTOH, goes like this: Find the RPM you want. Try to install and get a list of dependencies. Go track down every dependency you need (because you should already have libart_gpl and libtheora, right?!) and then install the dependencies. After spending and hour or two just to install one piece of software, log out and log back in so the menus update. Then try to run the software and hope that you didn't accidently install an incompatible binary. ARRRGGGHHH!!!
      Are you a moron? RPM dependencany problems have been gone for a while now. Debian has never had those problems. With Debian, you just select the application to install from a GUI and install it. Done. All needed dependencies are handled. This same functionality was brought to RPM based distros via apt for rpm some time ago. I know apt runs on SuSE and Fedora/Red Hat. It makes installing 1,000's of applications a snap, just select the application from a list and click install.
      --
      If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
      it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
    4. Re:Sounds Familiar by xandroid · · Score: 2, Informative

      "...Mac OS X...got it right. You download the DMG, it mounts as a folder, you copy the "program" (really a folder that the OS makes look like a file) to your Applications directory. Done."

      The Zero Install system does this same make-the-directory-containing-the-program-look-lik e-the-program-itself thing, aiming to be a program repository and easy method of installation/uninstallation in one go. It's like OSX's folder-mounting plus apt-get plus a nice big cache of available programs all in one.

      --
      $ echo "ceci n'est pas une pipe" | sed -Ee 's/(eci n|pas )//g'
    5. Re:Sounds Familiar by zapyon · · Score: 1

      That is *not* acceptable for the average end user.

      Fully agreed. And even if you know how to do it, it is often simply too time consuming.

      Linux OTOH, goes like this: Find the RPM you want. Try to install and get a list of dependencies. Go track down every dependency you need (because you should already have libart_gpl and libtheora, right?!) and then install the dependencies. After spending and hour or two just to install one piece of software, log out and log back in so the menus update. Then try to run the software and hope that you didn't accidently install an incompatible binary. ARRRGGGHHH!!!

      It doesn't have to be like this: APT, the "Advanced Package Tool" of Debian, deals with that. I have never known dependency hell since I am using Debian (I used to have installations of Slackware, DLD, SuSE, RedHat and have recently tried KNOPPIX, too. APT and the tools that come with it are also available for RPM-based distros, AFAIK. Also, with "alien" it is possible to transform rpm and some other packages (incl. tgz) into Debian *.deb packages and then install them the usual way ... I have done that with several packages, mostly RPM, and in many cases this works flawlessly.

      Another help is "checkinstall", which will at least help you install tgz packages with makefiles in a way that automagically generates a Debian package, too.

      Regards zapyon
      --
      I like my spaghetti with source.
    6. Re:Sounds Familiar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Log out and back in? What kind of desktop environment you are using? I'm using KDE on Debian, and whenever I install anything, it appears magically on the menus without me having to do anything (I do not even have to log out. Pretty spooky the first time.)

    7. Re:Sounds Familiar by AKAImBatman · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's funny, because IT JUST HAPPENED ON SUSE! I had to track down 300 different RPMs just to get the thing installed. Once it was installed and working fine, I installed the NVidia driver. VLC no longer runs due to an NVidia incompatibility with libc. Is this just a figment of my imagination?

    8. Re:Sounds Familiar by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      It's what happens. Whenever a change is made to the KDE menu (KDE 3.1), it will usually not show up until you log out and log back on. Sometimes it mysteriously shows up after a half hour plus, but that's just too long to wait for a menu item to show up. Especially when you just created it via the menu editor!

    9. Re:Sounds Familiar by micromoog · · Score: 1

      KDE 3.2 fixes that.

    10. Re:Sounds Familiar by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      That's good to hear. Now SuSE just needs to update. :-)

    11. Re:Sounds Familiar by pyros · · Score: 1

      I want to know what application took 299 other RPMs, none of which are available in any Yast sources (not sure if Yast works like Apt, Yum, and URPMI in this respect, but I would hope so).

    12. Re:Sounds Familiar by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      I was (obviously) exaggerating the 300. The real number was closer to 15-20 RPMs, only one or two of which was in YaST. The application was VideoLAN (a.k.a. VLC) video player. Check my Journal for the full scoop.

    13. Re:Sounds Familiar by advocate_one · · Score: 1

      twit... it's all prebuilt for you at PackmanThere's only libdvdcss and maybe some windows codecs to fetch as packman can't carry them.

      --
      Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
    14. Re:Sounds Familiar by pyros · · Score: 1

      Someone else already posted a single source to get everything you need for VLC on Suse, so I won't talk about that. Regarding your mouse, is it the only USB device you have? I didn't seem any other listed. I have to suspect that you either have bad USB hardware on the motherboard, or a bad mouse. I have an MS IntelliMouse Explorer (wireless, no less) and it has worked quite flawlessly in Red Hat 8/9, Fedora Core 1, Fedora Core 2 test2. Debian unstable, and Suse 9.0. I forget if I had to do anything to get the mouse working post-install on Suse, I think I just made sure to pick the right one in the installer. Every instance of Red Hat and Fedora has had it working, with the mouse every time. Debian has never set up little things like this for me out of the box (even with the beta3 debian-installer images).

    15. Re:Sounds Familiar by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      Except that's where I got it from. All the packages for SuSE are NOT there. Off the top of my head, libtheora, libart_gpl, and a bunch of others are missing.

      I will be more civilized than you are and not call you a twit in response.

    16. Re:Sounds Familiar by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      Someone else already posted a single source to get everything you need for VLC on Suse

      As I explained to that rather rude gentleman, that was my source for the RPMs. Unfortunately, there were more RPMs missing from that site than there were available.

      Regarding your mouse, is it the only USB device you have?

      I have a USB hub with a bunch of stuff plugged in, but I unplugged it for this experiment.

      The mouse was set up correctly on all Linux distributions I tried it on. It seems to be something inherent in the kernel. It's possible that it has something more to do with the BIOS than anything else. Although it does work on Windows, so that doesn't say much for Linux. I'll be trying a few of the suggestions I got later.

    17. Re:Sounds Familiar by AstroDrabb · · Score: 1
      300? Are you sure about that? Did you use apt 4 SuSE? No. If you did, it would have been one command or two GUI clicks to install VLC with all dependencies. Fedora comes with yum out-of-the box. Yum is almost the same thing as apt. You can also install apt 4 Fedora and have access to 1,000's of RPM's. Just because you don't use the right tools does not mean that Linux does not support what you want to do very easily.

      Next time, do a quick search on google, and you should find just about anything you need for Linux. You should also join the Redhat Yahoo group which I am a moderator on. We answer every question with no nasty attitude toward new Linux users. You can also check out the Linux Yahoo group for all things Linux. We have the same attitude as the Redhat Yahoo group and have a few 1,000 members.

      --
      If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
      it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
    18. Re:Sounds Familiar by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      Sir, you are missing the point. Of course I found everything I needed in the end. A large number of the missing packages were available from rpmfind. Unfortunately, that just isn't good enough for your average user. Your average user should be able to download one file and install by double clicking or dragging and dropping.

      On Linux, a user can do neither. Instead they have to go through the process of collecting all the packages they need (some of which take some research to identify) and install each one individually. Alternatively, they can chase around 10 different package managers trying to find the one that had all the stuff they need. This is not a usable design. If that offends your personal preference, then I'm sorry. That's just the way it is.

  7. I know how I feel about open source by mindless4210 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    "The power of innovation in the open-source community is unparalleled," says Chris Pratt, manager of IBM Canada's Internet server business. "You've got thousands of people working on this thing for no other reason than to produce the best quality product. If you look at what they've been able to produce up until now, imagine how it's going to go forward."

    This guy couldn't have put it any better. It's the reason Linux will continue to grow and have deeper market pennetration over the next few years.

    It's good to see that more and more people are recognizing the power of Linux, especially when it comes to a server OS. It's very powerful, modular, and best of all... it's free.

    --
    Wireless News www.DailyWireless
    1. Re:I know how I feel about open source by goldspider · · Score: 1
      I would agree that the intent is there, but at least in this user's opinion, most Linux development is done in the spirit of keeping up with/improving on the latest Microsoft offering.

      Maybe it's just me, but I can't call that "innovation".

      And that's not meant to be a knock against Linux; just an observation that a lot of Linux supporters won't face up to, IMHO.

      --
      "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
    2. Re:I know how I feel about open source by Oxy+the+moron · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In reality, I suppose it depends on how you define "innovation." Many things Microsoft has done aren't exactly 100% innovative, either. A lot of their big money makers were brain childs of another company that MS either bought and took over, or started their own and improved on what was laid before them.

      I think that if one were to compare which has brought about more innovation (of MS and Linux), Linux would still be at the forefront.

      --

      Proudly supporting the Libertarian Party.

    3. Re:I know how I feel about open source by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      Ha! Sure, you like what Tyler Hamilton says this week, but Slashdot hasn't always received his stories gracefully. :^)

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    4. Re:I know how I feel about open source by mahdi13 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Could we get a few examples of Linux just playing catch-up and not being "Innovative"?

      Here's some I see in Linux but not in Windows...
      Highlight text and middle-click to copy
      Tabbed internet browsers (Comparing to IE)
      Live bootable CDs that don't require installation (If there are MS equivalents, please point them out)
      Truly separate user environments

      I know I'm missing a bunch, but the only real 'catching up with Microsoft' I see with Linux is trying to keep interoperability working, which is a must in any business environment

      --
      "Some things have to be believed to be seen." - Ralph Hodgson
    5. Re:I know how I feel about open source by Lussarn · · Score: 1

      And the same can be seen the othe way around to. There are quite a few things in XP that have been in Gnome for some time, like the ability to group in the taskbar. As far as I know you can't have more than one panel in XP yet, but looking at the screenshots from longhorn it seems you can there (And the ability to run programs in the panels), this is something Gnome and KDE have done for years. In XP you can have multiple desktops I think (also something at least taken from *nix), don't know about OSS on that one. I've also heard the never windows is going to have a new command linus interface, and OSS is much better than any closed source offering there.

      Everybody borrows from eachother, not just Linux. I'm sure MS looks at the good things from Gnome/KDE and copy those too.

    6. Re:I know how I feel about open source by GoofyBoy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >Highlight text and middle-click to copy

      Middle clicking is an innovation? Didn't Sun/really old graphical Unix have this years ago?

      >Tabbed internet browsers (Comparing to IE)

      Is a browser part of Linux (OS)? If you claim innovation there, do you also take the blame for the crappy stuff too? Or is this one sided?

      >Live bootable CDs that don't require installation (If there are MS equivalents, please point them out)

      Floppy disk formated with /SYS

      >Truly separate user environments

      Again, is this innovation or something that Unix had already?

      Every new release of a Linux distribution gets closer and closer to the latest Windows OS.

      --
      The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
    7. Re:I know how I feel about open source by mahdi13 · · Score: 2, Informative

      The comparison is with Linux and Windows, if we get into the Unix stuff we open a huge can of worms that everyone has 'barrowed' from

      >Highlight text and middle-click to copy
      Middle clicking is an innovation? Didn't Sun/really old graphical Unix have this years ago?

      Yes, Sun had this first but Windows does not have this feature, period

      >Tabbed internet browsers (Comparing to IE) Is a browser part of Linux (OS)? If you claim innovation there, do you also take the blame for the crappy stuff too? Or is this one sided?

      No, in Linux the browser is NOT part of the OS (which MS claims IE is)
      What crappy stuff are you refering to? Lack of ActiveX??

      >Live bootable CDs that don't require installation (If there are MS equivalents, please point them out)
      Floppy disk formated with /SYS
      We are talking full desktop environment here, a floppy with /SYS does not give you a desktop environment

      >Truly separate user environments
      Again, is this innovation or something that Unix had already?

      Again, we are comparing Linux to Windows, not Unix

      --
      "Some things have to be believed to be seen." - Ralph Hodgson
    8. Re:I know how I feel about open source by GoofyBoy · · Score: 1


      >Yes, Sun had this first but Windows does not have this feature, period

      My point is that its not a "Linux Innovation".

      >What crappy stuff are you refering to? Lack of ActiveX??

      Lack of major third party support? Real Player? QuickTime 6.X?
      The point is that you can't say Mozilla = Linux, so any innovation in Mozilla isn't a Linux innovation.

      >We are talking full desktop environment here,
      Fine;
      http://www.nu2.nu/pebuilder/

      >we are comparing Linux to Windows, not Unix

      No we are talking about "Linux innovation" vs. "Windows innovation". If Unix (in general) had it before Linux was even created, then how can it be a Linux innovation?

      --
      The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
    9. Re:I know how I feel about open source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a loser.

    10. Re:I know how I feel about open source by mahdi13 · · Score: 1

      My point is that its not a "Linux Innovation".
      And they are Windows Innovations when Apple and Unix were truly first?

      Lack of major third party support? Real Player? QuickTime 6.X? The point is that you can't say Mozilla = Linux, so any innovation in Mozilla isn't a Linux innovation.
      There is Real Player support for Linux and they contribute to it, just don't officially support it.
      QuickTime (and Real) works with most Linux video playback software. You only need to right codec's (which is no different then anything else)
      Correct, internet browsers are not a far comparison since only Microsoft considers their browser to be part of the OS, claiming Innovation

      http://www.nu2.nu/pebuilder/
      Thanks for that link, it's a start but still involves the user to build the ISO themselves. Avoiding Microsoft's licensing problems.
      Thanks though, I did not realize there was such a project

      No we are talking about "Linux innovation" vs. "Windows innovation". If Unix (in general) had it before Linux was even created, then how can it be a Linux innovation?
      How can it be a Windows Innovation, also?

      --
      "Some things have to be believed to be seen." - Ralph Hodgson
    11. Re:I know how I feel about open source by FooBarWidget · · Score: 1

      I'd say: who the hell cares who invented it? Linux (the kernel) is good, 2.6 has gotten a lot of improvements. I don't care whether you call it "innovation" or not - it's just good.

      "Floppy disk formated with /SYS"

      What the... you compare Windows boot floppies with LiveCDs?! What when you put this floppy in a computer without Windows, or on a computer with a broken Windows install that doesn't want to boot?

      "Every new release of a Linux distribution gets closer and closer to the latest Windows OS."

      So? If that makes the user interface better then who cares whether it's innovative?

      Innovation is overrrated.

    12. Re:I know how I feel about open source by FooBarWidget · · Score: 1

      "Lack of major third party support?"

      That's like blaming a poor man that he doesn't have tons of money.

      Users won't use Linux until it gets major third party support, and major third parties will not support Linux until there are lots of users. Flaming Linux down for being in a chiken & egg situation is just stupid.

    13. Re:I know how I feel about open source by GoofyBoy · · Score: 1

      >you compare Windows boot floppies with LiveCDs?!

      Um.. its not Windows, its DOS. And I was half-joking, so don't get all wound-up.

      >If that makes the user interface better then who cares whether it's innovative?

      You are barking up the wrong tree. I was just replying someone else who said it was "innovative". You are arguing if its "good" or not. Two different things.

      --
      The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
    14. Re:I know how I feel about open source by MoneyT · · Score: 1

      Welcome to mac user hell, circa 1997, enjoy your stay.

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
    15. Re:I know how I feel about open source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Live bootable CDs that don't require installation

      WinPE, the Windows Preinstallation OEM Disk or BartPE, which lets you build WinPE.
  8. linux at large conservative org - stop the press! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There's been a lot of interest in Linux at my place of employ over the past 12 months. Not just wishful thinking kind of interest - - - but the kind of interest that leads to full testing environments to see if it's feasible to support linux in our environment, over multiple hardware platforms. What's most interesting is that my organization is both large, and also very very conservative.

  9. That's a new one by atrizzah · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that '05 will be a penguin year as well

    1. Re:That's a new one by Derang() · · Score: 1

      I'd be willing to go further than that and include 2006 and 2007 as well :)

  10. We're On Board by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Recently upgraded all of our workstations to Linux. Fully wiped about 15 machines and added a custom install of Fedora Core 1 in less than six hours. We use a single Windows 2003 Server via rdesktop for a handful of legacy applications. The amazing thing is that everything worked flawlessly. We've had a handful of interface questions and a few printer hiccups and that's it.

    Other small companies can do this and do it now.

    1. Re:We're On Board by Nintendork · · Score: 1
      "Other small companies can do this and do it now."

      Correction: Other small companies that don't have technophobes that need to be able to work seamlessly with other companies can do this and do it now. And if you're the administrator, be prepared to take full responsibility and be able to tackle every roadblock. There is no Linux Corp. with 4 hour response times for business down situations.

      -Lucas

    2. Re:We're On Board by NineNine · · Score: 1

      Other small companies can do this and do it now.



      Sure, my company can do it now! Assuming you come over and do it for me, and are available 24/7 with questions. Oh yeah, and you can port all of my Windows apps over for me.

      You're out of your mind. I'd like to know how exactly I can afford to get my apps re-written, and why exactly I should do this. But then, you're an AC, so you're probably just making this all up.

    3. Re:We're On Board by rah1420 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      . There is no Linux Corp. with 4 hour response times for business down situations.

      And I'm sure that you have that kind of service level agreement with the MSFT Channel Partner that you used to deploy your current desktop solution, right? Riiiiiiiiight.

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens.
    4. Re:We're On Board by FatherOfONe · · Score: 1

      Ahh but the reverse is true. If you are the administrator of a small company, like I am and you run Windows XP on your clients, like I do and they get hit with some new worm that cost your business a couple of days of downtime, you have to be prepared to take the heat on that one.

      We are in the process of evaluating switching some of our clients to Linux. I am not going to say it WILL happen, but it is being evaluated. I would assume that any company that is looking at switching would also go through a similar process. If they do a good job then most of the issues will be flushed out.

      --
      The more I learn about science, the more my faith in God increases.
    5. Re:We're On Board by Nintendork · · Score: 1
      Actually, in the three years I've been a sysadmin for two companies (Both over 50 workstations and 7-10 servers), I haven't had a single outbreak. I've had one individual computer get infected before the AV defs were available, but they were immediately identified and shut down for the hour or so it took for updated defs to be released.

      -Lucas

    6. Re:We're On Board by FatherOfONe · · Score: 1

      That's great for you, but my Apache logs show a different story for Windows users. We also have not had any major outbreaks in a while. However, we have had MAJOR issues with some of the hot fixes and service packs that have been released. Also, have you noticed the size of these things lately? 100 Megs!!!

      Now let me say that our Macintosh and Linux clients have NEVER had a virus issue at all. To be honest we don't have to spend time with virus software for Linux at all. So no more testing all the definition updates to see if they hose out your system. I assume, being a good windows administrator you do test all of the latest virus definitions before you let them loose on your network... given that they come out about every 4 days or so, that time in testing sure needs to be counted in the TCO.

      Not to mention the cost associated with Norton or other supported virus software.

      The TCO of Windows is not small. I am not saying Linux is better for you, but for us we are looking very seriously at migrating. To be honest if Apple released OSX for x86 we would probably move in that direction, but given that isn't going to happen... Linux is the next best choice for us.

      Currently we have only one small issue that has been found and one package that we are looking at a replacement for. The new Oracle reports will not run. When we tried this evaluation a year and a half ago, there were a TON of things that was not workable. It is my belief that "if" we can get Oracle forms working, then this project will move to the next phase. Does that mean it will happen? Nope, but if it doesn't, I will bet you that given the rapid development of good software for Linux, our company will be taking another look at it in a year or two.

      As you should be.

      --
      The more I learn about science, the more my faith in God increases.
    7. Re:We're On Board by Nintendork · · Score: 1
      I don't mean to slam you, but the anti-windows arguments you present are nothing more than the usual reverse FUD and in my experience are completely untrue. Considering that I supported NT server for Microsoft (Thanks for calling Microsoft NT Server support, ......), I'd have to say that I've seen a considerable amount of hosed Microsoft networks. In 99% of the cases, it was due to user error. Administrators that had no clue what they're doing. That other 1% was a different story :grin:. I'm not saying that I don't take Linux seriously, I'm just saying that in a corporate environment, I personally wouldn't risk it without corporate backing like Red Hat. Have you looked at their prices though?

      -Lucas

    8. Re:We're On Board by FatherOfONe · · Score: 1

      I will agree with you if by saying 99% of the time it is because the administrator didn't have patch xyz installed. Now I want you to realize that there have been over 300Meg of patches released for Windows Server 2000. I believe there are over 40 criticial updates. Come on now... Isn't that a bit extreme?

      Now let's say you have a good I.T. shop that wants to have a development, test and production environment. They want all of them to be Windows NT servers. Well it has gotten to the point were that company will need to almost allocate a FTE position just to handle the verification of all these patches and security issues. That is a hard line cost. Or the company can just be like the 100% of the Microsoft shops around here and just throw caution to the wind and just load EVERY patch from Microsoft without testing. Then when something breaks, they call Microsoft and if it isn't a Microsoft product, they seem to always get "Well you should be running our product for that".

      --
      The more I learn about science, the more my faith in God increases.
    9. Re:We're On Board by Nintendork · · Score: 1
      I didn't say that 99% of the time it was because they didn't have a patch installed. Actually, I would say that accounted for maybe 5% of the calls. Typically, it was a lack of knowledge that got them into trouble. Misconfigurations (Probably 70% of the calls), old BIOS/firmware code causing trouble (5% and yes, it's important to keep those up to date), network issues that they weren't knowledgeable enough to diagnose and fix (7%), poorly configured firewalls(8%), etc.

      Again, everything you said is typical reverse FUD. 300MB is extreme since you're adding ALL patches, even the ones that supersede others. I'm not sure if you pay much attention or not, but Linux distributions release a significant amount of patches as well. With regards to testing patches before deploying, I ask you this: Is Linux an exception? Do you not test updates and patches on Linux? During my tenure doing Microsoft support, I saw VERY few patches actually break anything. When they did, Microsoft provided FREE support to get those customers back up and running with a 24/7 phone number. Patch management is actually quite simple. You build up a box and use Windows update to install the windows patches. For any other Microsoft products, install the latest service pack and any post service pack patches (Technet's Bulletin page makes this extremely easy to do). The amount of caution you put into the patch deployment process after the initial setup is up to you, but based off experience, a recent backup is there for worst case scenario and testing isn't worth the time.

      -Lucas

  11. ...and Sun?.... by james_in_denver · · Score: 0, Troll

    Didn't Sun just get assimilated by M$?....

    1. Re:...and Sun?.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Insightful?
      How about Troll or Mis-Informed?

  12. New headline... by Eric_Cartman_South_P · · Score: 1
    4/2004: "2004: Your fucking website doesn't work, FreemanPatrickHenry"

    : )

  13. Training Costs by LaNMaN2000 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    One of the things few Linux desktop advocates consider is the cost of retraining users to use the new software and any loss of productivity that would result from incompatibilities between OSS Office packages (OpenOffice,StarOffice,etc.) and Microsoft's offering. If 90% of business users create their documents in word then even subtle incompatibilities or limitations of the import functionality could make it very difficult to share information across and between organizations.

    It is the chicken and the egg problem. The value in MS Software is certainly not any features of the packages, themselves; it is the network effect of being able to easily share data with all other users of the software.

    --

    ByteMyCode.com: A Web 2.0 code sharing community.
    1. Re:Training Costs by pe1rxq · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Training guy: Remember that white plane Word had were you typed your text?

      Luser: Yeah...

      Training guy: Your new word processor also has it...

      Luser: ........

      Training guy: You know how you used 'open' and 'save' and 'print' in that 'file' menu in the top of the window?

      Luser: Yeah....

      Training guy: Good, keep doing that.

      Luser: Ok....

      Training guy: Remember how above the white plane you could select the font and its size? And whit those funny buttons with italic and bold text you could make the text in the white plane turn to italic and bold?

      Luser: Uhuh...

      Training guy: Great! NEXT!

      --
      Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
    2. Re:Training Costs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Training costs my ass, we rolled out 125 thin client workstations to our manufacturing floor. Now ask me how much time we spent training them to click the icon I put on the desktop. These guys are metal benders not rocket scientists when it comes to something with a keyboard attached.

      Oh you mean like how my shop floor guys can access the windows shares from their desktops because I mounted them for them.

      Oh you mean like the 1 support guy for each 100 windows workstations we have because they spend 80% of their day removing spyware and adware junk.

    3. Re:Training Costs by robertjw · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Huh, few Linux desktop advocates consider retraining? Interesting since every Linux desktop article I've seen in the last 2 years mentioned the cost of retraining.

      My perception could be completely wrong, but most Microsoft Office users I know don't have a clue how to do anything but the most rudimentary document creation in Word, or the most basic spreadsheet creation in Excel. Couple that with the incompatibility problems we run into because we aren't willing to shell out $300/year/user to upgrade to the latest greatest Office Suite and the cost of retraining seems like much less of a hurdle.

      It's taken a while, but MS's stranglehold on the desktop is finally starting to slip. OpenOffice is a good product, MS's upgrades are too complicated and too expensive and, most importantly, Linux is starting to make inroads with large vendors. All of these factors will help bolster the Linux Desktop and make the "chicken and the egg" problem work against Microsoft, rather than for them.

    4. Re:Training Costs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      ...any loss of productivity that would result from incompatibilities between OSS Office packages (OpenOffice,StarOffice,etc.) and Microsoft's offering.

      And what you neglect to mention is the loss of procutivity inherent in the use of Microsoft's offering.

      I say this as a p!ssed off Word user who just spent 1/2 the day yesterday writing a Word manual and then spent the other 1/2 day rewriting it after Word ate it! Word itself corrupted 1 table and trashed 3/4 of the document! It was only a 30 page doc with maybe a dozen graphics! Why?

      This is not an isolated incident: I have been using MS Office since Win 3.1 days and this has been a "feature" of every version of Office since I started.

      So, really, the question for me is becoming: do I want to spend some time reformatting docs from other people or do I want to spend my time re-creating stuff that I've already done? Believe me, if OpenOffice or StarOffice is more reliable, I'm there!

    5. Re:Training Costs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One could mitigate the cost of retraining by doing it when the employees have forced non-productive time. Like the next time their computers have to be purged of the latest virus/worm/trojan.

    6. Re:Training Costs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That must be great. Where do you work? A school for the retarded where users are required only to type their name on a piece of paper to put on their desk? Idiot.

    7. Re:Training Costs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well, shit, you just described 99.9% of the offices I've been in......

    8. Re:Training Costs by Bluesman · · Score: 1

      >Remember that white plane Word had were you typed your text?

      Hang on a minute there, propeller-head. Plane? What are you talking about? I use Expedia for that.

      --
      If moderation could change anything, it would be illegal.
    9. Re:Training Costs by kahei · · Score: 3, Insightful


      Luser: I want to embed my graphs in it now. And when Accounting change the graph, it should email me. Some of the graphs are generated from this old DLL. And when you click here, it should bring up foo.xls with sheet 3 selected.

      Training guy: ...

      --
      Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
    10. Re:Training Costs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, everybody does consider it and that is partially what holds back folks. They are being sold that same "issue".

      Where the real problem will be is the amount of untrainable Windows admin that will linger and die.

    11. Re:Training Costs by Seth+Finklestein · · Score: 0

      I want to embed my graphs in it now.

      OpenOffice supports this. It's just as easy as doing it in Word.

      And when Accounting change the graph, it should email me.

      Also easy. Because OpenOffice files are open XML files, you can easily write a script that e-mails the luser when a graph's contents change.

      Some of the graphs are generated from this old DLL.

      Hi, security risk? It's Seth. What's that you say? Old DLLs?

      And when you click here, it should bring up foo.xls with sheet 3 selected.

      Again, easily done. You clearly have no experience working with OpenOffice (which is superior).

      --
      I'm not Seth Finkelstein. I still speak the truth.
    12. Re:Training Costs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Thank you, Seth. I don't know why anyone would use M$ Office in this day and age. People willingly spend $400 a seat for software they could download for free?

    13. Re:Training Costs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny
      Training guy: That's interesting, because OpenOffice.org can do all those things, and users on different platforms and different versions can use those features together. And, since OpenOffice.org uses well-documented open file standards, you can expect that these features will continue to work well on future versions, too. Oh, and if there are any other features you can imagine, you can add them.

      Luser: I want to suck your dick.

    14. Re:Training Costs by mattgreen · · Score: 1

      Luser: How come copy-paste doesn't work the same way in every app?

      Training guy: ...

    15. Re:Training Costs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having made the switch myself with no formal technical training, OpenOffice, especially the word processing portion is very compatible. "Retraining" is hardly needed.

    16. Re:Training Costs by wuice · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you're starting from scratch, by all means go with Linux and do it now instead of later. If you have to support an old system, you can't just ignore the cost of rewriting scripts, macros, and so on into their format. If you communicate with other companies or entities, and they have their own Microsoft-centric practices, you either have to find a way to handle them or stop doing business with them. Both cost $$$.

      The reason this issue gets argued back and forth forever is because so many people think there is only one right answer. In any business situation especially, *all* factors must be considered not just the long-term benefits, or the short-term costs.

      The world don't move to the beat of just one drum. What might be right for you may not be right for some. You take the good, you take the bad, you take em both and there you have.. my slashdot post. Sit ubu sit. Good dog.

    17. Re:Training Costs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Moderate Seth Finklestein's comments as "Insightful," please.

  14. I think I speak for everyone when I say... by bonch · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...please no more of these, Slashdot! It seems you post two a month now. They're always the same, everyone makes fun of them, and they don't offer anything new or insightful other than "things are looking good."

    Stop!

    1. Re:I think I speak for everyone when I say... by PitaBred · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Gotta love your sig. Mostly because it's a lie. I've had a lot of people ask me about Linux, geek types and not, because they've heard a little bit about it somewhere and want to know what it's all about.

    2. Re:I think I speak for everyone when I say... by boudie · · Score: 1

      Please no more comments from people complaining about too many articles claiming this to be the year of Linux. It's getting too silly.

    3. Re:I think I speak for everyone when I say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      aha so slashdot has an unwritten censorship clause...

  15. Just as soon as Linux works with my sound card. by JavaLord · · Score: 2, Troll

    I kid you not, I've installed 3 different flavors of linux on 6 different computers at home with 6 different soundcards for the past 7 years. Linux has NEVER worked with any of my sound cards. The latest attempt was knoppix, with a sound blaster audigy. Anyone ever have any luck with it?

    Until the linux desktop has the ease of use windows, or OSX when things go wrong I don't think it will be ready for primetime on the desktop. I wish it was, because neither of the other two OS's are that appealing to me. And while more games are coming out for linux, there still isn't any counterstrike on linux. I've never read about anyone getting it to work correctly with WINE either.

    1. Re:Just as soon as Linux works with my sound card. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not at my home PC now (Debian unstable), but it supports my SB Audigy with ALSA. Knoppix should be able to pick it up, too, I'm constantly amazed at the amount of iron it recognizes (embedded laptop soundcards, even!). You might not have an up-to-date version?

      As for CS on WINE: I use winex (transgaming) for games, and yes, CS works on it. I have, in fact, personally run it a year ago or so.

    2. Re:Just as soon as Linux works with my sound card. by psbrogna · · Score: 1

      Mandrake 9, 10 & FC1, FC2 test2 (but not test1) detected Audigy and integrated intel sound chips with no problems. When I do have problems I don't think its hardware related, I think its packaging problems with competing sound architectures.

    3. Re:Just as soon as Linux works with my sound card. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Disable the kernel emu10k1 module; download the souurce and compile from scratch at http://sourceforge.net/projects/emu10k1. Possibly in a recent 2.4 or 2.6 the builtin emu10k1 driver works with audigy and audigy 2, not sure.

    4. Re:Just as soon as Linux works with my sound card. by molarmass192 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Were you using ALSA or OSS? OSS is pretty much dead and I haven't used it in years. That said, I've never NOT been able to get a soundcard working with ALSA. I'm not saying full functionality 100% of the time, but basic sound has never been a problem. I'm not sure which distros you used but I can almost guarantee that SuSE 9.0 would have picked up and configured that card for you. SB Audigy support has been in ALSA since the 0.9 series which I know is included in SuSE 9.0.

      --

      Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato
    5. Re:Just as soon as Linux works with my sound card. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      are you kidding? even my hippy drunkard flatmate managed to get HL/CS and his (okok, its not an audigy, but almost) SBLive working great under linux!

      I've always found Creative cards to be well supported under *nix, even back in RH5 days, the awe64 (or whatever i had!) worked "ok"

    6. Re:Just as soon as Linux works with my sound card. by ComputerSlicer23 · · Score: 2, Informative
      Yeah, I know at least two or three people who have the Audigy working under Knoppix. I know I have 3 different machines with Audigies in them. Two of the three run Linux.

      In my 9 years of running Linux, I've never had a sound card not work. Of course, I only ever use Creative Labs branded equipment, or onboard sound because I'm too cheap to go buy a separate sound card.

      The only Audigy I have that you can't run Linux on is an "Audigy LS", that isn't based on the EMU10K chipset (it's the third Audigy I have running on my Windows Gaming machine), and thus isn't supported by the normal Audigy modules. Go out buy yourself a "SoundBlaster 16PCI", or a SoundBlaster 512. Local CompUSA, it's under 40 dollars. Put it into a machine. Boot. Disable the onboard sound in the BIOS. It'll work under RedHat. If for some reason that doesn't work, you've done something silly wrong. I had all three cards in various RedHat machines and swapped them, and they all worked flawlessly.

      I believe counterstrike is supported by TransGaming, a commercial Wine fork (from when Wine was still under a BSD like license, instead of the LGPL it's under now).

      Kirby

    7. Re:Just as soon as Linux works with my sound card. by TimmyJoeB · · Score: 2, Flamebait

      I think this is flame bait or something. I mean this sounds impossible. I have never had a Linux Distro not pick up a sound card, except for Gentoo which is for system admins. I have used Mandrake, SuSE and Red hat.

    8. Re:Just as soon as Linux works with my sound card. by zogger · · Score: 1

      --perhaps just peruse the vendors "supported hardware" before you get another sound card. I would think that would work better than pick a sound card and hope it works.. personally I've never had a problem with sound, but I use an antique card as well, been out forever.

      hmm, this means you've never heard linus say hello in the sound config utility? I remember the first time I heard that, I think it's neat and ought to be default for any linux distro that you got to hear that as the first sound out of the box....

      My rule of economic and useability thumb is, I let the rich guys be the beta testers, and I stay on the *bleeding edge* of 5 or 6 year old technology. Shoot, it's more than that I just realised, my main machine I am sitting in front of now was made in 96, heh. Not having anything else to compare it to, I think I got the newest whizzbang stuff..... FC1 runs on this machine too... with enough ram

      %^)

    9. Re:Just as soon as Linux works with my sound card. by Stanley+Marlowe · · Score: 1

      See, this is the beauty of the Open Source community. You post something on a forum about a problem you're having and people immediately begin to offer solutions, free of charge.

      If this "feature" this could somehow be integrated into a desktop application, (search/post on the most popular online forums, mailing lists, etc.), the question of "free and easy" support would quickly go away.

      I can't code, so I guess I'll shut up now...

    10. Re:Just as soon as Linux works with my sound card. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have it working with WINE -- quite well actually. It runs faster and smoother than it does under Windows. (This allows me to die much more quickly. ;-))

      As for your soundcard, I have the same one -- works beautifully in Gentoo using ALSA. Just follow the setup instructions on their website.

      Honestly, I'll agree with you to a point -- Linux tends to be more difficult to setup. HOWEVER...once it is running, it runs *beautifully*. And, your argument about games not being supported, well, who cares in a business environment? That's where Linux needs to succeed if it really wants to take off. If people start using Linux as their business computers, it will carry over into their homes.

    11. Re:Just as soon as Linux works with my sound card. by molarmass192 · · Score: 1

      Forget that, hurry up and get a file a patent on this before Amazon, eBay, MS, HP, IBM, SCO, etc beats you to it! :D

      --

      Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato
    12. Re:Just as soon as Linux works with my sound card. by Ymiris · · Score: 1

      I have had my SB audigy work under Knoppix and SuSE 9 without needing to configure anything :)

      --
      **It runs through my veins like radioactive rubber pants! Do not deny my veins!**
    13. Re:Just as soon as Linux works with my sound card. by JavaLord · · Score: 1

      Wow, I got the whole gambit of replies, from the elitist "OMG YOU COULDNT GET IT TO WORK IT WORKS FOR MY GREAT GRANDMOTHER" to "just do this this and that and recompile the whole thing". I figure I'll reply to yours since you at least sound like you have a civil tone.

      In my 9 years of running Linux, I've never had a sound card not work. Of course, I only ever use Creative Labs branded equipment, or onboard sound because I'm too cheap to go buy a separate sound card.

      I can tell you in all of my attempts, it's never autodetected and worked. The first was on a IBM 486 with a soundblaster card back around 1997. I managed to get redhat installed, and I really didn't expect the soundcard to work, I was just happy the damn thing was running. After that I made an attempt with Red Hat on a NEC P200 with a bo-bo sound card. I don't remember what kind of card it was, but it probably sucked. Of course, No dice. Later I made an attempt on a Tiger P450 with a soundblaster card ( I don't recall which one) using mandrake. The installer was great, but my soundcard didn't work. Arrg. I tried Mandrake on an IBM P400 laptop that I have with an integrated sound card (ie probably sucks) and it didn't work. Lastly, I tried Knoppix on my Athelon 2.2 GHZ with a soundblaster audigy recently. And of course, my sound doesn't work. I'm not sure if I have an Audigy LS or not, I know it's got 5.1 surround sound blah blah blah. I probably do.

      But the whole point is if I have to ditch a popular soundcard that was probably worth like $150 to get linux to run with sound, is linux ready for the desktop? Sure I'm only one person, with one story but how many people who have tried switching go through this? I assure everyone I'm not at all trolling, I'd like to get away from MS and I have no love for Macs (I work with them everyday) plus why go from one propritary company to another?

      The thing I despise about linux is the time that would go into switching. Stuff like digging around trying to get this that and this to work. Linux still seems a bit...painful.

      Sure, I could duel boot, which I've done before but then I find myself booting into windows like 90% of the time because I just want to get shit done without the frustrations of trying to learn an Alien OS and fiddling with hardware stuff when I get home from coding for 8 hours. Maybe that doesn't make me much of a geek, but what I really want out of Linux isn't geekdom or to learn anything new. What I keep hoping for is a stable OS that I can get basic functionality out of.

      Anyway, thanks for the advice (that goes for everyone who replied). I'll check tonight and see which SB Audigy I have.

    14. Re:Just as soon as Linux works with my sound card. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      -perhaps just peruse the vendors "supported hardware" before you get another sound card. I would think that would work better than pick a sound card and hope it works.. personally I've never had a problem with sound, but I use an antique card as well, been out forever. hmm, this means you've never heard linus say hello in the sound config utility? I remember the first time I heard that, I think it's neat and ought to be default for any linux distro that you got to hear that as the first sound out of the box....

      Nope, Never heard Linus. :/ I never check the vendors "supported hardware" list because I never intend on running linux as a primary OS. I usually take whatever my last computer was and play with linux on there.

    15. Re:Just as soon as Linux works with my sound card. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      see, this is the beauty of the Open Source community. You post something on a forum about a problem you're having and people immediately begin to offer solutions, free of charge.

      How is it beauty when half of the responses are flames and insulting? It's not like you can't get the same thing asking people about windows, and usually their tone is 100 times better than the linux community.

    16. Re:Just as soon as Linux works with my sound card. by JavaLord · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think this is flame bait or something. I mean this sounds impossible. I have never had a Linux Distro not pick up a sound card, except for Gentoo which is for system admins. I have used Mandrake, SuSE and Red hat.

      Well, I've had three different ones NOT pick up a soundcard. That doesn't make my post "flamebait". Did you ever think that just because it worked for you running on your hardware that it might not work for someone else on different hardware? Is this your line of thought - "It must be flamebait because it says something non-flattering about a product I like"?

      Mod's really need to learn that "flambait" and "troll" aren't the same as "Disagree with" or "don't want to hear about".

      Why would I make something like that up? Do you think I find joy in the fact that my soundcards are bastard children that linux ignores? Do you think I get off on linux not being compatable with my hardware so Bill Gates can fuck me up the ass while Steve Ballmer sodomizes my mother for another year or two? (I don't).

    17. Re:Just as soon as Linux works with my sound card. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try turning your volume up

      Seriously, that's probably it :-)

    18. Re:Just as soon as Linux works with my sound card. by palironsat · · Score: 1

      A couple of points:

      begin rant

      Gentoo is not "for system admins." Sure, it's a pain to set up the first time, if you're a Linux n00b (which I am), but once it's going, it's fantastic. I've been through the gamut of Linux distros in the last 6 months (SUSE, Red Hat, Fedora, Arch, Debian, Slackware, Mandrake, and finally Gentoo), and you couldn't make me switch back to anything else. Like they say in their documentation, once you've recompiled your kernel a few times, you'll forget that it used to be hard.

      Along with that, if you have a standard sound card, that'll usually be picked up by one of the precompiled kernels that you'll use (this is for pretty much any distro, not just Gentoo). When you compile the new kernel, sure, you have to make sure you compile support for it, but that's not a big deal, especially if you have a good set of directions.

      You know, it's not always easy right out of the box - I know I had my problems when I first started, but once you get it configured the way you want, you'll never go back to Windows again (unless you're a big-time gamer, because WineX is spotty, at best).

      end of rant

    19. Re:Just as soon as Linux works with my sound card. by ComputerSlicer23 · · Score: 2, Informative
      I appreciate your problems, but something else odd is going on. Part of your problem, is you might be ahead of the curve. Either, your hardware is too new, or your software is too old. I know that I couldn't get an Audigy to work under various versions of RedHat 7.x (I want to say it worked under 7.3, but not under 7.1 and 7.2 until you installed much later kernels). I'm sorry to say, that in 1997, you had to be a lot more Linux Savvy to get your sound to work then you do in this day and age. It should be a lot easier. Laptops are just a pain in the ass in my experience.

      If your serious about getting it working, reply to this post. I know several people who use Knoppix, I'll get them to burn me a copy of the latest one they use, and get one of my machines to make the Audigy go under it. If you we're using RedHat 9, I could diagnose it relatively easily (given that RH9 is not EOL, I can't recommend installing it any more). A friend of mine just got a new Audigy he installed into a machine he runs Knoppix on, no more then 10 days ago. I'll ask him if there was anything special, and what version of knoppix he ran.

      WhiteBox Linux is a free rebuild of RHEL, that's what I run at work/home. It's just like RedHat. I once had a Creative Labs SB16-PCI that gave me trouble. Mostly the problem was that it was really a repackaged ES1371 (I think that's the number). It was a chipset from a company they bought out years ago. My problem was that the PCI ID wasn't in old precompiled kernel image, so I had to hand load the modules.

      There's a simple way to do that. By the way, Unless you are getting the highest end Audigy equipment, $150 is paying too much.

      The one thing you really want to know is the PCI ID of the card. Run lspci -v,

      00:08.0 Multimedia audio controller: Yamaha Corporation YMF-724F [DS-1 Audio Controller] (rev 03)

      find the number of the left it'll look like this: "00:08.0", that will have the name of the sound card somewhere on the line. Remember, that, now run "lspci -v -n", look for a line that has the same number as before, should look something like this:

      00:08.0 Class 0401: 1073:000d (rev 03)

      That's the number of the PCI ID. That's the global number that should uniquely identify that specific PCI card. Linux Kernel drivers use that as the key for which modules to load during auto-detection. Go plug the number that looks like "1073:000d" into google, add other keywords as neccessary (linux, problem, detect, etc.). If there is an answer, that's the way I've found to be sure I'm going to find someone whose very knowledgable (most people don't report PCI ID's with their problems), and has exactly the same PCI card I have. I've been known to grep the source code looking for pieces of the PCI ID to see if cards are supported. If you have an Audigy that is supported by the 2.4.21 kernel I have installed (and I have access to the source), the PCI ID should be: "1102:0002", or "1102:0004" (I found that in: drivers/sound/audigy/main.c, search for PCI_VENDOR_ID) . If it's not one of those, that is probably why the auto-detection isn't working, and probably won't work under any circumstances.

      In the end, you are looking for which modules need to be loaded. In your case, assuming you don't have an Audigy LS, the answer is probably as simple as:

      modprobe audigy
      or
      insmod audigy

      I know this is a lot more technical information then you probably really want. However, given that I can't show up where you are, it's the best I can do. Hate to see someone give up just over a minor issue like that (getting a sound card to work under Linux isn't terrible difficult assuming the hardware is supported by the version of Linux you have). You sound like you can understand all of this, it's just a lot more information then you are really interested in. Sorry, if this is way overkill. However, the stuff about lspci should give you clues to track down the information. If you run RedHat no recompilation should be needed.

      Kirby

    20. Re:Just as soon as Linux works with my sound card. by nuggetman · · Score: 1

      This particular thread reminds me of a quote from Bash...

      I discovered that you'd never get an answer to a problem from Linux Gurus by asking. You have to troll in order for someone to help you with a Linux problem.
      For example, I didn't know how to find files by contents and the man pages were way too confusing. What did I do? I knew from experience that if I just asked, I'd be told to read the man pages even though it was too hard for me.
      Instead, I did what works. Trolling. By stating that Linux sucked because it was so hard to find a file compared to Windows, I got every self-described Linux Guru around the world coming to my aid. They gave me examples after examples of different ways to do it. All this in order to prove to everyone that Linux was better.
      So if you're starting out Linux, I advise you to use the same method as I did to get help. Start the sentence with "Linux is gay because it can't do XXX like Windows can". You will have PhDs running to tell you how to solve your problems.

      --
      ...and that's all there is to it.
    21. Re:Just as soon as Linux works with my sound card. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Win2K didn't work with my soundcard. This is probably fixable, and I bet your problem is too.

    22. Re:Just as soon as Linux works with my sound card. by tokabola · · Score: 1

      While Mandrake 8.0 claimed not to support the Audigy it worked fine. Mandrake 9.2 and 10.0 have a Audigy module (only for the 2.4.x kernal i believe) that supports ALL inputs, and Midi, and even the gameport. The standard Emu module will work for playback and midi, not sure it supports all inputs.
      All three versions of Mandrake, and Redhat 9.something autodetected the Audigy, and even an older Aureal Vortex card (which DOESN'T work in WinXP).

      AFAIK Linux does NOT support the ability to change soundfonts, and Creative itself does NOT support Linux much at all.

      --
      Open Source for Open Minds
  16. Walmart? by sleepnmojo · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Won't linux turn into windows. The kind of people who shop at Walmart, I would assume aren't very computer savy. The whole reason linux is so great is because these people aren't on it. Sure everyone wants linux to do great, but do you really want to go over to your mother's house to fix her computer because she doesn't understand a commandline. The only reason I like them offering linux, is because the overall cost of a prebuilt computer is cheaper.

    1. Re:Walmart? by xlyz · · Score: 1

      but do you really want to go over to your mother's house to fix her computer because she doesn't understand a commandline.

      no needs to move. just ssh her box.

  17. Duck like penguin??? by azzy · · Score: 2, Funny

    What's so duck-like about a penguin? That it's a bird.. that messes around in the water? Maybe ducks are actually penguin like..

  18. Wait a moment by frodo+from+middle+ea · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Unless, somehow , all those copies of Windows 95/98/ME/2K/XP installed on 90% of the PCs of home users some how , misteriously disappear over a period of one year and magically they have Redhat./Suse/Mandrake/Debain/Slack/Gentoo installed .

    And then all those ex-windows users, some how magically learn how to use linux (not that it is hard, but it still has to be learnt, just as they did learn (?) to use windows)., I don't see this happening. Same holds for all the corporate desktops

    I am tired of people claiming "This is the year of linux", year after year after year. There is never going to be one single year of linux, It will have to slowly and steadly erode in to M$ territory. But it will take a much longer time than a mear year, or even a decade, unless ofcourse M$ decides to do something very stupid, like I don't know, Make the wallpaper with setve ballmer and make it unchangable.

    --
    for the last time people, I am "frodo from middle eaRTH", not "middle eaST".
    1. Re:Wait a moment by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      The catalyst is the business desktop. People like what they're familiar with. They'll become familiar with Linux if the business they work in switches over to Linux for whatever reason. So they'll be more inclined to try it at home. Many people get software "upgrades" from work. May as well give them one that's legal and an actual upgrade :)

    2. Re:Wait a moment by telbij · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There is never going to be one single year of linux, It will have to slowly and steadly erode in to M$ territory.

      Funny that you never see articles about this, but it's the truth. I would go so far as to say that growing Linux marketshare is inevitable going down the line. Why? Because Linux is not subject to the same market forces that cause Microsoft to ignore bugs while building ridiculous and ill-advised features that simply look good in a power point. While Microsoft struggles to please shareholders, Linux is plodding along fixing bugs and steadily increasing the value of the platform.

      Tech news is dominated by financials, and Linux has oodles of economic potential, but to look at Linux in those terms is so shortsighted. Linux is true progress in the sense that its advances can never be expunged as we have seen happen time and time again with proprietary software. Once Linux reaches a critical point, there will be no financial incentive to develop a separate OS. At most, companies will customize Linux, but in general commercial development will shift to the application layer where it belongs, and we can look forward to renewed competition in the software industry, only this time on a much more solid base.

      Of course there's no telling how long all this could take...

    3. Re:Wait a moment by westlake · · Score: 1
      The catalyst is the business desktop. People like what they're familiar with. They'll become familiar with Linux if the business they work in switches over to Linux for whatever reason. So they'll be more inclined to try it at home. Many people get software "upgrades" from work. May as well give them one that's legal and an actual upgrade :)

      Your boss will want as seamless and invisible a transition to Linux as he can get.
      Remember the rebellion at Disney over Photoshop? That kind of trouble he doesn't need. Give him the perfect clone of the Windows GUI and Office and then he may listen. But don't expect him to push Linux in the home against Microsoft's 97% market share or gain a rousing cheer from the support desk if he tries.

    4. Re:Wait a moment by westlake · · Score: 1
      Once Linux reaches a critical point, there will be no financial incentive to develop a separate OS.

      I don't think any O/S is insulated from technological and social forces that drive markets in new directions.

      Consider this trivial example. DRM'd media isn't going away, no matter how determinedly the average Slashdotter drags his feet, if you believe otherwise, ask yourself when Dell or HP will be offering an OEM Linus distro for the home that can't play DVDs or launch iTunes out of the box. The answer is never.

    5. Re:Wait a moment by tepples · · Score: 1

      Remember the rebellion at Disney over Photoshop?

      Yes I do. Its legal department can't take a joke with respect to parodies, created in Adobe Photoshop Elements or other comparable image editing software, featuring its copyrighted characters. Was there another?

    6. Re:Wait a moment by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Of course there's no telling how long all this could take...

      Yes there is. Linux needs to have a critical mass and penetration before Longhorn is released. Otherwise MS will lobby to get laws passed that result in Linux being so marginalized at to be irrelevant. This probably won't affect even Canada. I suspect that Linux will already be strong enough to survive in all international markets. But it needs to have sufficient penetration into the most politically powerful 10% of the market by then. Perhaps it already does, I wouldn't know how to tell. Studies about it's use in the military and in intelligence agnecies seem to indicate that it MAY have already achieved sufficient success. But there's no easy way that I can see to really know.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    7. Re:Wait a moment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Was there another?

      The studio had to spend big bucks to get Photoshop working under Linux to keep what's left of it's animation unit happy.

  19. You can always... by Tuxedo+Jack · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Drop a few hints to your local MS vendor that you're thinking about switching to Linux to make them drop their costs on licensing fees.

    Trust me, it's so wonderful to take an MS vendor to lunch, sing the praises of Linux the whole time, then take them to a room near your computer room and point out the two shiny new mailservers that are blank and say you're debating about the TCO of Linux versus Exchange.

    --

    Striking fear in the authors of godawful fanfiction, I am here, appearing in darkness, Tuxedo Jack!
  20. Same old, same old. by caluml · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Another month, another prediction. And yet, most people on Slashdot run IE (and hence Windows).

    Linux womble 2.6.4 #1 Tue Mar 16 10:52:42 GMT 2004 i686 Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 1.80GHz GenuineIntel GNU/Linux

    1. Re:Same old, same old. by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 1

      most people are at work....
      Plus slashdot looks sorta funny in firefox.

      --
      Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    2. Re:Same old, same old. by WormholeFiend · · Score: 1

      I read slashdot at work, where I have NO choice in the OS and browser I use.

      *sigh* *mumbles something about insensitive clods*

    3. Re:Same old, same old. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where did you find the brower statistics for slashdot?

    4. Re:Same old, same old. by raist21 · · Score: 1

      Actually I'm running Mozilla even on my Windoz Box!

    5. Re:Same old, same old. by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      Uh, IE runs just fine in MacOS X... in fact, it's a pretty good browser if a little slow.

      Not that it fundamentally changes your point, but you can't assume that IE -> Windows.

      Plus you should take into account that Slashdot looks terrible in a Mozilla-based browser with all kinds of annoying visual errors.

    6. Re:Same old, same old. by HiThere · · Score: 1

      It doesn't look funny to me. Perhaps the MSWind based version of FireFox is an older version? Once upon a time Mozilla had problems with it. (Or maybe I've just never looked at it with anything else, and don't know any better.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  21. Just loaded a walmart box yesterday by codepunk · · Score: 1

    Just loaded up a walmart box with fedora for my sister last night. Got to work this morning and ordered up a bunch of HP linux workstations. So yes the time has long since come.

    --


    Got Code?
    1. Re:Just loaded a walmart box yesterday by gregarican · · Score: 1
      It's funny because of how clueless a decent amount of the retail department workers are about the world of computers. Even about Windows-based systems. Let alone Linux. A few years ago for the heck of it I'd walk into a place and ask a few detailed questions to see what the workers would come back with about their Windows PC's. I should have recorded some of the answers.

      Can you imagine asking questions about Linux to a Wal-Mart worker? Like the elderly shoplifting bouncers that greet folks near the front doors? "Hey Hazel do you know if these boxes run KDE or Gnome? Are they patched for the latest OpenSSH and Apache 'sploits?"

  22. I've heard this since about 1997 or so. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    "Maybe we'll get 'em next year." - Chicago Cubs, Boston Red Sox, Sacramento Kings, and Linux.

  23. Every year is the year of the pengiun by ArbitraryConstant · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Seriously. Every year major stuff happens that no one thought we'd ever see.

    --
    I rarely criticize things I don't care about.
    1. Re:Every year is the year of the pengiun by OwlWhacker · · Score: 1

      Hey man, every year is the year of the penguin for me!

      People are ceasing to be led around like sheep, they're actually starting to desire freedom, like China for example.

      Who would want to be tied to proprietary (e.g. Microsoft) solutions forever due to lock-in/out via proprietary file formats, protocols, APIs, etc.?

      It used to be a case of, if it works, stick with it. Now it's a case of, look to the future, it's inevitable...

      I think people are starting to get some sense. Freedom is worth something. This new way of thinking is what can give the penguin more power.

  24. running MS-Word on a Linux Machine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The biggest change will come when you can run MSWord on a Linux machine. For many nonliterate computer users, computing is about using MSWord.

    1. Re:running MS-Word on a Linux Machine by PitaBred · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This only needs two responses:
      1) OpenOffice.org
      2) Crossover Office
      In order of preference

  25. File names in Linux by 3terrabyte · · Score: 1, Funny
    If I switched an mp3 server to linux, would I have to worry about spaces in the mp3 files? Can they be 64 characters long?

    I_dont_want_to_change_them_all_to_them.

    --

    Why are there only 19 people folding@home for slashdot?

    1. Re:File names in Linux by dmaxwell · · Score: 1

      Linux itself is happy with files named that way. All of the filesystems that are suitable to be the root filesystem support it. The only issues may come with apps built around shell scripts to stream the files or something. Some shellcode may throw a hissy over the spaces. That said there will be plethora of alternatives if the particular helper app you had in mind doesn't like it.

      If you are just going to set up a Samba fileshare or something then no real issues are going to come up. Just chuck 'em in a directory and set up your share.

      The filenames can be well over 64 characters long. If I'm not mistaken, I believe the limit is 256 characters.

    2. Re:File names in Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      It works, it's just not pretty on the command line, which is why most people don't use them:

      ls -l You\ could\ always\ escape\ spaces\ like\ this.mp3

      Or:

      ls -l "Filenames can certainly be 64 characters long, even longer.mp3"

      Yes, the "," is supported, too, and you can easily have more than one "." in a filename. Compare this to Windows:

      Me: F2 -> Rename "htaccess" to ".htaccess" before uploading
      Win: "Wah, wah, you must supply a file name (and not just an extension)!"

      I mean, really...

    3. Re:File names in Linux by frodo+from+middle+ea · · Score: 1
      Yes, they can be 64 char. long.

      The only thing is the " "(space), problem .

      Most GUI applications I have used, have no problems with spaces, but with CLI, it gets tricky.

      e.g. on most shells you need to escape the space with a \, e.g. This\ is\ a\ file.txt . Also for some shell or CL applications, you need to put the whole thing in quotes e.g. "like\ this" .

      Further annoying is the fact that, commands which parse the inputs, often have space as a dilimeter , and even escaping with a \ and putting in quotes won't work.

      e.g. find . -name "*.tar.gz" | xargs -n 1 tar -czvf , will not work if your .tar.gz file has spaces in file name. This has to be substituted with find . -name "*.tar.gz" -print0 | xargs -0 -n1 tar -zxvf

      Of course on my Konsole , I can't cd to a directory with spaces, no matter what I do. But It works perfectly from a Virtual terminal. go figure

      --
      for the last time people, I am "frodo from middle eaRTH", not "middle eaST".
    4. Re:File names in Linux by sqlrob · · Score: 1
      That's your app (explorer). Use the command line.

      more than one "." is not a problem in Windows, nor is a "," . Just enclose filenames in quotes.
      C:\Documents and Settings\rob>copy htaccess .htaccess
      1 file(s) copied.
    5. Re:File names in Linux by 42forty-two42 · · Score: 1

      There are only two characters not allowed in filenames: '/', which is the directory seperator ('\' is available but makes things a bit confusing since you need to escape in the shell), and the ASCII NUL, which cannot be typed or displayed and is used internally to terminate pathnames. All other characters are available, but some need to be escaped in the shell (same as in DOS, mostly, except you actually can escape things like |). The maximum filename limit is somewhere in the 200s of characters. Note that this may vary with filesystems - vfat might not let you use '\' for instance.

    6. Re:File names in Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Windows lets you put more than one "." in a filename. That is one of the ways virus writers social-engineer ppl to run the attachments - the scrren says "file.jpg", people think "hey! a jpg! nothing wrong there". The real filename is "file.jpg.exe" but windows often hides the extension (.exe), leaving the name part. The confusion arises because sometimes windows doen;t hide the extension (e.g. in the address bar in explorer, in the titlebar in word), so users still have to knnow what they mean.

    7. Re:File names in Linux by I+confirm+I'm+not+a · · Score: 1

      Ack! I just spent a good part of Easter trying to create a text file ".ant-global-properties" and wondering why Windows wouldn't let me, and how I could get round it! Next time, mate, try posting before the holiday!

      --
      This is where the serious fun begins.
    8. Re:File names in Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can they be 64 characters long?

      bits/stdio_lim.h:# define FILENAME_MAX 4096

      No problem with the spaces. Only CLI has issues iff they are not escaped or quoted. But all standard programs work with them.

    9. Re:File names in Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Should be modded funny, not troll...

  26. IBM + Laptops by ibm5_25 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If IBM is doing so much for Linux (inc. their ad campagin with the little dude a while back) why can't you buy one of their laptops with Linux preinstalled?

    1. Re:IBM + Laptops by scarolan · · Score: 1

      Yea, no kidding! I called them because I wanted to buy a SERVER with linux pre-installed and the sales rep told me outright that he couldn't do it. Maybe he didn't know, or I was in the wrong department but it really turned me off.

  27. Dupe! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    This is a dupe of the following articles:

    2003: Year of the Penguin?
    2002: Year of the Penguin?
    2001: Year of the Penguin?
    2000: Year of the Penguin?
    1999: Year of the Penguin?
    1998: Year of the Penguin?

  28. P-bird by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Heh. Thanks for keeping it real.

  29. Every Year by MrRuslan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    For me because evry year I look back and say ...wow look how much progress was made this year...i mean it just grows and there is no stopping it no matter what anyone says.

    1. Re:Every Year by bonch · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      What progress was made this year? A new version of KDE that added some sidebar buttons and a password storer--oh, and some extremely badly done text shadows for icon labels.

      Then we have Gnome--a new file selector dialog and, again, a password storer.

      Meanwhile, it's still the same old thing--emulating a desktop on top of old X technology, instead of being a real desktop (binary installation/uninstallation APIs, anyone? No more taskbar/start menu/integrated net and file browser ripped off from Windows 98, anyone? No conflicting, inconsistent toolkits, anyone? I could go on).

    2. Re:Every Year by MrRuslan · · Score: 1

      What are you talking about...windows technology is practlicly standing still...evryone in the software industry rips off one thing or another...Microsoft never did anything that impresed me personally...they have a crippled legacy compatibility layer of an OS that filled with ugly hack and patches and compatibility layers ...ms makes one step forward and 2 steps back...this year Linux made ALOT of real world progress and all ms did this year is cut the longhorn feature list ...so much for a technology driven relese...harder to inovate in Microsofts position cuz there is no technology driven inovation and always money driven inovation...we all know that it is false inovation when it comes to that at least in the software worl nowdays.

  30. Laptops by b0r0din · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm waiting for a huge backing for a laptop that Linux supports fully, including things like wifi support, full driver support, etc. When I can get a fairly affordable laptop with Linux installed, or a base driver system maybe built for IBM or HP parts, then I'll begin to think Linux starting to make heavy inrows.

    1. Re:Laptops by zogger · · Score: 1

      --coincidence. I just posted what I think is a good idea around the concept of the built from scratch linux laptop. It is in the "geeks inherit the earth" article.

    2. Re:Laptops by Adocso · · Score: 2, Informative

      Buy SuSe. When I bought my widescreen Toshiba with .11g I thought I'd be struggling. I went through all the other big name distros before landing on SuSE. I just worked. I didn't have to install Mad-WiFi myself or any of that garbage. I did go get the nVidia driver. It wasn't necessary, but it does make that widescreen pretty.

    3. Re:Laptops by insert+3+letters · · Score: 2, Informative

      SuSe also keeps a list of laptops that are known to fully work with their distros. Also, my gateway, a very propritary laptop, work virtually out of the box, all i ahd to do was switch from acpi to apm to get my fans working. It detected my wifi card on install, and I even have 3d drivers (yay for quake goodnesss). No more configuration than it took to get winxp pro working on it anyhow.

    4. Re:Laptops by LinuxFreakus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Gentoo works fine with all the dell laptops in the Inspiron series. Probably works on all of the dells since the hardware is pretty much the same, but I've only used Inspiron. The wifi setup is tricky, but it works just fine on my company WLAN once I configure it properly. KDE looks pretty sweet on my LCD with 1920x1200 resolution @ 32 bpp. IMHO, The sub-pixel rendering looks nicer than the cleartype in XP.

    5. Re:Laptops by pyros · · Score: 1

      The tricky thing with laptops is actually more about CPU/fan/disk throttling to reduce power consumption and temperature. Although the WiFi is definitely, in my opinion, the second thing on the list for full support.

    6. Re:Laptops by LinuxFreakus · · Score: 1

      Yes, the power management was a bit tricky too since the Gentoo kernel by default didn't have the right options selected.... it does work though with relatively little effort. Using the handy genkernel script, I bet even my mom could do it... although the menuconfig/xconfig might not be totally intuitive if you've never compiled a kernel. In general though, linux is several orders of magnitude easier to use than it was when I started using it in 1996.

    7. Re:Laptops by krunk7 · · Score: 1

      Depends on your definition of "works". Several of the Inspiron series have bad DSDT's that make any power management virtually impossible and the modems require an additional purchase of a proprietary driver from linuxant as do the Broadcom WIFI cards that come with Inspirons now. Of course, this isn't a Gentoo specific problem as they would exist on any distro. Unless something has changed in the last couple of weeks, the 5150 and 5100 series are effected by this.

    8. Re:Laptops by Jadrano · · Score: 1

      I use both SuSE Linux and Windows XP on an IBM Thinkpad R32, and Linux supports everything I'm aware of.

    9. Re:Laptops by holy+zarquon's+singi · · Score: 1

      /All/ of the hardware on my Dell Lattitude XPi100SD works perfectly.

      --
      "...we should just trust our president in every decision that he makes and we should just support that." B.Spears 2003
    10. Re:Laptops by LinuxFreakus · · Score: 1

      No need to pay for drivers... the GPL ndiswrapper on sourceforge works great with the broadcom wireless pcmcia and integrated mpci cards. And there are also multiple free and open source drivers out there to make winmodems work... the PCTel driver should work for most of the inspirons. Not sure about your DSDT problem, I've never had a problem with the power management yet. I just installed a dual boot Gentoo/XP system for my sister on an inspiron 5100 about a week ago with no trouble, it works great. She said she might have me do it again and make the windows partion a lot smaller since she won't need it much except to play a couple games and use some win only CAD software for work.

    11. Re:Laptops by krunk7 · · Score: 1

      Does your sister have full power management capabilities? I've been in contact with Dell engineers about this. It's a known problem. Some have been working in their spare time on it.

    12. Re:Laptops by LinuxFreakus · · Score: 1

      Well, as I said, the default Gentoo kernel build didn't support it, but the following HOWTO gave me the info I needed to patch the kernel with a custom DSDT override. Everything works great.

      http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic.php?t=122145

      The ACPI4Linux project which was mentioned in the gentoo forum post above was where I ended up finding the most info about the problem

      http://acpi.sourceforge.net/dsdt/

    13. Re:Laptops by krunk7 · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately there isn't a patch available for the 5150 (what I have). It's good to hear that the 5100 now has a good DSDT available. Hopefully the 5150 won't be too far behind. (They are too different to just use the 5100). The gentoo post was very informative, but did not work for me either. I will do much more research before my next laptop. :)

  31. Walmart: "Low cost" alternative by sploxx · · Score: 1

    The walmart advertisement are a bit like the PC advertisements some time ago (before the linux era), which stated something like: "With PC-DOS7, the alternative OS..."... which was more or less only an invitation to replace it with a MS windows installation, i.e. "here's something to play with, you can always replace it with Win XP if you want to start your real work" alternative.

    IMHO, if the end user feels that Linux is only a toy OS to replaced by "something more professional", this may also hurt the image of Linux.

  32. Say it often enough, you will be right by heironymouscoward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Personally, having tried Xandros/1.0 and now using Xandros/2.0 it's clear that Windows has real competition.

    No doubt this comment will be targetted by the increasing number of moderators who appear to be Windows admirers, but I have enough karma for a whole barbeque, so here goes with a list of the ten reasons why Linux is destined to overtake Windows in 2004 (or 2005, or 2006, etc.)

    - Windows is expensive, Linux is free
    - Distros like Xandros "just work"
    - Linux is secure from worms, trojans, viruses
    - Linux runs on modest hardware
    - Linux is less complex and thus more stable
    - Linux has a "cool" factor missing from Windows
    - The IT world's view of Microsoft as "evil" is percolating down to the general public
    - Linux now comes with a sufficient set of applications for most common purposes
    - Linux applications are more stable and simpler than Windows' ones

    And lastly: more and more institutions will choose Linux as they discover the advantages of it, leading to consumer uptake as people "stay compatible" with their work PCs.

    From a 3% marketshare this seems unbelievable. And yet this is how markets work: the "tipping" often happens way before the 20% mark, but once it starts, it's unstoppable.

    At the very least, 2004 was the year in which people seriously started to wonder "when" and not "whether" Linux would become the de-facto OS standard for all computing, including the desktop.

    --
    Ceci n'est pas une signature
    1. Re:Say it often enough, you will be right by WormholeFiend · · Score: 3, Insightful

      well, sorry to nitpick, but your Linux isnt free if you use a non-free Linux distro as an example.

      It's cheaper, yes, but not free as in warez.

      Just cuz you keep repeating it doesnt make it so, otherwise, money would be growing on trees, too.

    2. Re:Say it often enough, you will be right by francium+de+neobie · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Although I like Linux, I'm not as enthusiastic as you. Linux has evolved quickly, but the people haven't changed. You see...

      > - Distros like Xandros "just work"

      But it is not well known yet.

      > - Linux is secure from worms, trojans, viruses

      True, but sadly the average Windows users seems unaware of the fact at all. Even sadder is that some of them can treat a system filled with spywares, viri, crashing and stop working as normal now.

      It is as if they've been force fed 10 years of shit, and now they cannot distinguish between meatsteak and poop. I dunno whether I should laugh or feel sorry when those complete newbies tell me poop is tasty.

      > - Linux runs on modest hardware

      Again, people just don't know that. They're willing to spend $3000 on a top line rig just to run spywares and 3DMark.

      > - Linux is less complex and thus more stable

      On a programmer's perspective, yes. Linux's structure is more understandable and its API is standardized and simplier (i.e. POSIX). Just try to do a file mapping on Win32 API and then Linux and you'll know...

      But for the user, sorry, no. No matter how simple you've made it, they've been accustomed to the Windows environment for years. Unlearning the old usage pattern alone would be hard enough.

      > - Linux has a "cool" factor missing from Windows

      There're plenty of kiddies who think they're "cool" just because they know a few DOS commands.

      > - The IT world's view of Microsoft as "evil" is percolating down to the general public

      There's plenty of people (IT or not) who think Microsoft invented computer, and Bill Gates is a god-send. Just ask a few persons around you.

    3. Re:Say it often enough, you will be right by pherthyl · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately you're right.. I run into this argument all the time when I'm talking about linux. "Sure its free/lowcost, but its not like I'm paying anything for windows or any of my commercial software now."
      I almost wish for a really serious crackdown on piracy by the major commercial software developers (Microsoft, Adobe, and Macromedia should do it).

    4. Re:Say it often enough, you will be right by bdigit · · Score: 2, Interesting

      ummm

      "Windows is expensive, Linux is free"
      This has been this way forever and windows still has 90% of the marketshare. People are willing to pay for windows.

      "Distros like Xandros "just work""

      Windows just works, and works with more hardware without extraconfiguration.

      " Linux is secure from worms, trojans, viruses"

      Ummm rootkits? When more people switch over to linux you will see moreviruses out there for linux because right now windows is an easy targetwith a ton of machines out there. People much rather write a virus thatwill effect a much larger population. If linux was secure from viruss,why are there linux virus scanners?

      "Linux runs on modest hardware"

      So does windows

      "Linux is less complex and thus more stable"

      By far the worst reason I have ever read in my life for having linuxovertake Windows. Linux is about 100x more complex then windows, andsince when did complexity have to do with stability. In order to get Xhardware to work you have to download, configure, find missingdependicies, configure those, compile them install those, then go backto what you were originally doing and finish compiling and do aninstall. Of course there are package management solutions that solvealot of this but if the package aint available in it you are left tocompile. When I take a fresh machine an install windows on it,everything just works, with linux you need to figure out why your soundisnt working and then configure the driver and what not and edit configfiles.

      "Linux has a "cool" factor missing from windows"

      Yea I am sure millions of users will switch to linux cause its the coolthing to do, there are plenty of "cool" applications out there forwindows.

      " The IT world's view of Microsoft as "evil" is percolating down to thegeneral public"

      But they still are using it and despite the security flaws the general public is perfecty comfortable using windows.

      "Linux applications are more stable and simpler than Windows' ones"

      DUMB DUMB DUMB

      Simpler as in UNUSABLE. XMMS vs Winamp, yea XMMS is alot simpler but it sucks in comparison. Gimp vs Photoshop. If you want simple go use a Mac, i want to be able to do advanced things and a simple program wont cut it. Up until recently Gnome finally got an open dialog that looked like it wasnt from 1980. Setting up half the applications for linux requires some sort of advanced knowledge, half the programs dont have a gui installation which drives everyone who is comfortable with a gui away from linux. No one wants to be editing config files to get an application to work.

    5. Re:Say it often enough, you will be right by omicronish · · Score: 2, Insightful

      - Linux is less complex and thus more stable

      Increased complexity may make stability more difficult to achieve, but it does not imply instability. Additionally, the core parts of Linux and Windows appear to have equal stability on the desktop. I've always been able to trace Windows blue screens to a driver, and I've had a Linux system completely freeze with error text printed to the console while accessing the CDROM.

      On the UI end, I've had crashes on both operating systems. KDE and Gnome applications have crashed on me before, but the situation has greatly improved since earlier versions. Explorer and IE crashes are rare but they still happen.

      Stability is pretty much a non-issue for me. I'm happy with the stability of either Windows or Linux on the desktop.

    6. Re:Say it often enough, you will be right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > - The IT world's view of Microsoft as "evil" is percolating down to the general public

      I disagree. In my experience, the general public don't need contact with the IT world at all. If things go wrong, they look at the maker of the product.

      In my opinion, Microsoft is only still top dog because of intertia, but once linux reaches a certain tipping point, it will take off and suddenly Microsoft will be playing catch-up.

    7. Re:Say it often enough, you will be right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      - Windows is expensive, Linux is free (Try purchasing Redhat, SuSE, or any other commercial Linux distribution shrink-wrapped...you're going to be in for a HUGE surprise.)

      - Distros like Xandros "just work" (Sometimes...)

      - Linux is secure from worms, trojans, viruses (Linux isn't popular enough to invest great amounts of time writing kidiot malware. Once my Grandma, and my 12 year old sister use Linux, then you'll get them in full force. Of course my Grandma is going to be running Lindows as root, and yes she will open the email attachment.)

      - Linux runs on modest hardware (So does Windows 9x, and a whole slew of other OSes. Do I really want to surf the web on my 386sx20...probably not, but I suppose I could! Though I could do that in DOS too...hmm...oh the appeal.)

      - Linux is less complex and thus more stable (I think you've been attending one too many LUGs, and drank a little too much not-so-free beer)

      - Linux has a "cool" factor missing from Windows (If you classify smelling up the halls announcing how great Linux is, then that is pretty cool. I just see chicks flocking towards Linux...yeah d00d!)

      - The IT world's view of Microsoft as "evil" is percolating down to the general public. (The IT world's view of Linux as "a bunch smelly anti-social nerds" is also percolating down to the general public.

      - Linux now comes with a sufficient set of applications for most common purposes. (You mean cloning every useful application made by Microsoft. That is where the true creativity is.)

      - Linux applications are more stable and simpler than Windows' ones. (Some are more stable, however a lot are just plain garbage. Haha, simplier. Tell my Grandma to simply extract and compile her handy easy to use program. Also be sure to check the source code, and modify it for your systems needs. EASY AS PIE!)

    8. Re:Say it often enough, you will be right by FooBarWidget · · Score: 1

      "free as in warez"?? By that reasoning, what stops anyone from pirating Xandros?

    9. Re:Say it often enough, you will be right by Florian · · Score: 1
      - Windows is expensive, Linux is free

      Not if you use "enterprise" distributions, rely on support contracts, need staff training, inhouse development for migrating data and applications, or if you rely on proprietary software that runs on top of the OS (the way the film industry uses GNU/Linux as graphics workstation OS, for example).

      But it's true that desktop GNU/Linux is good enough to have commoditized the product "desktop operating system" as it is defined by the standard system CD of MS Windows or MacOS X. Today, buying Windows licenses only makes sense if one needs something for running software on top of it that doesn't exist for GNU/Linux. Unlike in the days of the early MacOS or Windows 3.x, the raw desktop for itself has no proprietary product value anymore because KDE and Gnome have commoditized it. With the exception of Web browsers, GUI applications however are hardly commoditized yet. It may take a very long time until this point is reached, or it even might not be reached at all because of outside obstacles like software patents (on multimedia codecs etc.) and DMCA-imposed interoperability restraints.

      - Distros like Xandros "just work"

      Can be said about Windows 2000 and XP as well.

      - Linux is secure from worms, trojans, viruses

      This is a dangerous delusion. GNU/Linux has none of that security by design, but rather by the obscurity of not being a highly uniform mainstream desktop OS. There have been enough security holes in critical components of GNU/Linux (including the kernel itself) for malware to do as much harm as under Windows, and I guess a skilled attacker can crack almost any non-professionally administrated Linux box.

      - Linux runs on modest hardware

      Not if you run KDE, Gnome and Openoffice (as in a desktop system). In fact, a Windows 2000-based desktop system is faster and resource-friendlier in comparison.

      - Linux is less complex and thus more stable

      Nonsense. The combo of Linux kernel + OS daemons + GNU/shell userland + XFree86 + Gtk/Qt + KDE/Gnome middleware is just as complex as Windows.

      - Linux has a "cool" factor missing from Windows

      No argument.

      - The IT world's view of Microsoft as "evil" is percolating down to the general public

      No argument.

      - Linux now comes with a sufficient set of applications for most common purposes

      No, if you speak of the desktop. You can deploy a Linux-based desktop only in very well-defined (or limited) usage scenarios:

      - Use of Internet clients (Mozilla): fully equivalent to Windows-based solutions

      - Office suite (OpenOffice vs. MS Office): only against tradeoffs in Microsoft compatibility, speed, features and desktop integration

      - Graphic design (Gimp vs. Photoshop): only against tradeoffs, suitable only for screen design

      All other free desktop applications which currently exist for GNU/Linux are either small utilities (CD burning GUIs and the like), or they are ambitious, but not yet complete and not available in production quality (Scribus, Ardour etc.).

      - Linux applications are more stable and simpler than Windows' ones

      You don't mean the shell and the commandline userland, don't you? Which applications do you mean if you speak of the desktop, and not of mutt, vim, slrn etc.? (The GUI applications mentioned before are all cross-platform *nix/Windows btw.)

      What you write are the clichés Windows people have in mind when they switch to GNU/Linux. Most of the rely on a false extrapolation from GNU/Linux as a Unix-like commandline and server operating system (which, if properly administrated, indeed is rock-solid and resource-efficient) onto GNU/Linux as a desktop OS.

      -F

      --
      gopher://cramer.plaintext.cc http://cramer.plaintext.cc:70
    10. Re:Say it often enough, you will be right by WormholeFiend · · Score: 1

      I was tempted to say "free as in beer", but beer isnt free. Even if you had access to free hops and free equipment to brew it, it would still cost you time.

      It's only "free" (electrical/isp subscription costs notwithstanding) if you infringe the copyright.

    11. Re:Say it often enough, you will be right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Linux runs on modest hardware"

      I love Linux, and have been running it full-time on my personal desktop for six years, but this benefit is being eroded. I mean, take GNOME or KDE, add on top Mozilla and OpenOffice.org, and you need AT LEAST 256M RAM to really run them at a comfortable speed.

      So that's just as bad as Windows XP. It's such a shame -- yeah, light WMs exist, but you can't really give newcomers Fluxbox and Dillo. I hope the community starts looking at efficiency and performance soon, instead of going on a bloat-frenzy and chasing Moore's law.

      Otherwise, if Microsoft makes some dramatic performance/bloat improvements (and they HAVE improved stability, so it shows they can work when they need to), we'll be stuck with the most bloated and sluggish OS.

      Ugh!

    12. Re:Say it often enough, you will be right by FooBarWidget · · Score: 1

      "This has been this way forever and windows still has 90% of the marketshare. People are willing to pay for windows."

      You're kidding right? Most people either have Windows pre-installed, or use a pirated version of Windows. A lot of people pirate Windows! Especially take a look at teenagers - they pirate all sorts of other stuff too.

    13. Re:Say it often enough, you will be right by Decameron81 · · Score: 1

      Most linux distributions are free. Some of them aren't.

      But I seriously doubt that the parent post was emphasizing the fact that EVERY single distribution is completely free. He was simply talking about the fact that you can run Linux for free, even if he expressed it with slightly mistaken words.

      And even when you compare commercial distros to Windows you find out that they are really really cheap.

      Diego Rey

      --
      diegoT
    14. Re:Say it often enough, you will be right by heironymouscoward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Good responses, and I'll field them.

      - Cost to the enterprise

      Yes, the OS cost is insignificant compared to the other costs. However, the key market for Microsoft is the home and small-business market, where professional assistance is minimal and where the OS cost is significant.

      - "Just work"

      Windows 2000 needs a series of drivers to be installed before it will work with any exotic hardware. This typically means 5 or more reboot cycles to install a PC. Modern Linux distributions detect and configure most hardware as well as, and sometimes better than, Windows XP.

      - "Linux is secure"

      Any computer, small or large, can be cracked if it is not professionally managed, and often even if it is. The reason millions of Windows machines around the world are owned by worms is not because they have been cracked by experts, but because they are insecure unless specifically protected. The average time to infection of a new PC on the Internet is what... 5 minutes? How can anyone download the necessary patches in that time? Linux boxes are far more secure. I agree that this is a temporary advantage, but it's a real one and probably the most significant one.

      - "Modest hardware"

      Often because Linux applications are more portable. It's a circular thing: people choose more demanding hardware to run more sophisticated applications (like games). But this also pushes the operating system towards more complex hardware. A heavily used Linux workstation needs lots of RAM, but this is an easy upgrade. My Win2000 system is using about 450Mb of RAM and running not much more than a bunch of standard programs.

      - Complexity and stability

      True, the whole chain of Linux software adds up to a lot of lines of code. But I maintain that it's less complex, for two reasons. First, it's built up in layers and each layer is well-documented and modestly spec'd. Secondly, because each API is open and well argued, the whole is more stable. Windows applications tend to be much more monolithic: this makes them more complex.

      To compare with making cars, modern cars are assembled from sub-componenents like entire doors, dashboards, etc. Cars used to be assembled from much smaller pieces. The larger the components, the more robust the car (and at one level, the simpler). Windows tends towards the 'make the entire car from scratch' model, while Linux tends towards the 'create subassemblies' model.

      - Sufficient for common purposes

      My observation is that at least 50% and possibly up to 75% of PCs are not used for anything more complex than browsing, email, playing sound and movies, p2p, and some simple games.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas une signature
    15. Re:Say it often enough, you will be right by Decameron81 · · Score: 1

      This has been this way forever and windows still has 90% of the marketshare. People are willing to pay for windows.

      Nah, they are not. I find day after day more people wondering about this Linux OS. And the main reason they don't want to change is because they are afraid of something different.

      A few years ago most people would have asked you, after watching you use linux, what version of Windows it was. At least now people realize that there is more than just Windows.

      Windows just works, and works with more hardware without extraconfiguration.

      Right now it does, and I think that this is one of the several reasons why Linux can't be popular for desktop computing yet, even though it IS catching up.

      Ummm rootkits? When more people switch over to linux you will see moreviruses out there for linux because right now windows is an easy targetwith a ton of machines out there. People much rather write a virus thatwill effect a much larger population. If linux was secure from viruss,why are there linux virus scanners?

      Linux is not inmune to viruses, nor any other OS is inmune to them. But that doesn't mean Windows and Linux are at the same level with security. The proof so far has been that the number of viruses on Windows is much higher than the number viruses for Linux. The question is how can you be so sure that it is because of the ammount of people using the former? Isn't that just an unprovable (at least for the time being) hypothesis?

      Right now you have far better security against viruses under Linux, no matter the reason. And if the day comes when the opposite happens I will be the first to say that Linux is insecure. But your speculation about viruses spreading around in proportion to the ammount of people using the system is just that: speculation.

      So does windows

      Not as modest as some linux distros (like micro distributions), but this is not really a reason why Linux will become popular in my opinion.

      By far the worst reason I have ever read in my life for having linuxovertake Windows. Linux is about 100x more complex then windows, andsince when did complexity have to do with stability. In order to get Xhardware to work you have to download, configure, find missingdependicies, configure those, compile them install those, then go backto what you were originally doing and finish compiling and do aninstall. Of course there are package management solutions that solvealot of this but if the package aint available in it you are left tocompile. When I take a fresh machine an install windows on it,everything just works, with linux you need to figure out why your soundisnt working and then configure the driver and what not and edit configfiles.

      The parent was plainly stating that Linux is more stable due to minor complexity, which in my opinion is true (although it is arguable). I doubt that he was talking about installations though, but rather about the system structure.

      The potential for a Linux box to be more stable is there, but that doesn't mean you can't screw it up. This is why I think that the effort to make Linux more user friendly is important, and that it will be the key reason why people will ultimately decide to switch over.

      Yea I am sure millions of users will switch to linux cause its the coolthing to do, there are plenty of "cool" applications out there forwindows.

      Not sure what you guys mean with coolness. I tend to find OS X pretty cool. I suppose it depends on you.

      But they still are using it and despite the security flaws the general public is perfecty comfortable using windows.

      The fact that the general public is using Windows has nothing to do wi

      --
      diegoT
    16. Re:Say it often enough, you will be right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Corporations PAY for WIndows
      Corporattions don't PAY for linux

      AHhahah I have 5 fedora boxen in a production environment that I did not pay for... meanwhile all 20 windows systems I paid for..

      KaChing!

    17. Re:Say it often enough, you will be right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      - Linux is secure from worms, trojans, viruses

      I wish people would stop saying this. When linux has normal end users, it will no longer be secure. I replaced OE with thunderbird on my mom's machine, and she still gets email virus's because she runs attachments. The problem isn't windows, the problem is the stupid end uers. Although virus's wont be a problem until linux gets a large enough userbase.

      Hmm, maybe I should start a new project on sourceforge to write new virus's and trojens for linux.... :-p

    18. Re:Say it often enough, you will be right by hahn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "People are willing to pay for windows."

      I don't know that this is true. I think people are willing to think that it comes free with their computer purhcase. If you were to separate the costs so that they had to pay for Windows separately, or get Linux for free, you might see a difference in the "willingness" to pay.

      --
      "The only normal people are the ones you don't know very well."
    19. Re:Say it often enough, you will be right by DoctorHoe · · Score: 1

      There are linux virus scanners to protect windows systems and binaries. If you have a linux mail or file server serving a bunch of windows machines, you need to protect those machines.

    20. Re:Say it often enough, you will be right by JCholewa · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > Windows just works, and works with more
      > hardware without extraconfiguration.

      That's not true for everybody. I had to turn ten kinds of hell to get my 5.1 audio card to work in Windows. In the end, I had to boot into Linux (which had detected it properly) to find out what the audio card's chipset was, which finally gave me enough clues to get drivers for the card.

      Yes, though, Windows has ubiquitous driver support.

      > Ummm rootkits?

      I've never been rootkitted, and I'm very horrible with security.

      > When more people switch over to
      > linux you will see more viruses out there for
      > linux because right now windows is an easy
      > targetwith a ton of machines out there.

      And how will these viruses spread? Unlike Windows, the dominant email apps for Linux do not run applications when you click on them. Unlike Windows, viruses on Linux can't take control of system files. Unlike Windows, Linux computers start up with unnecessary ports turned off.

      > People much rather write a virus that will
      > effect a much larger population.

      I don't think you get it. Why do you think that there are multiple means of package management? Why do you think that different distributions handle things differently? Why do you think that Linux advocates and Open Source Software programmers make such great strides towards making sure that applications are available not only on Linux but on other operating systems such as FreeBSD, OS X and QNX? It's because having a monoculture is *BAD*. We don't *want* every computer in the world to run Linux. That would be *stupid*, even though Linux has a far safer security model than Windows. We want operating system usage to be distributed more or less evenly among different models, just like it was in the old days, when viruses *weren't* dangerous, and when a stupid move by one OS maker didn't negatively affect every single computer user on the planet!

      > If linux was secure from viruss,why are there
      > linux virus scanners?

      They're to scan for *Windows* viruses. You know, like if you had a mail server on your Linux box? I do, and I filter mail through clamav in order to prevent infection on a Windows box if I chance to check my mail on one.

      > with linux you need to figure out why your
      > soundisnt working and then configure the driver
      > and what not and edit configfiles.

      You mean, "with linux you have at least one way of getting sound working if your sound card doesn't work". This is opposed to "with windows if your source card doesn't work you can only cry a lot and try to reboot or just buy a new sound card".

      Linux isn't perfect, and I certainly hope that no single operating system ever captures more than a quarter of the desktop or business market, because that would lead to disaster. But Linux has saved me from a ton of frustration that Windows had caused me, and it's a lot easier to use (especially installing software, which Linux reduced to a simple, single step from the more popular many-step process.

      --
      -JC

    21. Re:Say it often enough, you will be right by tepples · · Score: 1

      If linux was secure from viruss,why are there linux virus scanners?

      Easy. As DoctorHoe mentioned, administrators use a virus scanner on a mail server running on GNU/Linux to prevent Windows viruses from flowing in and out through SMTP.

      "Linux runs on modest hardware" [but] So does windows

      The versions of Microsoft Windows that run on older hardware are EOL'd, which means that Microsoft refuses to supply patches for newly discovered vulnerabilities, and under copyright, nobody else may.

      Gimp vs Photoshop.

      What feature are you looking for that Photoshop Elements has that GIMP lacks? The PANTONE stuff is patented; no free program will implement that for the next decade.

    22. Re:Say it often enough, you will be right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You make some valid point, and although i don't agree with them all, this one catched me:

      why are there linux virus scanners?

      Why are there programs/scripts to use a virus scanner in Apache / MTA? Because that makes sense. More sense than what you tend to put up.

    23. Re:Say it often enough, you will be right by Jadrano · · Score: 1

      I almost wish for a really serious crackdown on piracy by the major commercial software developers

      I think they know why they don't target certain types of users of illegal copies seriously. Otherwise free alternatives would soon become a de facto standards. For instance, I don't think the students I know who use "pirated" versions of MS Office would rather pay than switch to OpenOffice.org. Just like attracting future users with cheaper educational licences, a certain "tolerance" for people using non-licenced copies is part of the strategy, otherwise it would hardly be possible to sell overpriced products that are still used everywhere.

  33. Yep - October 5th... by Penguinisto · · Score: 2, Informative
    ref: http://www.li.org/linuxhistory.php

    ###

    From: torvalds@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Linus Benedict Torvalds)
    Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
    Subject: Free minix-like kernel sources for 386-AT
    Message-ID:
    Date: 5 Oct 91 05:41:06 GMT
    Organization: University of Helsinki
    Do you pine for the nice days of minix-1.1, when men were men and wrote their own device drivers? Are you without a nice project and just dying to cut your teeth on a OS you can try to modify for your needs? Are you finding it frustrating when everything works on minix? No more all- nighters to get a nifty program working? Then this post might be just for you :-)

    ###

    --
    Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
  34. Google says... by Devil · · Score: 1

    Results 1 - 10 of about 1,720 for "year of the penguin". (0.07 seconds)

    1. Re:Google says... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whereas for "day of the triffids" you get 20,700.

      Hmmmm...I wonder which will come first, Year of the Penguin or Day of the Triffids?

  35. The rest of the stories by AndroidCat · · Score: 4, Informative

    The Toronto Star's @Biz section stories were all-but-one about Linux yesterday. (The Tux with sling was big across the front.)

    --
    One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  36. Slashdot, What have you done? by strike2867 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I just saw and add for Windows Server on top of slashdot. It said

    Windows server offers a savings of 11%-22% over Linux in 4 out of 5 workload scenarios.

    How can this happen?

    --

    Vote for new mod!!! Score:-2,Imbecile
    1. Re:Slashdot, What have you done? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just saw and add for Windows Server on top of slashdot. It said Windows server offers a savings of 11%-22% over Linux in 4 out of 5 workload scenarios. How can this happen?

      By setting up 4 scenarios that can only turn out well for you and one with mixed results just for the sake of not claiming 5 out of 5. Kind of like this ;)

  37. Why there will never be a "Year of the Penguin" by hotspotbloc · · Score: 5, Insightful
    And why it's not a bad thing.

    GNU/Linux is in it for the long haul. MS Windows flashes on the media's screen with a new release and fades away. GNU/Linux is growing bigger and stronger everyday. As that happens more and more companies will port their wares, more hardware venders will supply GNU/Linux instead of MS Windows, more users will leave MS Windows (most likely because they're tired of the upgrade costs for both hard and software related to the upgrade), and someday MS Windows will be a "niche" OS.

    Think about it like Apple. They make an excellent OS which includes some great apps, overall better than average desktop and small server hardware, is clearly better than MS Windows but still isn't "number one". Is this a bad thing: no. Apple will be around for a long time building their stuff reguardless of their marketshare. IMO this is the fate for MS Windows (except for the quality part of course).

    Forget about this "Year of the Penguin" stuff because no one year will be it's "year". GNU/Linux is here to stay, grow and get better.

    --
    "I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence or insanity but they've always worked for me" - HST
    1. Re:Why there will never be a "Year of the Penguin" by bonch · · Score: 1

      MS Windows flashes on the media's screen with a new release and fades away.

      Hmm...Windows has been installed on over 90% of PCs for over a decade now. Flash on the media's screen and fade away? Come on...let's be truthful here.

    2. Re:Why there will never be a "Year of the Penguin" by hotspotbloc · · Score: 1
      I said the media only talks about the "benefits" of MS Windows when there's a new release and then the coverage goes away. My comment was a discussion about this coverage and not usage statistics. Isn't it the media that declares "The Year of the Whatever" and not the users? Marketshare is not the key factor here.

      As for comparing usage statistics between the two, GNU/Linux's growth is steady and IMO will someday overtake MS Windows.

      --
      "I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence or insanity but they've always worked for me" - HST
    3. Re:Why there will never be a "Year of the Penguin" by tepples · · Score: 1

      The "year of the penguin on the desktop" is when I can pick up Linux software at Staples or Best Buy just as easily as Windows software.

  38. Corporate vs. Home by PretzelBat · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The article states "Fortune 1000 companies are already dabbling." While this may be true, Linux becoming dominant on the home desktop is still unlikely, IMHO. There are still too many usability issues for the average computer user to perform configuration in Linux (e.g. installation of programs). Once KDE is up and running, I suppose everyone will be okay until the purchase of a new printer, etc., but until system changes are as simple to handle in Linux as they are in Windows, there is not much chance of Aunt Tillie feeling comforatable with Linux.

    In a corporate environment, where configuration is taken care of by IT, this is a completely different issue, and I can see that Linux is liable to make some important inroads here in the next few years. Perhaps once Linux becomes more widespread in corporate America (and has polished up some of the persistant usability issues), it will begin to make more of an impact on the home desktop market.

    1. Re:Corporate vs. Home by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My mom is staying with me for a couple weeks, and she wanted to check her email.

      I'm busy playing FFXI on my Windoze box, so she has to use Linux to check her mail. Do you know how difficult it is for my mom to use Linux? It's not. At all.

      There are some issues occasionally with certain pieces of hardware and installation, but you only need to install and set stuff up once on Linux... Unlike Windows where you need to format and re-install after a year because of the crufty bloat.

      BTW, have you even used Linux in the past year? It's really not that bad at all....

    2. Re:Corporate vs. Home by FooBarWidget · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But corporate desktops is where desktop domination begins. You don't begin targeting home users - you begin targeting corporate users. Once you have a good piece of market share on the corporate desktops, it'll be easier to extend to the home desktop.

      Yes Linux has issues. These issues are constantly being worked on and are improving. Installing a printer for example is as simple as starting the printer configuration tool and have your printer autodetected. I don't have a digital camera but I heard that on desktop distros like Mandrake, the camera is automounted and an icon will automatically appear on the desktop.
      My parents for example don't install software or hardware. They just use the computer to get on the Internet, that's it. Linux is a perfectly fine option for them - they're already using it.

      But there are also other *huge* issues which are something Linux can't really do something about: the chicken & egg issues. Hardware support for example - hardware manufacturers won't support Linux until there are lots of users, and users won't use Linux until hardware manufacturers support it. Same thing for games and commercial apps.

    3. Re:Corporate vs. Home by IANAAC · · Score: 1
      but until system changes are as simple to handle in Linux as they are in Windows, there is not much chance of Aunt Tillie feeling comforatable with Linux.

      They actually are, depending on what tool you use: If you use SUSE you get YaST2/SaX2. Theye are both point and click system configuration/hardware discovery tools, much like anything you'd find in Control Panel. IMO YaST2 is better at GUI admin than Control Panel.

    4. Re:Corporate vs. Home by PretzelBat · · Score: 1

      I just spent 2 months trying to get it up and running in a useable state on my desktop (I tried Fedora, then moved to Debian). I actually succeeded(!), but because it was so much work and the software was (largely) inferior, I switched back to Windows.

      Maybe in a couple of years.

  39. Every year is the year of the Penguin ... by zapyon · · Score: 1, Insightful

    ... at least for a number of years to come. Why? Easy: While MS OSes have reached a state of saturation of the market, Linux is only just entering the exponential part of the growth function -- with many factors playing in favour of Linux.

    --
    I like my spaghetti with source.
  40. Not until Linux software gets there too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Linux on the desktop won't succeed until the applications can be installed and run by Joe User. I'm a Linux newbie with RH 9 on a home server. If I didn't remember a little UNIX from mumbledy-mumble years ago I'd be completely lost.

    It's running great as a server, but as a desktop it's not there. I've downloaded plenty of software and getting any of it running has been a struggle. Documentation is terrible, if it's there at all it says high level things like "run the makefile", which doesn't work half the time anyhow. How is Joe User supposed to know how to do that? Frequently applications don't even say how to RUN the freaking thing after it's installed. With no desktop icon and no uninstall program how is a user supposed to use Linux?

    1. Re:Not until Linux software gets there too. by I+confirm+I'm+not+a · · Score: 1

      If I didn't remember a little UNIX from mumbledy-mumble years ago....

      Sorry, I missed that: how many years ago?!

      I've got to agree with you about Linux/desktop. Using Linux on the desktop is a powerful teaching tool, I've learnt a lot, but I still wouldn't feel comfortable using it as my main workstation OS (Server, no problem, it's just on the desktop I'm uncomfortable).

      Which distro are you using? I've got a "Show Desktop" icon on my Mandrake (9.1) distro - is that what you're missing?

      I've struggled with dependency-hell on Mandrake, and I'm prepared to believe that it's a PEBCAK rather than a real problem, but c'mon! I'm not (that) stupid, I should be able to easily install packages. Sure, apt-for-rpm sounds good, but I still need to install it first.

      --
      This is where the serious fun begins.
    2. Re:Not until Linux software gets there too. by tokabola · · Score: 1

      I've got lots of Linux software that installed as easily as Windows software. URPMI, aptget, and some items that came with a slick install script that configured, made (compiled) and installed the software with no extra input from me.

      However, I prefer the old ./configure, make, make install method because it optimizes the software for my system.

      I have the Gimp installed on my dual boot Mandrake 10.0 / WinXP system, for both OS's. The Linux version I compiled myself runs 25% faster than the Windows version (from the "convenient" installer.

      Uninstalling is simple. Use whatever package manager you use to install it, or make uninstall for self compiled software. It's not Linux's fault if you don't know how to use it, I've found much more help for Linux available online (and far more accurate help) than I ever got for Windows!

      --
      Open Source for Open Minds
  41. Same could be applied to Apple by adzoox · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Linux has the "obscurity factor" amongst the psyche.

    Mac OS has the "obscurity factor" BUT (and it's a big but) - it is commercially available and known for a very high quality/zero virus/low maintenance - hardware and software - Linux doesn't yet have a SINGLE company that has a commercially successful hardware line AND software line.

    + Macs can run Linux too - even better in some cases - which means one could potentially have a QUASI QUAD BOOT system

    Virtual PC = Windows Variants
    Linux = Linux PPC or YellowDog
    Mac OS X
    Mac OS 9

    Heck older Macs even boot BEOS well.

    **TROLLS - please don't put Intego's FUD trojan alert

    --
    Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
  42. so, logically... by WormholeFiend · · Score: 5, Funny

    if the penguin weighs the same as a duck, it's made out of wood, and therefore...?

    1. Re:so, logically... by yoyodyne · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      My gf's a bitch?

    2. Re:so, logically... by Sri+Lumpa · · Score: 1


      You do realise that you have just given MS and SCO their most credible argument against Linux so far.

      Let's just hope they are not Monty Python fans.

      --
      "The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
  43. Come to Boston. by Liselle · · Score: 1

    Yeah, over here, we're called "Red Sox fans". This is the year, didn't they tell you? :P

    --
    Auto-reply to ACs: "Truly, you have a dizzying intellect."
  44. I wonder how much this has to do with XP licensing by grassy_knoll · · Score: 3, Insightful

    With XP calling home to register itself, word about the holes that come with the XP firewall, etc. I can see where Linux looks much more attractive ( hell, some home users might have to BUY it ;) ).

    Similarly, the increasing cost of XP/Office XP with little or no percieved increase in value *cough*software assurance*cough* has got to be grating the nerves of even a few PHB's.

    Either way, it's good to see Linux making some inroads into corporate desktops.

  45. Games by w42w42 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I use Linux full time as my desktop, except for the two/three times a week I decide to play a game with some friends. Then I have no choice (winex doesn't work) to boot into Windows.

    As a work desktop, it more than satisfies my requirements. Honestly though, as much as I'd rather not have to, I have to keep the Windows partition to play those occasional games.

    I think that the 'year of the penguin' will come around whenever game companies really start shipping titles for Linux. I think it's ironic though that if a couple of the larger PC manufacturers actually started shipping Linux, that games would be available in short order, I'm sure. Of course, neither industry wants to make the first leap.

    1. Re:Games by WormholeFiend · · Score: 1

      consider this poll here for Unreal Tournament 2004:

      so far... 43 people (19.28%) said they played under Linux, while 180 (80.72%) said they played under Windows.

      http://www.ataricommunity.com/forums/showthread. ph p?s=&threadid=367258

    2. Re:Games by Nosf3ratu · · Score: 1

      And what's interesting about that is that UT2K4 runs worse on Linux than it does on Windows (because UT2K4 is written for D3D and not OpenGL -- it's all in the readme). What I'd much rather see is a poll of Enemy Territory users, I'm sure it would be much closer to 50/50 or even higher still. As a matter of fact, I'm going to start one on the Splashdamage forums.

      --
      The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est Pro patria mori
    3. Re:Games by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends on the game. Sometimes there are 3rd party Linux binaries, scripts to make it work with WINE, etc. I found a LOT support for games when i did a GOOD search.

      "..but i play game X and it ain't there."

      Could be true, but please search first. And yes, it is a problem. However there IS progress!

  46. Got it wrong, actually by cipher+chort · · Score: 1

    Mr. Pratt actually completely missed the boat with that comment. Those thousands of people aren't "working on this thing" to "produce the best quality product" (half of them would probably revolt at it being called "product"), they're working on it because:
    a) They're allowed to
    b) They wanted something to exist that didn't before, or they wanted the same function to be performed with a different interface, options, etc...

    Quality is not an overriding goal, as witnessed by the fact that Linux has generally horrible documentation (man pages, heh!). There are misspellings, factually false statements, incorrect or misleading statements, and worst a general incompleteness.

    As has already been discussed to death, useability is not a goal either and as a result the software is often confusing for anyone other than the authors to use (because, after all, the authors didn't write it for YOU, they wrote it for themselves).

    People fundamentally misunderstand the actual process of OSS (and especially GPL) software. It's not created because thousands of volunteers are trying to create a high-quality, competing set of products, it's created by and for the authors, and other people are allowed to download it (but God help them if the instructions aren't sufficient).

    Perhaps to IBM it's about creating a better quality product, because their business has a huge interest in that, but that's not really community volunteerism, that's people who are getting paid by IBM, HP, Novell, Red Hat, etc to work on Linux. That would be like saying there are thousands of people in Redmond trying to make Windows a quality product... well, no kidding!

    I'll make a prediction, and it is that there will be no penetration into the corporate market by "free" Linux, it will all be the commercial sort, that you pay for, just like any other software. The key features of this software will not have been designed by volunteers, but by paid coders for major corporations.

    Don't believe me? Well have you been in a corporate data center recently? My job involves travelling to new customer sites every week and I've seen all of two Linux distros being used corporately: Red Hat in 99.9999% of the cases, and one small shop where the network admin was a Linux zealot and had a Debian box performing some utility functions, but again their blade server ran Red Hat...

    --
    Someone is WRONG on the Internet!
    1. Re:Got it wrong, actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "There are misspellings, factually false statements, incorrect or misleading statements, and worst a general incompleteness." So on a par with about 80% of commercial offerings then!

    2. Re:Got it wrong, actually by haus · · Score: 1

      Commercial software offerings are not exactly a shining beacon of quality documentation. I will admit that for many companies, things have gotten better in the last few years, but I frequently receive software that has incomplete and often factually wrong descriptions of their own installation process.

      Even major companies with large budgets and full "tech support" staffs are often completely unprepared to handle basic issues with any level of constancy. Just last week I had the Compaq/HP tech staff stumped on why their SAN Array configuration software was not behaving as it should (according to the documentation), luckily I hot upon someone on a community tech board who had suggestions that helped me resolve my issue.

      Just because the support that is available does not have the look and feel of that you are used to (30 - 60 minutes of easy listening music and a demand for a credit card) it does not mean that it does not exist. While finding answers through "non-traditional" channels is far from a guarantee of success, I have often been pleasantly surprised by its quality and thoroughness, and in most cases would gladly pit the two against each other.

    3. Re:Got it wrong, actually by cipher+chort · · Score: 1

      Sure you can come up with examples, but I'm talking about the general rule. I mean, have you looked at Linux man pages? It's clear why they're so bad: Because documentation isn't *fun* so no volunteer will do it. On the other hand, commercial products (generally speaking) actually have someone assigned to creating documentation, and their projects usually include requirements for documenting proceedures, features, etc...

      The whole difference is that commercial products usually have a list of requirements, which is often followed, and that generally contains a requirement for documentation, support procedures, etc. All the people working on the project are accountable to someone, so if they aren't accomplishing the goals, they're corrected.

      In OSS you aren't accountable to anyone, in the few cases when there are project leaders it's basically to just make an arbitrary decision about whether to include a bit of code, and there isn't a chain of responsibility or any plan for supporting the product once it's rolled into production. Those are things that commercial products take into account that frankly just aren't important (from what I've seen) in free software projects.

      Now, you try going to your boss and telling him that you're implementing unsupported software that hasn't been QA'd and doesn't really have any documentation to speak of, what do you suppose a boss in a corporation is going to say to that?

      On the other hand, if you tell the PHB that you want to buy this software that comes in a nice shiny box, has telephone support, provides regular security updates, does QA, has crontrolled releases, etc isn't PHB going to be much more receptive? Note: It doesn't matter *which* company this software comes from (Microsoft, IBM, Novell, Red Hat) it just matters that it's commercial-grade!

      I reiterate, "free" Linux will never make inroads into corporations, but I completely expect commercial Linux offerings from IBM, HP, Sun, Novell, and Red Hat to continue to gain market share.

      --
      Someone is WRONG on the Internet!
  47. Already happened by arvindn · · Score: 5, Informative
    Listen all cynical American naysayers:

    In India, where I live, 2003 was the year of linux on the desktop. Yup. Last year. Already happened.

    Starting around last August, the avalanche started. Linux desktops crossed a threshold minimum level of usability, and the price of Windows became an unacceptable fraction of the price of the PC in this cost conscious market. I think it was IBM that ran the first ad for Linux PCs. Soon the taboo was broken. OEMs switched in droves. Today there is hardly anyone that only sells windows boxen. This year two companies have entered the market specializing in linux PCs.

    I can feel the pulse at the grassroots level as well. While the percentage of linux users is surely nowhere near two figures, it has probably doubled since a year or two ago. Banks and other enterprises switching all employees to linux happens every day.

    Billy Gates shot himself in the foot. Major anti-piracy ad campaigns and policing action by NASCOMM (BSA equivalent in India) contributed to awareness about alternatives and fueled linux growth. Today the ads directing the reader to microsoft.com/piracy/howtotell/ are conspicuous by their absence, but the damage has been done. What linux has won is mindshare. PC geek mags regularly carry linux distros and other linux software these days, and have as many articles about linux as windows. It looks like an exponential growth curve is assured.

    If you're thinking of moving to Bangalore, there's at least one thing you can look forward to :-)

    1. Re:Already happened by happyfrogcow · · Score: 1

      -1, Use of the word "boxen"

    2. Re:Already happened by fzammett · · Score: 1

      "Major anti-piracy ad campaigns and policing action by NASCOMM (BSA equivalent in India) ..."

      Woa, back the "piracy is the divine province of God" train up a minute...

      Do you mean to imply that a large portion of the Indian population was so utterly offended by an ad compaign telling you that piracy is illegal and bad caused you to drop Microsoft?!?

      So then another way of saying the exact same thing would be...

      A large portion of the Indian population believe piracy is OK and having software is their right and therefore how dare Microsoft telling you that, screw them, we'll go get a free alternative.

      Geez. If you like Linux because of what it offers, cool, no problem. If your major motivation was that you were illegally obtaining someone's product and then you got called on it and that offended you, I have a sneaking suspicion that the better and larger portion of the Linux community would prefer you NOT jump on board the Linux train. At least, I HOPE they would feel that way.

      --
      If a pion (n-) collides with a proton in the woods & noone is there to hear it, does lamdba decay into the source pa
    3. Re:Already happened by cluckshot · · Score: 1

      Great to hear that India is going over to TUX! Americans will be along shortly. The tipping point is starting. As soon as the vendors here get deborged which is beginning this will fall in place pretty quick. For those who think that the Borg is fighting piracy... Why do you think we refer to M$ or Microsoft as the Borg? They are piracy unlimited. Tux is FREEDOM to do our best without his pirates eating our lunch.

      Americans have paid about 3 or 4 times for new machines and higher capacity machines than they ever needed because the Borg forced machines into obsolescence. TUX says buy a new machine when you need one not when the Borg says to. Most Americans find themselves buying new software that is unnecessary as well. There is no reason that software should go out of use unless it does not fit the needs. TUX allows you to fit needs with the right solution.

      By Linux I was able to get a very low end processor and mother board to replace a failed machine and all I had to do was plug in the Hard drive from the old machine and clip in the old memory chips. Ready to GO! M$ wanted me to see that *#$!! Blue Screen of Death. Linux Rescued my whole data set. NOT BAD when you think of the problems of losing a machine to a hardware failure and then losing all of your data to boot. The Borg wants you to suffer that loss and TUX well he comes to the rescue!

      At work I needed to do some Install Testing on a M$ platform. Linux allowed me to restore to Pristine Pre Install form in just about 10 minutes the M$ Partition! This allowed me to make sure that even working in M$ I did my best. TUX Works and the Borg... Well try an install of any of their OS in 10 minutes by their disks.

      --
      Never Politically Correct ~ I prefer the facts If you don't like what I say, get a life, or comment yourself.
    4. Re:Already happened by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Not to worry. It's quite hard for an individual to pirate GPL software. And it's unreasonably dangerous for a company.

      Copying GPL software, now that's easy...
      And using it is safe. But pirating it is ... problematic.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    5. Re:Already happened by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stupid rag heads you complain and switched to Linux because you got caught pirating Windows? Stupid rag heads the linux community doesn't need you dotheads.

    6. Re:Already happened by tokabola · · Score: 1

      More likely they were offended by M$'s assumption that we're all pirates just waiting for the opportunity to steal.

      --
      Open Source for Open Minds
    7. Re:Already happened by mandolin · · Score: 1
      Starting around last August, the avalanche started

      Can any other Indian linux-philes confirm this trend? This is the first I've heard of it.

  48. Google fun by SuperBanana · · Score: 1

    It isn't just the Toronto Star. Fun with google

    It looks like CNN picked 2002, Linux.com(OSDN) picked 1999...2002 was particularly popular...

  49. This just in. by FooMasterZero · · Score: 1

    In a recent agreement between SCO and the Chinese govt. In pursuit to keep their zodiac pristine, the chinese govt. is suing those who choose to raise the popularity of the penguin to super-impose a non-honarable animal onto their zodiac folowers, sources say the chinese govt. claims the addition of the penguin will cause identity crisis worldwide. People are encouraged to still believe that this year is without a doubt the year of the monkey, and not the year of the pengiun. Go Ximian !
    </joke>

  50. www.google.com/press/zeitgeist/feb04_pie.gif ahem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.google.com/press/zeitgeist/feb04_pie.gi f ahem yeah rights with 1% if the total desktop share!!! Tumble microsoft will says yoda!!

  51. Laura Kiddio and Yankme release new study... by peteshaw · · Score: 2, Funny

    A recent study published by the highly regarded Laura Kidio and her Yankee finding the TCO of desktop is much higher than of Windows XP Pro.

    In a very serious study with no sillyness whatsoever, once factoring in the high cost of download and installing Debian Linux, the TCO is actually 327$, compared to Microsoft's low low $199 price tag.

    --
    www.avacal.com -- the home page of pete shaw
    1. Re:Laura Kiddio and Yankme release new study... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's short term. You need to look at the cost in the long haul as in office(another $200 a pop at least), virus protection($35-$70) and troubleshooting. Both systems will have there issues. Just because windows is "user friendly" definately does not make it troube free.

      We talk about the average user not knowing linux, well the same applies when a major problem occurs on windows. Something gets corrupt from spyware/virus or user error, windows will not boot so then what???

      Both os' have there upsides/downsides. Fact is though Microsoft is too monopolistic so I want to see them fry big time! And "studies" like these annoy me because there deceiving because they look at short term and not long term. Ok I rambled on too much now...

    2. Re:Laura Kiddio and Yankme release new study... by corngrower · · Score: 1

      Now was that $199 INSTALLED? Looks to me that she was comparing uninstalled MSoft with Installed Linux. How much to install linux vs Windows on a network of boxes? Hmm, now things look a lot different. $199 x 10 + time vs $??? + time

    3. Re:Laura Kiddio and Yankme release new study... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a woman! Such a kind of humor, i wish there were more heroish women like her. Where is she from? Trolaria?

    4. Re:Laura Kiddio and Yankme release new study... by tokabola · · Score: 1

      Laura Kidio, highly regarded by who? Bill Gates?

      --
      Open Source for Open Minds
  52. Nice article but... by Quebec · · Score: 1

    It say some good points about Linux which is nice but it also vehiculate all FUDS about it too...

    So much of them that I'm not sure that in the balance it is so nice. Think of any FUD you heard about Linux, the article mention it without really giving real figures.

  53. gaaah. by Moderation+abuser · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I can just see the rollouts now. Linux on every local desktop, local passwd, group, apps, complexity rising exponentially, security, performance and reliability decreasing in response.

    While Windows can be an insecure mess, it's nothing compared to just how messy Unix systems can become.

    With Unix, the least efficient use of the hardware is to put a single instance of many different applications on to lots of different machines.

    Say a Unix app consumes 20Mb of RAM, 80% -> 90% of that memory is shareable; shared libraries, program text and the like. So *conservatively* 2 people can run the application on a machine and it only takes 24Mb of RAM, not 40Mb of RAM, 3 people it uses 28Mb, not 60Mb and so on. On top of this, the application is already loaded, it doesn't have to be read from disk again each time it's started. The filesystem buffers are already pre-loaded, the CPU caches have a significantly better hit rate than if there are a dozen different apps running.

    Unix(and Linux) is *not* Windows, there's an entirely different system architecture which should really be considered before just wiping Windows on each desktop and replacing it with Linux.

    Of course there's a great opportunity for people who know.

    --
    Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
    1. Re:gaaah. by codepunk · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well said, linux is not windows and should not be deployed in the same manner. The Windows deployment model is based on selling licenses and does nothing for efficiency. If you are deploying linux and not doing it thin client you are doing it wrong.

      --


      Got Code?
    2. Re:gaaah. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The thing you don't realize though, is that these desktops already exist. Sure, if you were buying new equipment it would theoretically be more efficient to get one server and a bunch of thin clients, but who cares when you already have a bunch of workstations that you just wiped Windows off of? At least this way, you don't have to worry about everybody having to stop working if the server crashes, and the configuration is more flexible too.

    3. Re:gaaah. by TechniMyoko · · Score: 0

      you could use a thin client to deploy a normal one, like norton ghost does for windows images

    4. Re:gaaah. by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Depending on your exact meaning... that depends.

      If your network is choked, and disk space is cheap, or if a lot of your users use portables, then it's quite reasonable to do a full install on each local PC, though you might want to create customized groups for kickstart so that secretaries and engineers don't end up with exactly the same sets of applications. And you might have some applications that are only installed on you main system hard disk, and are used, when needed, over the LAN.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    5. Re:gaaah. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, you are the cliche king! I loved that "Unix is *not* Windows" line... classic. Oh, and the think before you wipe advice... you are just a goldmine of information and wisdom.

      Your math skills are top-notch too... 20Mb * 80% = 16Mb... thanks for reminding us about saving memory thru common libs!

      To a sub 80 IQ, you are truly Insightful!

    6. Re:gaaah. by glitchvern · · Score: 1

      If your network is choked, and disk space is cheap, or if a lot of your users use portables
      You still want to use NIS or something similar for authentication. Authentication requires very little bandwith and not having centralized authentication will lead to a maintenance nightmare. This goes for windows as well as linux. Obviously the portables will have to be treated specially.

  54. Re:linux at large conservative org - stop the pres by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'linux at large conservative org' - am I alone in attempting to parse that as an email address?

  55. Linux Journal by Traicovn · · Score: 1

    No, sorry. I have a Linux Journal hat that says in big letters '1999: The year of the Penguin'. As usual, the media is late about reporting technological advances...

    --

    [Something witty and intelligent should have appeared here.]
    {Traicovn}
  56. if you want.... by zogger · · Score: 1

    ... to make the "conservative" bosses more easily accept the "liberal socialist" linux, I would be happy to sell them a nice paper recommending linux, that way, because they paid for it, it will soothe the capitalist breast a bit... I will charge many-MANY thousands of dollars for this advice, a truly CEO impressive sum. ..just.. give me a few days to accumulate a heap of those "lost your diploma" replacement certificates I see in the helpful advertisements that well meaning people send to my email inbox.

  57. What innovation? by joshsnow · · Score: 1

    The power of innovation in the open-source community is unparalleled,"

    This guy couldn't have put it any better. It's the reason Linux will continue to grow and have deeper market pennetration over the next few years.

    I don't see much innovation in the Linux world. BeOS was innovative - as a system written from the ground up for multimedia.

    OSX is based on a version of Unix, but Apple have been innovative in the UI - rather than defaulting to using X.

    Even the next version of Winblows is supposed to have many innovative new features - although what these turn out to be in practice remains to be seen.

    Linux developers seem to be rather a conservative lot, and maybe I'm not being fair here, but there seem to be far too many sacred cows in the Linux world for there ever to be true innovation.

  58. So confused.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This year of the penguin thing will never catch on... :P

    http://victoria.tc.ca/~half-mad/moo/pengcal.html

  59. One way desktop Linux might get desktop seats by randall_burns · · Score: 3, Informative

    I work for a large public school district. We use Win 2000 server quite a bit(that may be changing with the movement of Novell to Linux). The place where the district lags behind quite a bit is on the desktop-we still have _thousands_ of Windows 98 machines out there because there simply isn't funding to upgrade the hardware/OS's. What would be really compelling in our case is a really nice desktop version that had Wine that worked seemlessly _and would use existing Win98 DLL's and libraries if available. Basically, I'd see that as an alternative to a Win 2K or Win XP upgrade that would breath some new life into these old machines. We'd get a lot more functionality with Linux _but_ short of doing a dual boot, I haven't seen a way to keep the functionality that Win98 has--and the district has what is for it quite a substantial investment in Windows software--and training in Windows applications for its staff.

    What I'm saying here is that part of the logical niche for a free OS is as an alternative upgrade path for folks that are finding that Windows simply doesn't give them an economically viable upgrade path. Microsoft is ceasing support of Win98. Now, to put this in perspective, even among folks outside of the district that hit our web page, over 20% are using older versions of Windows(ME,98,95) compared to less than 1% for Linux-and 4-5% for Macintosh.

    Its always seemed to me that folks pushing desktop Linux generally assume that folks will ditch many of their windows applications(I know Wine works, but last I checked it was still a bit limited in what applications it would support) or at least substantially retrain themselves to use Linux.
    I tend to think that just being the viable upgrade path for older hardware is the type of thing that will take Linux clearly past Macintosh in terms of numbers.

  60. Software by bonch · · Score: 1

    It's all about software. People are NOT, NOT, NOT going to abandon all their software. They like their software, and--yes, Slashdotters, despite what you hear from the editors here all the time--many people like Windows. It is safe and easy for them.

    If you mention to them "apt-get" they will run screaming in terror.

    1. Re:Software by brotherscrim · · Score: 1

      People liked WordPerfect 5.1 too. Shit, people liked typewriters and filing cabinets. Ask Corel how WP is doing these days. Ask Lotus about their spreadsheet. "their software" gets abandoned with a quickness just as soon as somebody offers more for less as long as it is just as simple to use (or easier) than what they have.

  61. Lindux? by InternationalCow · · Score: 1

    I liked the way the paper described Tux: " a duck-like penguin". I immediately thought of a great name for the next desktop oriented distro: Lindux! Maybe I should suggest this name to the Lindows guys?

    --
    ----- One learns to itch where one can scratch.
  62. Sorry, but... by bonch · · Score: 1

    ...people outside of Slashdot do not know or care about "phoning home" or "firewall holes." The real world just doesn't get all worked up over it like Slashdot does.

    Similarly, the increasing cost of XP/Office XP with little or no percieved increase in value *cough*software assurance*cough* has got to be grating the nerves of even a few PHB's.

    So don't buy the new version.

    1. Re:Sorry, but... by grassy_knoll · · Score: 1
      Many home users won't buy the new version. Note the prevalence of Win98.

      Home users do notice the registration in XP when their PC fails to work after a time if left unregistered.

      On security in general, there is a level of fear out there from some users. I can't speak to prevalence, but if Tony Sopranno mentions being worried about cookies, the idea is out there. The more regular people are worried about Microsoft registration, the less inclined they would be to use pirated copies of XP. This is a good thing, IMHO. Once they see the price tag of Microsoft, Linux looks even better.

      Some corporations, however, almost seem duty bound to get the latest offerings from Microsoft whether or not the latest offerings provide needed enhancements. Not all corporations of course.

  63. The Year of Linux Desktops: 200X? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sure that this year will bring several high-profile Linux Desktop deployments, doesn't mean its the year of Linux on the desktop.

    Linux's ease of use isn't up to scratch yet. Yeah sure, it's got allot better, and yeah, there are plenty of people proclaiming that Gnone or KDE are better than Windows.

    I don't see this as true though. I don't see a big push happening to make a really good, _well coordinated_ user interface, and that is preventing Linux from becoming the flexible platform Windows is (and in this context I'm not referring to the flexibility of Linux 'under the hood').

    Of course, now is the time to make that big push forward in usability - ie, before Longhorn.

  64. sure it is by TechniMyoko · · Score: 0

    We all know average joe loves to recompile his kernal

  65. I thought the "Year of Linux" was 2003 by iCharles · · Score: 3, Funny

    No...wait...it was 2002. I'm sorry--I mean 2001. One of these years Linix will dominate...

  66. O'Reilly's Linux for Non-Geeks by newell_nicosia · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This is certainly a step in the right direction....

    O'Reilly writes: Linux for Non-Geeks introduces you to Linux, without the technical jargon and advanced topics that you'd find in other books. You'll learn how to use Linux to do the normal, day-to-day computer stuff that you know how to do with another operating system, like connecting to and surfing the Internet, listening to CDs, playing with audio files, customizing your desktop, playing games, downloading software and fonts, printing, and more. Includes a complete installation of Fedora Linux on two CDs. [Full Description]

  67. Population growth by Moderation+abuser · · Score: 1

    Starts off slow, accelerates due to the feedback loop, become an exponential change. Then it'll reach a mid point and tail off to a plateau. It isn't clear exactly how long it'll take, the rate of change or the carrying capacity but barring legislation making Linux illegal, it's going to happen.

    e.g.
    http://marine.geol.sc.edu/BIOL/Courses/BIO L301/Wet hey/Outline09.html

    It's fairly clear there will be several years of "Linux on the desktop".

    --
    Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
  68. It wont be the year of linux before.. by Ramion · · Score: 2

    It wont be the year of linux before the comon home user and gamer can play their games without obscure winex hacking, install the apps they will without having to worry weather it will run on their desktop and worry about a zillion billion depentensies. Oh a nice clean easy uninstall system would help also.

  69. More like 2005 by WindBourne · · Score: 2, Insightful

    One of the issues with "new" technology is that there is a learning AND testing curve for the faint of heart. Just about every CIO fits in the faint of heart category, as they typically pick what others run, so that they can hide in "nobody go fired for using X".

    Back in the 80's,early 90's X was IBM. But even in early 90's, Windows was good enough to replace much of the character screens. The issue was CIO's were afraid so they would allow bean counters and others to slowly bring them in before they stuck their neck out.

    We have been in the learning phase for the last year. Now, it is moving to testing for these folks. In early 2005 (one year before Windows big one), we will see mass replacements as part of the 2005 budget.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  70. Re:Every year? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Welcome to the world of media. Seeing how people respond to these articles and each individual has a slew of passionate opinions, why would the press want to stop?

  71. Words come easy - facts for Linux laptops by wehe · · Score: 2, Interesting

    For laptops almost any major manufacturer has announced the availability of Linux on their machines during the last years. Almost all off them have dropped these plans silently. For details see the Laptop Manufacturers - Linux Status Survey.

  72. You're kidding, right? by bonch · · Score: 1, Insightful
    Could we get a few examples of Linux just playing catch-up and not being "Innovative"?

    • Taskbar
    • Start menu (I'm sorry, "big giant K" menu)
    • Integration of the file browser and internet browser, shamelessly stolen from Windows 98--you know, the OS everyone still bitches about around here six years later
    • Minimize, Maximize, and Close buttons, often in the same exact places
    • Mono project
    • Text shadows under icon labels (poorly done, I might add)
    • A trashcan, which not only rips off Windows but also Mac. Before you bother (and I know someone will), note that it doesn't matter if Windows also ripped it off--you asked what Linux was ripping off and not innovating.
    • Christ, man...I could go on and on but I'm at work right now.


    The entire Linux desktop movement blindly follows the Windows paradigm for desktops like a happy little dog. Why not DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT?! Get that taskbar the hell out of there--they don't facilate spacial navigation and are horrible. Get that Start menu-ripoff out of there--Start menus are extremely poor program launchers. That integrated browser doesn't belong--it has absolutely no reason for existing and adds seconds to my loading of the Home folder (and you guys call Windows XP slow).

    The only "innovation" KDE and GNOME can profess is having tons more pointless applets running on their panels, and running a lot slower than Windows on the same hardware. That's absolutely it and nothing more. Other than that, they offer nothing more than what Windows offers, and they don't even have a chance of eating OS X's dust.

    You asked, I answered. Linux needs something completely new with its OWN IDENTITY--something that sits alongside Windows and OS X in having its own identity. KDE and GNOME are awful, horrible, and very, very bad. Personally, I'm looking forward to Y-Windows, which plans to replace the failed experiment that is X with something modern and better, while retaining the advantages that X had like network-transparency. No more endless "extensions" that conflict with each other! No more non-integrated desktops, where you're having to install TWO desktop environments just to be able to run each other's apps.

    The Linux desktop is the perfect example of fragmentation run amok, holding back progress and adoption. Hell, very basic things still don't exist. The day you finally implement a binary installation/uninstallation routine so that someone can stick in a CD and run an autoplay installer that properly creates its shortcut icons and so on will be the day more apps will start coming out for Linux. Not to mention using just ONE library instead of multiple "toolkits" doing the widget work that should be done by the desktop anyway. Man, like I said, I could go on and on for pages...
    1. Re:You're kidding, right? by mahdi13 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Nice response, applause!

      I can pick it apart for days, but like you, I don't have that time ;-)
      As you also mentioned, most of the points are ripped right from Apple. Apple are the ones that should get most of the desktop credit, for everything. Trashcan, taskbar, (do they have a start like button?), Minimize, Maximize, and Close buttons (often in the same places to keep them standard.)

      I agree KDE and GNOME are awful and do not innovate much at all and slow things down a lot.
      I use Fluxbox which only uses the taskbar by default (a very bare one might I add). There are no 'start like buttons', a menu is brought up with a right click anywhere. It is very lean and very fast. and highly configurable. The only real downside is that configuring is not user friendly at all, this is being improved on as it is a very young project still.

      Windows can not take any credit at all for the desktop environment as that strongly belongs to Apple. The best anyone can do is improve on it.

      Mono was create to keep interoperability between operating systems, not to copy and be a 'me too'.
      The Minimize, Maximize, and Close buttons have been around forever in any windowed desktop and are not always in the same order. In TWM default you have close on the top left, minimize on the far right with no maximize. This style was around before Windows 3.1, saying anyone copied this from Windows is wrong.

      Looking around at other peoples desktop screenshots, I see that most people are imitating OSX on the desktop and keeping away from looking anything like Windows. Even the use of desktop icons are diminishing and becoming less common.

      --
      "Some things have to be believed to be seen." - Ralph Hodgson
    2. Re:You're kidding, right? by Rutulian · · Score: 1

      Taskbar

      Start menu (I'm sorry, "big giant K" menu)

      Integration of the file browser and internet browser, shamelessly stolen from Windows 98--you know, the OS everyone still bitches about around here six years later

      Minimize, Maximize, and Close buttons, often in the same exact places

      Mono project

      Text shadows under icon labels (poorly done, I might add)

      A trashcan, which not only rips off Windows but also Mac. Before you bother (and I know someone will), note that it doesn't matter if Windows also ripped it off--you asked what Linux was ripping off and not innovating.


      Well, to start, four of those things you listed (start menu, taskbar, windows, trashcan) are all part of the same paradigm, so I would treat it as one instance of "copying", not four. Furthermore, you can call it "copying" or you can call it common sense. The WIMP paradigm works. There are ways it can be improved (and is being improved), but why scrap it entirely if it does what it is supposed to do?

      And when you do set out to "innovate" there are limits to what you can do. You suggest getting rid of the trashcan. What would you replace it with? How about a big black hole that makes whooshing sounds when you drag something into it? Sounds like the same concept to me, so it isn't really innovation.

      There are some major desktop innovations taking place in linux (see ROX for example), but most of the innovation happens in small ways. Gnome-keyring/Gnome-vfs for seamless access to nfs,samba,sftp network volumes (maybe Windows already has this, but I haven't seen it), GConf for easy profile management across multiple desktops (the functionality exists in other OS's, but I think the GConf method is better), GStreamer for limitless audio/video possibilities.

      You can argue that these aren't really innovations, but who really does true innovation. Apple with the floofy animations that just consume system resources, or Microsoft with the gawdy colors and annoying-as-hell auto-rearranging menus? That's not innovation, either. That is improvement (in some cases more than others) of a common paradigm.

      Anyway, my point is that the linux desktop is constantly getting better and easier to use. You can argue semantics over whether the changes are innovating or improving, but that is pretty pointless. Nothing has been copied rote from Windows and MacOS. The paradigm has been copied, but it has been implemented differently.

      And you should take some time to look at other desktops besides KDE. The standard GNOME desktop doesn't have a start menu and spatial nautilus removes the blurred line between file manager and web browser. As somebody else mentioned, Windowmaker, Fluxbox, and GNUStep don't look anything like current Windows and MacOS offerings.

    3. Re:You're kidding, right? by JCholewa · · Score: 1

      > The only "innovation" KDE and GNOME can profess
      > is having tons more pointless applets running on
      > their panels, and running a lot slower than
      > Windows on the same hardware.

      KDE has session management to a level that I've never seen elsewhere. It can set the Z-level of any window to be above of below other windows. You can turn off the titlebar of any window if you need it to disappear. You can fullscreen any maximizable application. Widgets across all KDE applications are instantly, globally skinnable. I can run KDE on Win32, Linux and FreeBSD and the installs are easy compared to any other complex desktop environment. Mouse gestures and shortcut key combos can be easily set for global and application-specific options. The KDE file dialog box is unparalleled -- it has its own bookmark feature, but it also has collapsible and directly editable alternative to the horrifyingly static and bothersome "Places" bar in Win32, and you can type in new directory locations and thusly change directories without accidentally erasing the file name in the dialog box, which is a major failing of Win32 and most other file dialogs. Additionally, the file dialogs have relatively protocol-agnostic access of network-accessible files. You can load and save stuff that are shared via SMB, NFS, FTP, even SSH, as if they were saved on your local disk. Heck, you can browse IMAP as if it were a file sytem! Titlebar buttons can be easily shifted around and customized to avoid the horribly fatal "kill button next to maximize button" flaw in most operating systems and environments. Devices can be set to appear on the desktop when they mount. There's a useful graphical disk usage view included in the default file manager.

      And, yeah, there are a ton of incredibly useful panel applets.

      > Not to mention using just ONE library instead
      > of multiple "toolkits" doing the widget work
      > that should be done by the desktop anyway.

      Win32 has this problem, too. Pretty much every single program that I'm using right now on this Windows 2000 install (Opera, Mozilla Mail, cmd.exe, Cygwin/X, vncviewer, OpenOffice.org) has different widgets. What's the big deal if Linux does the same thing? At least KDE has more consistency than, say, Microsoft (whose most popular program -- MS Office -- uses widgets different from the operating system).

      --
      -JC
      coder
      http://www.jc-news.com/parse.cgi?coding/main

    4. Re:You're kidding, right? by alext · · Score: 1

      Mono was create to keep interoperability between operating systems, not to copy and be a 'me too'

      Unlikely.

      If "interoperability" (I guess you mean portability) was Mono's goal it could have easily built on Python, Java or Lisp.

      But Mono isn't innovative like Python, Java or Lisp - Mono is slavish copying of Dotnet to no purpose and with no redeeming features.

      If that sounds harsh, search Slashdot for the number of times the "Dotnet compatibility" claim is made and then backed down from again. Mono proponents know that this carrot will always remain out of reach, but every day is "Dotnet compatibility day" in Mono marketing land. I fully expect that these people to repeat this mantra undeveloped and unqualified until their final hour at Novell.

  73. Say it often enough, you will be right-Money Tree. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Just cuz you keep repeating it doesnt make it so, otherwise, money would be growing on trees, too."

    Hey! Why not? If we can grow tits on a mouse, we can grow money on trees.

  74. Can by midgley · · Score: 2, Interesting

    from Emperor Computers. I expect IBM will get round to it, they got a nudge from the UK (mother of) Parliament recently...

  75. Same difference by Brane · · Score: 1
    That is *not* acceptable for the average end user. Take a look at Mac OS X. They got it right. You download the DMG, it mounts as a folder, you copy the "program" (really a folder that the OS makes look like a file) to your Applications directory. Done.

    Well, normally you have to use an installer even though the method you describe (copy .app folder to Applications) was the way Apple intended it to work.

    However, this is beside the point. To install a typical Free/Open Source program on Mac OS X, you normally have to recompile it! And sometimes even that doesn't work, because the coders used linux-only features that are not available on the BSD-based Mac OS X.

    If you install software made (packaged) for Mac OS X, it's easy. But if you use Fedora and install software made (packaged) for Fedora, that's easy too. Or if you use Debian and install software made (packaged) for Debian.

    It's when you want to install something not "natively" available for your distro/OS you run into problems. (Yes, those problems should be solved, but they are hard...)

    1. Re:Same difference by AKAImBatman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, normally you have to use an installer even though the method you describe (copy .app folder to Applications) was the way Apple intended it to work.

      I'm typing on a Mac right now, and I can assure you that most programs come in DMG files *without* installers. The only programs with installers are ones that need to insert system components of some sort. Even Office X is as simple as drag and drop.

      However, this is beside the point. To install a typical Free/Open Source program on Mac OS X, you normally have to recompile it! And sometimes even that doesn't work, because the coders used linux-only features that are not available on the BSD-based Mac OS X.

      I use tons of Open Source on my Mac, and I have never needed to compile anything. I usually get them from OpenDarwin via WebDAV.

      If you install software made (packaged) for Mac OS X, it's easy. But if you use Fedora and install software made (packaged) for Fedora, that's easy too. Or if you use Debian and install software made (packaged) for Debian.

      Sorry, the packages themselves tend to be easy, but almost no one is helpful enough to give you all the dependencies that you need before installing. Mac software comes with all the dependencies inside the .app file. That's why I'm able to download something like ToastCD or LAME GUI (both based on Open Source) and never have to install any dependencies.

    2. Re:Same difference by Brane · · Score: 1
      I use tons of Open Source on my Mac, and I have never needed to compile anything. I usually get them from OpenDarwin via WebDAV.

      "I use tons of Open Source on my RedHat, and I have never needed to compile anything. I usually get them from RedHat via ftp." Well, that's not quite true. But it might be. I'm sure OpenDarwin doesn't provide packages for everything on freshmeat, or sourceforge, or whatever...

      Mac software comes with all the dependencies inside the .app file.

      It doesn't sound like a good solution to force all users to download all the gnome libraries (or Qt, or X11 for that matter) for all applications that depend on it. A better solution would be to check what's available on your system and only download the necessary dependencies. And: That's what apt does! So, a solution already exists, but again, only software that's available in some apt repository works in this way, similarly to how only software packaged the right way may be installed effortlessly on the Mac.

    3. Re:Same difference by aristotle-dude · · Score: 1

      Well, normally you have to use an installer even though the method you describe (copy .app folder to Applications) was the way Apple intended it to work. Nope. Adobe Photoshop uses an installer as does the extras for MS Office X but MS Office X itself is a drag and drop install. Usually you only need an installer package if you are installing frameworks/libraries on a system level which requires authentication to temporarily enable root level access via the GUI. Most OS X binaries of Open source software (eg. VLC) are already compiled as .apps and if you download the source specific to OS X, you will get an .app at the end of it anyway assuming the software is GUI based.

      --
      Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
    4. Re:Same difference by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      "I use tons of Open Source on my RedHat, and I have never needed to compile anything. I usually get them from RedHat via ftp." Well, that's not quite true. But it might be. I'm sure OpenDarwin doesn't provide packages for everything on freshmeat, or sourceforge, or whatever...

      OpenDarwin doesn't have everything, that's true. But there's pretty much everything I need there. And there's a whole community of developers who are creating .APPs of the best programs. For example, there was a nice DMG for VideoLAN for my Mac, but on SuSE I had to get the RPM (and 300 dependencies) from a variety of third parties.

      It doesn't sound like a good solution to force all users to download all the gnome libraries (or Qt, or X11 for that matter) for all applications that depend on it.

      Says you. As a Mac user, I'm very happy that's how it works. Memory is cheap (I've got 640 MB) and my time just isn't worth broken dependencies. How many times have QT and GTK changed? How many programs have broken when GLIBC or STD-LIBC have changed? Dependencies are a nightmare. If it's not a core system lib, it should be part of the program. If it is a core system lib, then it *always* be backward compatible (you hear me Stallman?!).

      Anything that absolutely should be a library (e.g. X11) can be created as a .framework "file" (which is also a special directory). Overall, there are very few libraries that end up getting made into frameworks,

  76. Re:Lies, opinions, and half-truths by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Exactly !!!
    What innovation has come out of Linux?? Everything is a ripoff of something that is in Solaris or Windows.

    Read the weekly list of Linux vulns it pales in comparison to what comes out for Windows. The problem is millions use windows as a desktop machine while only a niche few use Linux as a desktop machine. The people that do use Linux cry about having windows apps and pray for 100% compat. with winex/crossover as that is the only means Linux can "rule the desktop" TM. Dingbats a PC is not a dumb terminal!! People change hardware and modify things that nobody will edit .conf files for to accomodate. hell no company wants to even create drivers for linux because it's such a pain in the ass!! DIffrent kernels, file system layouts, different implementations of X. Forget it

    The reason linux has a boon is because Linux is FREE You can not compete with free!!! hell at work we have 5 Red Hat servers we paid 0 dollars for the software and don't need no steekin support. Guesss what red hat you earned 0 dollars while we in BMS.com are using your software in production environments... yeah stupid asses go run a search on bms.com your narrow minded view of what a server is is hilarious!! Not everyone needs a unix box to host a website on ... again narrow minded slashdot view. Now begone and enjoy read the lastest Microsoft banner on slashdot jew dinks.

  77. Corporate vs. Home-Cousin Tillie. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "There are still too many usability issues for the average computer user to perform configuration in Linux (e.g. installation of programs)."

    "Double click on package"--"GUI package manager pops up"--"click on install"--"done"

    Complaining about software installation on Linux is like complaining that Windows BSODS alot.

    "Once KDE is up and running, I suppose everyone will be okay until the purchase of a new printer, etc., but until system changes are as simple to handle in Linux as they are in Windows, there is not much chance of Aunt Tillie feeling comforatable with Linux."

    Aunt Tillie has Cousin Tillie do their installation for them.

    When will you Winvocates get a new complaint?

  78. But how is Linux better, exactly/ by Junks+Jerzey · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's more secure in some ways. We know. But let's put that aside.

    As I see it, there's no clear reason why anyone should bother switching to Linux. Seriously. It's open, yes, but that doesn't matter except to very small minority of people (remember, Windows software can also be Open Source, even though the kernel is closed). Other than that...not much. Both Linux and Windows are equally complex and confusing. People who argue that Linux is a beautiful gem either (a) don't really know what they're talking about, or (b) are talking about the raw kernel and not the 10x more stuff that needs to stack on top of it to make a Windows-equivalent system.

    If an alternative operating system had some huge and obvious benefits to the user, then I'd be all over it. Linux and Windows are more similar than different.

    1. Re:But how is Linux better, exactly/ by brotherscrim · · Score: 1

      *cough*hundreds of dollars*cough*

  79. try knoppix alsa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    at the boot prompt, try:

    knoppix alsa

    If it works, consider installing knoppix to hard drive (Debian), or, use the info that knoppix picked up about your sound card for your current Linux install, if any.

    Try getting the specs about your card and Googling it, or, post the question to the forums at knoppix.net.

    The only problem I've ever had with Linux sound was on a Toshiba Tecra 8000 laptop - nothing detects it, however, after doing a search, I found that by editing modules.conf by hand with some values from his website - worked like a charm...I then costumized a knoppix disk with those values forced in, so to speak, and bang - knoppix 100% on the the old beast...

    If you want to avoid the problem in the future in general, research the hardware before you make the purchase - unsure? Take a knoppix disk to the store with you and ask the salesman to reboot the PC on the disk for you.

    I'm using a $200 Wal-mart OSless PC right now (I thre Lindows out the window - running Debian via knoppix), and everything works fine. It doesn't cost any more to get Linux compatible hardware.

    As for when things go wrong, I'm almost always able to get Linux to boot partially - Linux is so much easier to fix, config is handled in human-readable text files, not some corporate-friendly registry ;) I find KDE easier to use than Windows, can't speak for OSX...

    Everyone in my family runs Linux - it's LESS free-tech-support from me, if you know what I mean, - no spyware/adware/virus battles to wage every 3 weeks...I ask my mom for her ip address and then ssh in from several states away and use the commandline to upgrade her various packages - of course I could use graphical remote desktop, VNC is now built directly into KDE - it can even send you an email request - which solves the "what's the ip" problem, but command line is faster...

    It's a dream come true - I can make a cheap PC for the family members and it "just works" - like a Ronco Rotisserie, I just "set it and forget it", more or less...

    1. Re:try knoppix alsa by JavaLord · · Score: 1

      I didn't buy (and have never bought) a computer with linux in mind. I guess I should resort to that at some point. I'll definatly try the cheat code you gave me. (knoppix alsa). I know what you mean about the free tech support stuff. It's enough of a pain in the ass just cleaning out the spyware, malware on my own machine never mind my friends/family who are constantly leaching my help.

      I just might sack up and delete my windows partition and switch to fully to linux.

  80. DRM Counter Attack by 4of12 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    switching to Linux for their desktop due to expensive Windows licensing fees and high-profile security vulnerabilities.

    It's a good question how much Linux desktop deployment will occur before the first pre-installed Microsoft OS's on PCs with built-in hardware-level DRM (TCPA, etc.) begin to appear.

    That OS will be trumpeted as being "more secure" and "lets you watch videos, listen to music", which will help to sell it to the virus-weary public and to the content paranoid **AA members.

    And it's questionable whether people will even care if their PC is not "free" as in freedom as long as they're getting enough perceived benefit for not too much perceived cost.

    --
    "Provided by the management for your protection."
  81. Re:STFU job stealing Rag Head by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stop stereotyping Indians, they have progressed into a thriving community of casinos.

  82. A Wine a day, keeps the apps in play. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "We'd get a lot more functionality with Linux _but_ short of doing a dual boot, I haven't seen a way to keep the functionality that Win98 has--and the district has what is for it quite a substantial investment in Windows software--and training in Windows applications for its staff."

    This right here is the main problem. Ask yourself, if your district had a major investment in Linux software, how difficult it would be moving over to Windows? At least one plus in such a migration is that your data wouldn't be locked into a proprietary format.

    "Its always seemed to me that folks pushing desktop Linux generally assume that folks will ditch many of their windows applications(I know Wine works, but last I checked it was still a bit limited in what applications it would support) or at least substantially retrain themselves to use Linux."

    Well one, very few on either side actually approaches the application issue objectively. Those on the Windows side will not even look and see if there's a work-alike. Those on the Linux side need to see about getting more Windows programs certified for Wine.

    1. Re:A Wine a day, keeps the apps in play. by randall_burns · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The big thing that I would like to see:
      Improve Wine so that if you have a win98 license, they'll make more use of the Microsoft DLL's--and improve the installation and documentation to that installing into a situation in which Win98 already exists is _seemless_.

      What I'd ideally want here:
      Take _nothing_ away from folks that already have a Windows license on their machine(particularly if
      this is an older license)

      Add Linux functionality.

      Here at the district, we have some fokls that know that Windows networking and security is rather lacking--but they are a bit intimidated by the Linux learning curve. The fact that Novell is moving towards Linux is a big draw here. The next biggest draw IMHO would be to make the win98 machines work better so that the life of these machines can be extended--and the software can be update at lower cost than the microsoft route.

      When you are talking a cash-strapped customer with thousands of machines, those sort of things really do add up. I don't think it is just school districts-cost savings is going to be more of an issue for a lot of organizations over time--if the Linux community can simply make it clear that Linux is the logical, low cost upgrade path then in time Microsoft will feel the heat.

  83. Easy pseudocode formule by Stonent1 · · Score: 1, Funny

    if current_year =\= year_of_penguin then year_of_penguin = year_of_penguin +1;

    if current_year = year_of_penguin then repost_same_article();

  84. Not Yet. by Todd+Fisher · · Score: 1

    The year of the Penguin will be when our parents have Linux installed on their boxes and don't call us every hour to ask us how to use it.

    --


    --I'm not talking about dance lessons. I'm talking about putting a brick through the other guy's windshield.-
  85. 2004 *is* different: HP, IBM, Novell, Sun by IceAgeComing · · Score: 1


    HP, Sun, and Novell have all announced that they're selling computers with Linux-based desktops. Has this ever happened before 2004?

    IBM's main server distro is linux-based. This doesn't affect desktop users as much, but it does mean that there are legions of PAID linux developers out there.

    So... Don't believe, don't believe, don't believe the FUD!

  86. ....and by tourettes · · Score: 1

    "The article states that more and more companies are considering (and) switching to Linux for their desktop due to expensive Windows licensing fees and high-profile security vulnerabilities." ...and in other news, the sky is blue and the earth revolves around the sun

    --
    tourettes
  87. Wow by bonch · · Score: 1

    Wow. Your friends who know you ask you about Linux and "geek types" because they "heard about it somewhere." That proves everything.

    I repeat: people outside of Slashdot--that is, the REAL WORLD in which people are more concerned with their car payments than their preferred "desktop environment"--do NOT, NOT NOT know or care about "M$," "RIAA", or "Linux." Deal with it. I do tech support and interact with people and their computers for a living, and 80% of the people don't even know what version of Windows they're using, despite the huge boot splash screen saying "XP" on it.

    1. Re:Wow by IceAgeComing · · Score: 1

      I repeat: people outside of Slashdot--that is, the REAL WORLD in which people are more concerned with their car payments

      Fine, your definition of the REAL WORLD includes grandparents, kids, mom and dad.

      What you need to deal with is that most of these people are SHEEP. If Dell switches to Linux desktop on their machines, they're by God going to be Linux users and probably won't even know it.

      The corporate folks who actually matter in this debate damn well know about Linux. And, to to quote you:

      Deal with it.

  88. I'll try my "year of linux" joke again by usurper_ii · · Score: 3, Funny

    And this time people, this is a joke and not a troll!!!

    This is a friendly note from the law office of Bezos & McBride (no relation, really) in representation of the SCO Corporation. SCO would like to inform you that it holds the trademark to the term "Year of Linux." Please cease and desist the use of the term without acknowledgement of the trademark. If you wish to continue using this term, please contact SCO to discuss licensing terms.

    Thanks you,

    Law Office of Bezos & McBride
    D. McBride
    J. Bezos

  89. How to tell if it's "The Year of the Penguin" by V_drive · · Score: 5, Funny

    With all the confusion about whether or not a particular year is "The Year of the Penguin," I thought I'd volunteer a simple method you can apply to decide for yourself.

    If it is January through May: this year
    If it is June through December: next year

    Try it for yourself and you too may become an industry expert and visionary.

    [warning: this post contains high degrees of sarcasm and may not be suitable for all readers]

    --
    char *mySig;
  90. Seriously, does anyone edit Linux config files? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is like the most awful troll of all.

    Yes, Linux lets you edit config files, which can be useful at times.

    But modern distros hide it all. I never go to the command line except when I want to make shell scripts to automate some stuff.

    1. Re:Seriously, does anyone edit Linux config files? by fzammett · · Score: 1

      I'm sitting in front of a Mandrake 9.2 desktop running KDE. I am not a Linux expert, nor and I a complete Linux newbie, and I am BY FAR *NOT* a computer novice. Here's my question...

      How do I switch my screen resolution? No, serioously.

      When I installed this distro, it picked up my video card nicely, set my setting as I asked it to, that part went well.

      But I've now spent the better part of 10 minutes trying various things, including:

      * Right-click on the desktop, select Configure Desktop. Nope, not there.

      * Desktop Setting Wizard? Nope, not there.

      * LinuxConf on the K menu? Well, doesn't say Video Settings or anything familiar, but maybe it's under Miscellaneous... Nope. Peripherals? Nope.

      * Configuration Menu... Hardware (probably, but I might be wrong)... HardDrake (only because that sounds familiar from the install process)... Nope... Oh wait, what's this Run Config Tool button that appeared out of the blue?? Hey, there we go!

      Ok, is my point sufficiently clear? Sure, you can dismiss the first thing I tried as something a Windows user might try. Ok, fair enough, learning curve issue. Why didn't Desktop Settings Wizard do what I wanted? Oh yes, because a desktop isn't really the same thing as a the Windows desktop. Ok, maybe another learning curve thing, but now your pushing it. LinuxConf? Obviously some sort of configuration tool, and featured so prominently on the K menu, that made sense.

      No, I had to be fortunate enough to remember what it said during the install, and if I hadn't would I have tried HardDrake as fast as I had? Almost certainly not because HardDrak doesn't even remotely sound like something that might configure my video card (and saying the HARD portion of the word should indicate something to do with hardware is an EXTREME stretch, albeit a correct one in this case).

      And how many clicks did it take in all? Let's see...

      1. K menu
      2. Configuration
      3. Hardware
      4. HardDrak
      5. Click on video card (oh yeah, forgot to mention that before... I didn't even get the Run Config Tool until I selected the video card... Why wasn't it there greyed out and then activated when I selected the video card??)
      6. Click Run Config tool
      7. Click Resolution button
      8. Make my change and click Ok
      9. Then click Yes on the verification prompt that appears

      For God's sake, I count around 9 clicks until my resolution was changed. ARGH!

      How many in Windows XP you ask?

      1. Right-click desktop
      2. Properties
      3. Settings tab
      4. make changes, click OK
      5. Click OK again to verification prompt

      5 clicks, 4 if you don't particularly care about the second OK.

      Is my point sinking in yet? EVEN IF I WAS A LINUX GURU, WHY WOULD THIS BE ACCEPTABLE?!?

      I will grant you it's better than the last time I tried Linux when I in fact HAD to modify some config files to change resolution. Yes, progress is being made. But as indicated by this minor experience, WAY TO DAMNED SLOW TO BE ANY KIND OF THREAT TO WINDOWS.

      My mother, who has come quite a long way in her computer usage, would NEVER deal with this. Heck, I have a hard enough time convinving her that changing her refresh rate from 50 is a good thing and that it's not complicated to do in XP. She manages. She would NEVER deal with Linux, be it KDE, Gnome or whatever else, and she sure as hell wouldn't go anywhere near a command line. She is not atypical, in fact she's gone beyond basic computer user at this point... She's on the thing close to as many hours a day as I am, surfs the web, eMails, chats, does some basic photo editing, some word processing, some spreadsheets, some desktop publishing, scanning, etc. She's actually in a position that SHE'S the guru to many of her friends!

      My point is, she's not going anywhere NEAR Linux in ANY form that it currently exists in. You can tell me how great this distro or that distro is, you can tell me how far Linux has come, but your missing the point:

      --
      If a pion (n-) collides with a proton in the woods & noone is there to hear it, does lamdba decay into the source pa
    2. Re:Seriously, does anyone edit Linux config files? by brotherscrim · · Score: 1

      Oh mercy - 4 more clicks!

      Assuming someone actually NEEDS to resize their screen more than once or twice in the machine's lifetime (in Linux anyway, I know Windows has gotten people into the habit of it) there are several distros that make it - and much, much more complicated tasks - easy to find and easy to use.

      Libranet comes to mind. Hell, I can change the resolution, recompile my kernel, update my all my software, and install truetype fonts from the SAME MENU. And none of the above tasks require a genius IQ or the ability to do anything but read and click a button.

    3. Re:Seriously, does anyone edit Linux config files? by fzammett · · Score: 1

      Four more clicks matters to average users, and that's who Linux is trying to win over (because, as the propoganda goes, it's already CLEARLY superior in the data center, right?!?).

      It's not a matter of how often I need to change my resolution (and you seem to imply it should be a rare thing, which is a bogus assumption... ever get a newer, bigger monitor? Ever get a newer video card that now allows you to do a slightly higher resolution while keeping your refresh rate the same?). The problem is that IT'S NINE CLICKS AWAY. You seem to think that's not a problem. Mom and Pop will absolutely disagree with you.

      For YOU and for ME, the experts of the world, it's not a terribly big deal (except that as an expert for many years I DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO DO FOUR MORE CLICKS, even though it's not a big deal for me to do so).

      Libranet... Mandrake... Redhat... Gentoo... BSD... all the others... Don't you think the first problem with Linux for the average users that your trying to lure away from Windows is simply the question they will have to ask up-front: "Which distro?". They can't just go buy Linux, they have to buy a specific distro. And each distro is different, some are easier for them as you point out with Libranet, others are not. They make the wrong choice and they hate Linux for life.

      I've said it over and over... it's posts like yours that just proves my point, which is that the Linux community has entirely the wrong mindset when it comes to the desktop to EVER be a serious threat to Windows there. Keep plugging away in the data center, your making headway there, but you people, as a whole I'm saying, just don't get what it takes to get that 90% of the desktop market away from Microsoft, and love 'em or hate 'em, Microsoft does get it.

      It's not security. It's not even stability, although that matters. Hell, it's not even freedom and it's not even choices, IT'S SIMPLICITY AND EASE OF USE. Linux as a generality is just SO far beyond in that area, catching up is a virtual impossibility at this point.

      --
      If a pion (n-) collides with a proton in the woods & noone is there to hear it, does lamdba decay into the source pa
    4. Re:Seriously, does anyone edit Linux config files? by tokabola · · Score: 1

      Apparently you don't run Gnome. Click 1. Bearpaw (like the Windows Start button) Click 2. System > Configuration > Gnome > Screen Resolution. Select new resolution from menu and Click 3. accept new resolution. Pretty sure you can do something real similar in KDE. Don't blame the OS because you didn't bother to RTFM (read the f@#$%^g manual) BTW, how is going to the hardware manager (harddrake) to adjust hardware counterintuitive? The problem isn't Linux, you're just stuck in a MS frame of mind.

      --
      Open Source for Open Minds
    5. Re:Seriously, does anyone edit Linux config files? by brotherscrim · · Score: 1

      I just don't buy that at all. Look, since Linux pre-installed is currently pretty rare, and the distros that are pre-installed are the easiest ones to use (Mandrake, Lindows, etc.), then your "which distro?" dilemma is a false one. Anyone who decides to install Linux on their own is going to do some research first. That, or they're already confident enough in their computer skills to feel like they can handle whatever problems may arise.

      And like I said: For those that do look, there are a few distros that are extremely easy to use and maintain.

      As for grandma not being able to find where to change the resolution - If grams can even comprehend that it's the resolution she wants to change, then she's not so helpless and lost as you make her out to be.

      I have a tenant downstairs. She asked me to come down and show her how to save her word file to a floppy. You think she's gonna be changing her resolution any time soon? She was using windows, why couldn't she figure out how to do it herself? Why isn't Windows simple enough for her to understand? The reason why the "windows way" is the "easy way" has a lot to do with prior knowledge and instruction and not as much to do with some kind of inherent design to the OS as you seem to be claiming.

      Counting clicks is a silly way to determine ease of use anyway: It takes at least a highlight and 2 clicks to copy a piece of text with just the mouse, but you can just highlight it and hit ctrl+c to do it too. But ctrl+c only works if you know about it. ten dialogue boxes that clearly explain what's going on is easier than 2 that make no sense, even if it is more steps.

  91. Re:STFU job stealing Rag Head by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or go bathe with some cows in the Ganges. God that water looks filthy...

  92. welcome to slashdot... by YaRness · · Score: 1

    ...you must be new here.

  93. Do you really speak for everyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How arrogant of you. Sure as hell don't speak for me.

  94. Business Week in on it too by Doofus · · Score: 2, Informative
    Also see this article in Business Week - not a fringe publication -titled Linux Spreads its Wings. The business folks are finally turning the corner on Linux:
    Wait a second. Doesn't Linux reside mostly on servers, the powerful computers that run data centers, publish Web pages, and drive corporate networks? Until recently, the answer was yes. However, Tux the Penguin -- Linux' mascot -- has escaped from the server closet and is now waddling across a much wider expanse of the technology landscape.
    Enjoy!
    --
    If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; ... it invites anarchy. - Brandeis
  95. OMG! U r such a... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...microsoft troll!

    Go suck bill's ass.

  96. Shit, dude, why the hate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You must really hate Linux. You have made 7 negative comments so far on JUST THIS ONE STORY!

    Are you getting paid to post your crap? I can't believe this comment got 5 Insightful....

  97. Sanctimony's in the way again, I see. by IANAAC · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Again, easily done. You clearly have no experience working with OpenOffice (which is superior).

    You missed the original point.
    Sure it's doable. Did you bother to look at the Subject to which you replied? Rewriting macros (they don't call them scripts in Office) is time-consuming, not to mention just plain different than what users are used to. That clearly has a cost associated with it in a real work environment.

    1. Re:Sanctimony's in the way again, I see. by Seth+Finklestein · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Open standards, Ian. It's all about open standards. If I write a Perl script (Perl is open-source) to parse OpenOffice's XML (whose schema is wide open), then I can easily adapt it to any other XML-based format.

      Contrast this with Microsoft Office, whose mysterious closed-source data model is ever-changing and proprietary. Nobody with any brains would develop for it.

      --
      I'm not Seth Finkelstein. I still speak the truth.
    2. Re:Sanctimony's in the way again, I see. by tepples · · Score: 2, Insightful

      True, anybody can write scripts in any language that operate on OpenOffice.org documents. But what does this do for the large library of scripts already written in Microsoft Office VBA? Some organizations have concluded that the wages to pay a code monkey to rewrite mission-critical VBA scripts in an OO.o compatible language and then test them thouroughly would exceed the fees for several more years of MS Licensing 6.

    3. Re:Sanctimony's in the way again, I see. by HiThere · · Score: 1

      I won't say that's a good argument, but it's a valid one.

      OTOH, as an ex-MSAccess user, I don't think you can count on those scripts to continue to work with the next version of MSOffice, either. They may, or they may not. And they may *ALMOST* work, with silent failures.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  98. We have rolled out LTSP and Dekstops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    My company has rolled out desktops to two organizations. One with about 15 Linux workstations and other with about 60, 20 of which run off of a Linux terminal server which has performed flawlessly. We are iDREUS Corporation at http://www.idreus.com

  99. Check the BIOS for PlugAndPlayOS... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have you made certain that "PlugAndPlayOS" is turned OFF in the BIOS? If it is turned on, Linux most likely won't be able to handle your sound card (and probably not much else PCI-related). It is very easy to overlook this; it bites me almost every time I do a Linux install on a new machine.

    BTW, the 2.6.x kernel seems to handle "PlugAndPlayOS" being turned on much better. I did a recent install of Fedora Core 2 and of course forgot to turn off "PlugAndPrayOS". Despite this, Fedora still correctly detected my ethernet card.

  100. Money from Trees? by Damek · · Score: 1

    But money *does* grown on trees, in so much as the foundation of all wealth and survival on earth comes from the food/energy we harvest from our environment. Which disproves the idea that it would change anything if money grew on trees, because even if it literally did grow, well, the trees would not be unlimited. Crops would do badly, someone would own the land they grow on, etc... ultimately the wealth would still be concentrated in the hands of the few who enforced access to the trees.

    Forgive my off-topic rambling...

  101. Are there disavantages for us Linux users? by jbmarsh80 · · Score: 1

    I was just wondering what would happen this year if it really was the year of Linux.

    Will we start to see major security flaws in application we once thought secure? 20% of the small business owners switch to Linux, that would be enough in my mind, as a hacker, to look for exploits to Linux and its Open Source programs.

    Am I to assume now that my favorite gentoo mirrors are going to be filled with new users? I love getting packages at 450 Kbps :) Who is going to fill the role of distribution with this increase in use? Many of these people are switching over, after all, because they think it's going to lower their TCO. Why start up a mirror to eat up your small businesses T1 bandwidth?

    I'm totally for Linux's growth, but I'm worried that we might tarnish it's appeal by growing so fast. I'd prefer that 10 years from now, everyone just be, "huh, now that I think about it, Linux has 60% of the OS market...How did that happen?"

  102. OS updates require hardware upgrades by tepples · · Score: 2, Informative

    people love to bash Windows or the Mac by pointing out things that were true of them five years ago and are completely untrue now

    Many people still haven't upgraded their OS, possibly because they still haven't upgraded their hardware, and unlike free operating systems, one cannot readily slim down either of the major proprietary desktop operating systems to run on 1999-era hardware. This is part of why people must still consider Windows 98/ME's 64 KB "System Resources" heaps.

  103. Dial-up is still slow by tepples · · Score: 1

    Memory is cheap (I've got 640 MB)

    It's pretty hard to fill 640 MB at 16 MB per hour, the nominal speed of dial-up. It's pretty hard to upgrade from dial-up in many geographic areas. It's pretty hard to finance moving to another geographic area in this period of jobless growth. If each of a dozen apps has 100 KB of app and 9 MB of libraries, would you want to download 9 MB of libraries a dozen times over?

    1. Re:Dial-up is still slow by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1


      If each of a dozen apps has 100 KB of app and 9 MB of libraries, would you want to download 9 MB of libraries a dozen times over?

      It's pretty hard to download 650 MB per ISO at 16 MB per hour, the nominal speed of dial-up. It's pretty hard to upgrade from dial-up in many geographic areas. Would you want to download 3 Linux ISOs over a dial up?

      Sorry, you're not winning me over. You can have my Mac and all it's duplicate shared libraries (which really is practically zero considering that I tend to only have one program for each task I need) when you pry it from my cold dead fingers.

      Besides, this is how programs for Windows, Mac OS X, and Java handle it. They all figured out long ago that consumers want everything in one package. Period.

  104. Wrong Partner list by superpulpsicle · · Score: 1

    People think HP, Novell, IBM, Sun and Walmart are the right partners.

    It's actually the applications and storage companies that will make Linux the true competitor. EMC, HDS, Veritas, Oracle.
    How much do these analysts get paid?

    Do you think rebranding linux via IBM and Sun will really help? It just dilute the OS. Linux doesn't need 8000 colors, it needs 8000 different things to add-on. A honda civic won't sell any better if there are 8000 colors to choose from. It will sell better if you have choice of upgraded engines, turbos, exhaust, sun roofs etc etc.

    1. Re:Wrong Partner list by JPriest · · Score: 1

      Exactly, everybody thinks more people rebranding Linux is progress, when really all it does is make distributing applications even more difficult. If I build an app how many hours does it take to build different packages for every distro? The only solution to this is to GPL it and let people build packages for me, this prohibits closed source software.

      --
      Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
  105. WTF is a Duck-Like penguin? by danZenie · · Score: 1


    what does that make bill gates? a human-like devil?

    --
    You need people like me so you can point your fuckin fingers and say, "That's the bad guy." So what that make you? Good?
  106. int main {} by rock_climbing_guy · · Score: 2, Funny

    int main
    {
    while ( $date->year slashdot.post_story( $date->year + " is the year of the Penguin.");
    }

    --
    Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
  107. Desktops exist but are not compatible by tepples · · Score: 1

    The thing you don't realize though, is that these desktops already exist.

    Winmodems, Winvideocards, Winsoundcards, Winprinters, Winscanners, Winwifi, and the like, all acquired before anybody made any indication of wanting to switch to GNU/Linux, act as evidence against the myth that one can always replace Microsoft Windows with GNU/Linux on a given piece of hardware.

  108. I'm so confused.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will the REAL "Year Of The Penguin" please stand up? Otherwise I'll be forced to conclude that this is just the 6th Year Of That Fucking Catchphrase The Everyone Thinks Is Clever And They're The First To Use It, Oh Please Shut Up, Shut Up Shut Up PLEASE

    http://www.google.ca/search?q=%22year+of+the+pengu in%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search&m eta=

  109. I would recommend... by starsong · · Score: 1

    I had all kinds of hardware problems; Red Hat 9 never did recognize my sound card either (Audigy 2), or my TV capture card (Winfast TV2000-something-or-other). I installed SuSE 9.0 a few months ago and it Just Worked out of the box; no hunting for vendor RPMs, no compiling, nothing. I never even saw any reference to "emu10k1" or whatever it was that Red Hat didn't like. It even installed the right driver for my "it's-software-RAID-but-we'll-sell-you-a-card-and- hope-you-think-it's-hardware-RAID" Adaptec 1200A IDE raid card, which Red Hat thought was two independent IDE controllers. (!) And my DVD+/-RW works perfectly as well.

    SuSE has been amazing in this regard... if you haven't given it a try I strongly recommend it. 9.1 should be out in a few months; you can install it over the net (a while after store release) or buy the personal edition for cheap. It's literally the first version of linux that I've been able to use as my full-time desktop.

    So apart from the plug I guess my point is that it depends on the distro. And consider what happens in the Windows world when you have unsupported hardware, or even vendor drivers that just suck. You're stuck. At least under Linux there might be enough people with the skills/environment to produce an open-source driver.

    Never played Counter-Strike, but I did manage to get the original Half-Life working with WINE (in OpenGL mode, obviously). So there's hope.

  110. I can see it now... by brendan_orr · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...as millions of Windows users migrate to this "new" OS, a "My Boxen", "My Qbphzragf", and "My pr0n" icons will appear on the desktop, people will change their homepages from www.msn.com to slashdot/newsforge/rootprompt.org, and one will not be considered cool unless they borked their hard disk at least once in the first 10 days of using it. Ah, pop culture.

  111. Unsupported scanner by tepples · · Score: 1

    You mean, "with linux you have at least one way of getting sound working if your sound card doesn't work". This is opposed to "with windows if your source card doesn't work you can only cry a lot and try to reboot or just buy a new sound card".

    Perhaps GNU/Linux has had drivers for each sound card you've tried, but it has no driver for my scanner (a Microtek Scanmaker 4850 received as a gift; the 4800 series is marked as UNSUPPORTED in the SANE HCL).

    especially installing software, which Linux reduced to a simple, single step from the more popular many-step process.

    What if I want to install an application or a hardware driver that your OS distributor doesn't know about? Then I'd still have to compile it from source, and Aunt Tillie doesn't want to have to learn how to do that.

  112. nearly decade for Networks or Windows by peter303 · · Score: 1

    I remember people hawking "Year of the Network" from 1986 to when the InterNet finally took off in 1994.
    Likewise Bill Gates was yapping about Windows between 1984 as a thinly disguised MacOS rip-off until it finally become usable on PCs in 1993 (v 3.1).

  113. The Year of the MS Butterflenguin? by skidoo2 · · Score: 1

    It won't be the Year of the Penguin until MS replaces their kernel with Linux. And that's as likely as Larry Ellison coming out of the closet.

    1. Re:The Year of the MS Butterflenguin? by tokabola · · Score: 1

      Isn't the NT kernel based on BeOS? M$ has ALWAYS (remember M$ started by selling a DOS kernel they got from someone else) taken someone elses good idea and co-opted it. Why wouldn't Linux be next? They already sell a Unix based server package.

      --
      Open Source for Open Minds
  114. RIAA and MPAA held back by installed base by tepples · · Score: 1

    Longhorn won't come out until 2006. This gives GNU/Linux at least two more years to establish a foothold on the desktop.

    Unless and until Sony makes an SACD Discman or SACD car stereo, I don't see Red Book CDs going away any time soon, and Linux can play those with cdparanoia | oggenc. If you want to download music, GNU/Linux lets you listen to music customized to your tastes.

    If you want to watch videos, then install (wink wink nudge nudge) libdvdcss into your distribution's Xine player, or just connect a $50 DVD player to the TV that's much bigger than your 17" monitor anyway. Given the installed base of DVD players in region 1 alone, I don't see MPAA abandoning DVD Video any time soon, even if it does introduce HD DVD in parallel. And even then, there's still Newgrounds and the Macromedia Flash player for Linux.

  115. Re:Bootable Windows Live CD by eltoyoboyo · · Score: 1

    Bart Lagerweij of Bart's Boot diskfame has created a Windows Live CD very similar to Microsoft's Windows Pre-installation environment. The BartPE disk is "a complete Win32 environment with network support, a graphical user interface (800x600) and FAT/NTFS/CDFS filesystem support. Very handy for burn-in testing systems with no OS, rescuing files to a network share, virus scan and so on." It has specific packages which enable you to perform work on a Windows NTFS system without booting from the hard drive. I find it still very cool and useful.

    It compares favorably, to me, the functionality of the PCLinuxOS Mandrake live CD. Both enable me to boot, plug in my USB hard drive and copy files from my Windows XP/2000 NTFS partition with no security checks!

    --
    Have you Meta Moderated t
  116. yeah its called Mandrake - use it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mandrake does all that, out of the box, seamlessly, painlessly, and realy simple!

    it just "works"!

    try it!

    1. Re:yeah its called Mandrake - use it! by LinuxFreakus · · Score: 1

      Yeah I know pretty much any binary distro is probably easier than Gentoo... I just like the ability to build an entire system from source really fast without having to spend days finding all the right patches, etc. Especially handy for my AlphaServer since there essentially aren't any binary distros for it anymore that are up to date.

  117. LTSP by scarolan · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Here at Medical Resource USA, myself and our webmaster were tired of troubleshooting 12-14 windows machines everyday. Nearly every single day there was a virus, or software problem, or some sort of problem with someone's computer. So I consulted with my boss, and we decided to switch to Linux. (Maybe linux should have some switch commercials like apple did? beepbeepbeepbeepbeep)

    We are just finishing off switching over our computer network to Linux - but we didn't need to wipe windows off anyone's hard drive. Here's how we did it:

    • Built a small server and installed Fedora Core 1.
    • Installed LTSP (Linux Terminal Server Project) and configured it for our system.
    • Created boot disks for each computer that did not have a 'boot from network' option. I used Rom-O-Matic for this part.
    • We also purchased some thin clients from NeoWare for new employees. These have a stripped down Linux distro on them and connect by opening a remote X connection. As our company grows, and the old pentium II and III boxes gradually die off, we will replace all of them with thin clients.

    Here are the specs on the server. I have a better one being delivered soon, but this is the 'proof of concept' version:

    • Emachine with 1ghz Intel celery processor
    • 512MB RAM
    • 80GB hard drive
    • Nightly backup of home directories to external USB hard drive

    The network currently supports 10 users, with usually 6-7 people signed on at any given time. We use Evolution as an outlook replacement, Open Office instead of MS office, and Mozilla for web browsing.

    We have a pretty login screen with our company logo, and the face browser so you can click your picture to log in. Redhat's bluecurve desktop is great, and is a snap for any windows user to learn. The terminals start up WAY faster than windows ever did, and all the apps pop right up even on a pokey Pentium II machine. IN fact, my thin clients only have 64mb of memory and they work great too.

    There were a few minor glitches or complaints about the UI, but in almost every case I was able to show the sales reps and employees how to get what they needed to do done.

    So switching to linux CAN be done. The only drawback is when you've got windows apps that you have to use when there's no linux alternative. In our case, the accounting department makes extensive use of Quickbooks to handle our finances. We tried to emulate, use wine, crossover office, etc. but none of these solutions were either stable or robust enough to meet our needs. So I had to leave three boxes running windows so accounting can continue to use Quickbooks.

    We also use our linux box as a Quake 2 server for lan parties after our weekly sales meetings! My boss is an older guy but he loves FPS shooters. The employees enjoy getting a chance to frag the pointy-haired guy every week :P

    1. Re:LTSP by glitchvern · · Score: 1

      Sweet

      Do you have sound or not? If so how do you have that setup and how long did it take you to figure out how to do it?

      Out of curiosity which display manager are you using and do you allow users to choose a window manager? If so which ones?

      Looking at NeoWare's site I can not tell if the thin clients come with monitors or speakers. I also can not tell if you can change the linux distro on them. Which one of their thin clients did you go with and what do you like and dislike about it? What all different things can you change software wise on the thin clients?

      Are you using rdesktop for anything? Do you know if and how well it works on the thin clients?

      Sorry for all the questions, but I just love LTSP type stuff.

    2. Re:LTSP by scarolan · · Score: 1

      Yes, I got the sound working. IT took about two hours, but that was mostly because the ltsp-sound package was for version 3.0 and I have 4.0. There was one file that needed to be replaced with an updated version to get it working. But I"m listening to NPR streaming radio right now as I type this. If you need more info I can go back and retrace what I did to get it up and running. The display manager is gdm. Works great. My users are rank newbies so I don't let them choose much of anything. They get to use the default bluecurve desktop (which is sort of a hacked Gnome desktop) and it works great. Looks enough like windows that they haven't got too many problems with it. I closed the desktop switcher applet because it would just be way too confusing for most of them. I put the 'amor' cat on the ladies desktop and they love it. The NeoWare clients come with only the unit, keyboard, and mouse. You gotta provide your own monitor and speakers. Most of my employees have no need for sound so we didn't get speakers for the thin clients. We went with the Capio model, which I believe is the only one that runs linux. What I like about them: * Small footprint * No moving parts so they are completely silent * Instant, easy connection to the server. They take me about 2 minutes to set up a new one. What I don't like: * Out of the box, they had a problem in that the X session would just die after 5 or 10 minutes. This was fixed with a software update they sent me. I haven't explored all the features of these units, but they have a base linux install with netscape installed, so might even be good for a internet cafe or something like that. All you need is a dhcp server and they can get online. There are several options for connecting to a server including X-window, citrix, etc. I looked into rdesktop, but the problem was that we needed to have simultaneous access for several users to the quickbooks datafile, and Quickbooks is not set up very well for that. Each and every client has to have it's own separate install of quickbooks in order to work. So our choices were either to install a vmware virtual machine for EVERY USER, or to find an alternative. We chose to let the sales reps type their price quotes on a spreadsheet rather than go through all that hassle.

    3. Re:LTSP by glitchvern · · Score: 1

      I was curious about the sound since I had had a hard time trying to get esd and artsd working at the same time. I only have one dsp on my sound card and wrapping esd or artsd to the other can result in some noticeable problems. If you're just using one of them you wouldn't have that problem though. Recently (April 12th) I found out about dmix in a somewhat random thread on a mailing list I'm on. Should make things a lot easier, but I haven't really given it a strong enough pounding to see how well it works yet. I had thought the alsa people were against doing software mixing at the alsa level because they considered software mixing in the kernel to be "a bad thing", but there it is.

      I wasn't suggesting rdesktop for the quickbooks problem. rdesktop is not a solution for any application which requires constant use by multiple people. I just mentioned it because not many people seem to know it exist, and I was wondering if you had some legacy apps employees rarely need to use that you were using it for. rdesktop is perfect for that. We use to do that at one place I worked, well actually we did that because we were to lazy to walk the ten feet or so to the windows machine the app ran on, but you get the idea.

  118. Zeitgeist stats by I'm+Don+Giovanni · · Score: 1, Informative

    http://www.google.com/press/zeitgeist.html

    Linux = 1%
    Windows = 91%
    Mac = 4%

    'Nuff said

    --
    -- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
  119. BS on parade. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "This has been this way forever and windows still has 90% of the marketshare. People are willing to pay for windows."

    Here's the Dell config site. Show us were the price of Windows is shown?

    "Windows just works, and works with more hardware without extraconfiguration."

    Oh yeah! Just works. Right.

    "Of course there are package management solutions that solvealot of this but if the package aint available in it you are left tocompile. When I take a fresh machine an install windows on it,everything just works, with linux you need to figure out why your soundisnt working and then configure the driver and what not and edit configfiles."

    See above and below. And wipe the drool off your face.

    "But they still are using it and despite the security flaws the general public is perfecty comfortable using windows."

    With comfort like this why would they ever leave?

    "No one wants to be editing config files to get an application to work."

    And yet they still do.

    If you're going to criticize Linux, don't you think you should hide Window's skeletons first?

  120. RandR and KDE 3.2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I'm sitting in front of a Mandrake 9.2 desktop running KDE. I am not a Linux expert, nor and I a complete Linux newbie, and I am BY FAR *NOT* a computer novice. Here's my question...

    How do I switch my screen resolution? No, serioously."

    Oh J.S. @#!% Christ.
    Here!, and it docks to the panel.

    Why oh why, can't you winvocates update your BS? You don't like it when we drag out the whole BSOD thing.

    1. Re:RandR and KDE 3.2 by fzammett · · Score: 1

      Man, you Linux nutcases just don't get it.

      I clicked your link, I read what it said. What the FUCK is it talking about?!?

      Get this through your thick, stupid skulls: if it takes an average person more than 30 seconds to figure something out, YOU LOST THE GAME!

      Why do I have to ADD something so God Damned trivial to my OS? Why isn't it right there at my fingertips? Why do I have to do a Google seach for something so trivial?

      You just don't get it. You illustrate my point far better than I ever could... Windows is in no way shape or form threatened by Windows on the desktop, and at this rate, IT NEVER WILL BE.

      --
      If a pion (n-) collides with a proton in the woods & noone is there to hear it, does lamdba decay into the source pa
  121. Year of the Penguin Virus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The only reason virus writers exploit windows holes is because everybody has windows. When/If everybody uses Linux then virus writers will write virus' to exploit linux holes. Simple as that.

  122. No you are still wrong ... by codepunk · · Score: 1

    Network usage per 150 desktops is max 200k peak at the nic (practically nothing). Each user has a home directory that is for individual customization. Each user can have totally different software and no nothing needs to be on the client or is it desirable.

    --


    Got Code?
  123. Not yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Many 5 years from now. Gnome and the distros themselves have to make things a lot easier for Windows users who don't know BASH shell.
    I install Windows clicking "Next" in one hour. I install Gentoo with bash language + Gentoo specific language in 3 days.
    Many years of intensive work still to come before the average user who bought his computer and his windows license switches to a new OS without the M$ toys he has on Windows, the sweet smileys of Messenger vs the dull GAIM smileys, and so forth. People love Micro$oft, Office and Messenger. Only us geeks don't like Microsoft.
    That's life.

    1. Re:Not yet by cranos · · Score: 1

      Umm comparing the install time for Windows against a source based distro is misleading to say the least. Now if you had compared installing Windows vs say RedHat or Mandrake or even SUSE then you might have noticed that the install times would have evened up.

  124. Walmart? by evilviper · · Score: 1

    Who cares about Walmart's foray into selling machines with no OS (with a free Linux CD)?

    They're just one more online shop where you can get the same thing. It won't be important to anybody until they have computers running something (other than Windows) in their actual stores.

    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  125. grr by KMonk · · Score: 1

    Damnit, it's the year of the monkey! No stinking dirty penguin is stealing MY year.

  126. The answer is obvious: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    YHBT. YHL. HAND.

    And it amazes me too that trolls like this get modded up as insightful or interesting when they're nothing more than a bunch of ridiculous assertions without any backing and/or stupid flaming (seems to be bonch's stock in trade). But I suppose being a blustery windbag and speaking from a position of false authority is a plus on /. these days.

  127. You Have Been Trolled By Bonch's Sig Line by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And he keeps changing it all the time in the hopes that it will attract more biters (it's always something stupid, inflammatory, or insulting--very calculated). It usually succeeds.

  128. I think I speak for everyone when I say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...please, no more of these bonch! It seems you post two every fucking minute now. They're always the same, everyone makes fun of them, and they don't offer anything new or insightful other than "MS RULES!" or "LINUX SUXORS!"

    Stop!

  129. RandR and KDE 3.2-Fossilized users. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "used by the KDE tool: Utilites->Desktop-> "Screen
    Size & Rotate"

    That's all you really need to know.
    I hope you're not a geek, else geeks the world over are lost.

    "Get this through your thick, stupid skulls: if it takes an average person more than 30 seconds to figure something out, YOU LOST THE GAME!"

    Speaking of thick skulls, if people were as impatient as you'd like to believe then "WINDOWS WOULD HAVE NEVER EVEN GOTTEN INTO THE GAME", no if's and's or but's.

    "Why do I have to ADD something so God Damned trivial to my OS? Why isn't it right there at my fingertips? Why do I have to do a Google seach for something so trivial?
    "

    Why do you update your Windows OS, or drivers to gain additional features?, and correct problems? Why didn't those come with the computer? Why do Usenet, and web forums exist for people with Windows problems? Why are you asking stupid questions?

    "You just don't get it. You illustrate my point far better than I ever could... Windows is in no way shape or form threatened by Windows on the desktop, and at this rate, IT NEVER WILL BE.""

    The only thing you've illustrated is why the word extinction is part of the English language. Keep telling yourself that those fancy new horseless carriages will never catch on. Oh they go slow, and you have to hand crank them. Cold in the winter, and stifling in the summer. As you say "IT WILL NEVER BE".

  130. 1988: Year of the LAN by zero_offset · · Score: 1

    This reminds me of the late 80's and early 90's when one magazine after another loudly proclaimed THIS was finally "The Year of the LAN"... year after year after year.

    It had ceased to be interesting by the time it finally actually happened.

    --

    Slashdot quality declines as the number of hot grits posts decreases. - Provolt's Law, Apr-09-2005

  131. What you meant to say is... by trigggl · · Score: 1
    The Windows and KDE GUI's are more similar than different.

    If you were talking about the CLI, they are vastly different. This is the area where, I believe GNU/Linux really shines. Of course, you could say that about any Unix-like system. I still use DOS for some things like md5sum checks and such, but Bash is so much more powerful and easy to use. I like being able to [tab] to autocomplete long file names and I like being able to use long file names without bothering with quotation marks.

    Other than that, Linux is technically easier to set up than Windows due to the text file settings. One can change boot, internet, GUI, and any other settings one can think of just by editing the appropriate text file. It is much easier than trying to decipher and modify the registry in Windows. It is also much easier to back your settings up before changing them. Just cp the text file to text_file.old, then do the changes.

    I also believe that software install is easier in Linux. Depending on distro there are different ways of easy installation such as rpm, swaret, and apt-get. But my favorite way of installing is to just get the source, configure and install. Dependencies can be a problem, but they haven't given me too much trouble in the past year.

    Linux will only get better as more hardware manufacturers support it. Hardware support is it's biggest weakness, but that will go away as Linux continues to become more popular.

    The only problem I see with GNU/Linux becoming more popular is that the mirrors will no longer be able to support the demand, so at some point we may be force to buy a CD for a couple of dollars instead of downloading for free. That is where they are really different. One cannot legally download Windows for free.

    --
    Ops, I shuld have usd the prevuwe but in.
  132. Re:stupid slashdot nerds... by hangingonwords · · Score: 0

    this isn't off topic!? little slashdot nerds can't handle being called stupid? freakin' babies.

    --
    fact: microsoft > linux
  133. Thanks for this support. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One of the best source for desktops developers is Apple thanks for this great ideas of design.Actually, one of the most important desktop projects (KDE) contribute with Apple in his web navigator (Safari) and Apple help on the KDE development project.Of course, money is very important, so thanks to Novell (company that has buy SuSE Linux and Ximian) the Ximian desktop development will improve.Finally, I want to point out the great Linux desktop progress that Sun Microsistems is doing with his Java Desktop.