Slashdot Mirror
Review: LinuxCertified LC2210 Laptop
'It's me' writes "OSNews reviews LinuxCertified's LC2210 laptop, which comes with Xandros Desktop 2.0. That laptop is meant to be 100% certified with Linux, but Xandros seemed to have problems with it (namely there is no "sleep" function, while WiFi was not as robust as users would want it). LinuxCertified said that newer distros should be able to support this laptop with no hickups. The reviewer concludes that this a great purchase, as long as you are more selective over the distro installed."
that certified actually doesn't mean certified completely. I'm sure this will instill a lot of confidence in non-linux users going to linux.
The reviewer concludes that this a great purchase, as long as you are more selective over the distro installed.
Well, thats the case with windows machines too.
Even if there are a few hiccups, it's still nice to know that there are laptops available that don't have the "Designed for Microsoft" sticker on them.
Free Firefox news reader.
This is an encouraging step forward. I've bought a few laptops off ebay in my time and spent many an hour researching beforehand to ensure that every part would work with my favourite OS.
What would be great would be an independant company that could certify linux compatibility for a one off fee. I realise there are various websites where users can submit whether it worked for them or not, but it can take a while for new hardware to be listed and the information is often out of date.
I'm not particularly in touch with this aspect of Linux, but I've heard that power management features haven't been all that great in Linux...and if that's true, then it comes as no surprise that there isn't a "sleep" function.
For linux acceptability and use to grow, as others have been mentioning, it has to have other, not-so-geek important features that ordinary users will keep asking for
http://efil.blogspot.com/
That laptop is meant to be 100% certified with Linux, but Xandros seemed to have problems with it (namely there is no "sleep" function)
Sleep?! Linux geeks dont need no stinkin' sleep!
But seriously, nice to see linux certified consumer hardware making its way into the market.
Sorry for they thinkgeek plugging, not associated, just a happy part of the smart masses
Im dreaming ofa big bndwdth, That can resist the
"that this a great purchase"
What exactly is the promise of a Linux certified laptop ? Honest. With off and on support of WiFi, and neglible power saving I don't see any advantage. The hardware itself doesn't sound like anything special. With the use of linux on embeded systems rising, it would be great to see a more fine tuned approach to specialized 'Laptop' distros. heh!
I don't see this appealing to Joe User outa the box either, considering the hoops one would have to go through to get it completely 'functional'. Might as well install a fresh distro and make sure the hardware you buy is well supported. I know of at least a few freinds with better laptop setups, who did exactly that.
Many more generations to go! right?
I appeal to the wisdom of fellow
He recommends the laptop "with another distribution", but doesn't actually try it with another distribution. There are no pictures of the laptop, and a very poor description of it. I smell "reviewer who got a free laptop if he would write a review but wasn't qualified to do so".
Everything should work out of the box or there is no point in trying to sell it. I am sorry, but if I buy something that says linux certified on it, the sleep function should work without any effort my part. Why not just hack at a new machine without the linux sticker on it myself like I have been doing all these years? Most of us linux folk get some sort of twisted pleasure out of that kind of thing anyway. Furthermore, why would a linux novice buy a machine without a working sleep function? Its one thing to sell a house or a car and say that it is an ole' fixer upper. A laptop? C' mon.
Yes it is a great step forward, but it just seems like a half-assed one to me. Call this trolling, but if linux ever hopes to gain any respect as a desktop OS, then people shouldn't be selling "linux certified" products that don't work as they should.
It works!
/etc/yum.conf with the offshore repositories that have decsslib. CHECK
Really, though. For my needs, it's AWESOME. I use Fedora C1.
X works out of the gate, as expected. CHECK
Sound works with the base install, as expected. CHECK
Network card works immediately, as expected, at 1 Gb. (w00t!) CHECK
CD-Burner works immediately, as expected. CHECK
DVD works simply by updating
ACPI power management and CPU throttling (with cpudyn) works easily. (had to google to find that I had to put "acpi=force" on the linux line in grub.conf) CHECK
USB stuff works as expected in the base install. I've hot swapped my mouse and a digital camera - both work instantly and easily. CHECK
What's left?
1) The modem is a funky broadcom chipset that's not supported by linmodem or pctel drivers. I have an old 33.6 3com pcmcia modem card that works fine. =/
2) Wireless with the Intel 2200 BG chipset is spotty, if at all. (so far, unable to confirm operation using ndiswrapper) =/
3) I haven't yet gotten it to see my Verizon Cell phone as a modem to use it for anytime/anywhere/slow service in those rare cases it's needed. For now I'll boot into WinXP when this is needed. =/
Given the problem - that of allowing me to retain the functional capacity of my 2 Ghz Athlon Desktop system in a laptop, it's a resounding success, allowing me to retain my productivity just about anywhere.
Would I *LIKE* wireless? Would I *LIKE* modem w/o card? Sure I would - and I'm still not convinced that wireless won't work.
But the primary issue for me is productivity - not necessarily having every last bell and whistle.
Oh, and I did use 9 of the 60 GB of disk space to keep the copy of XP Home running in those rare cases that I really do need it. (Hello wireless)
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
I'm not as patient as I wish I was, which is a failing many share. As a result I don't want to spend spare hours I don't have just trying to get a system to do what I need it to do. No, installing Linux isn't difficult. But trying to figure out how to install additional (and often essential) stuff, especially drivers, is not easy, particularly if you're unfortunate enough to have spent the past X (meaning, too many) years of your life becoming familiar with Windows, and forgetting about something called a command line (and a very different syntax).
I know Windows pretty damn well now (which is why I'd love to switch to Linux...), and I began in the dark days of MS-DOS, but back then I had the time and the contacts to get help with it, to get going. That's not an option available to me any more, or most of those like me who want to switch after years as Windoze Lusers.
The hand-holding of knowledgable, experienced users helped me get started with computers, and from there I could start figuring things out for myself, but now I just need Linux to work. Once I can do what I need to, then maybe I can tinker and become familiar with the other, more geeky bits. But not if I'm expected or required to spend untold hours of hair-pulling and HOWTO-reading just to get the computer to actually work.
Come on Linux folk: start getting fully-working machines to market, and the rest of us will take the plunge. Or do you feel it should be the exclusive province of uber-geeks...?
ACPI... Advanced Configuration and Power Interface
This is the biggest difficulty right now with Linux and laptops. I've had an Inspiron 8600 for months now and it still can't suspend (to memory or to disk).
If you want to get ACPI working correctly a kernel recompile is necessary and I'm sorry but users aren't going to do this.
Either we step forward and fix these issues or we can't expect users or vendors to take Linux seriously as a desktop operating system.
We're so close but 20% of the remaining functionality is 80% of the work.
Sad..
Suspend is NOT an optional feature on a laptop...
This laptop should be "Linux certified" and even the review says: "Overall, this is a well-working, robust laptop, hardware-wise. My problems were all OS-related." So, what kind of a certification is this? I thought that the whole point on "certifying" something is same as promising that there are no hick-ups in the product - in hardware-wise or software-wise. Why would the company, who makes this kinds of promises, ship the hardware with the software which clearly doesn't support the hardware fully? They even admit that the computer isn't fully functional with Xandros Desktop 2.0.
I can see that in this case the "certification" is more of a promise that the machine will work with future versions of Linux distributions (which is stupid, because the LinuxCertified.com says: "We make sure that all the core components, including the screen in its full resolution, sound etc., are correctly configured with Linux.", which at least for me, is a promise of fully functional OS shipped with the product).
Consumers in general aren't interested in future compatibility of products. They want fully functional product NOW. Without any hassle of installing newer version of the OS later.
In general, I like the idea that there will be companies who are willing to guarantee that the hardware will work with Linux. But I also want to see products that are usable without any additional tinkering.
Ever heard of free? As in speech? Charging money for this goes against the entire philosophy of GNU and FSF.
Huh? How is a company charging money to put a piece of hardware through a series of tests against the philosophy of the FSF?
The manufacturer would then gain the right to put a "Linux certified" sticker on their product. Consumers who want linux compatability just have to look for the logo to be sure it will work.
Trying not to troll... My next computer will probably be a laptop, and it will be an iBook - maily because they're better made than other notebooks, rather than because I'm a Mac fan (I'm not, at least not yet). At the moment, the choice is a no-brainer. I can get a sub-1000 quid iBook these days that will do all that I want a wintel/*nix laptop for, but with very good quality hardware and *nix set-up with everything working. Compare that to spending the same cash on a less sturdy wintel item with an OS I dislike, or a less sturdy item with a reduced functionality for linux (simply because linux on a laptop is a pig to get working). I'm sure it can be done, but I just don't want to invest cash and then time as well getting it working. But rather than saying "Use OSX!" I'd say "take a lesson from Apple". Engineer a linux solution specifically for the hardware. Because trying to make it work with every distro is plainly not working, and that's not going to get me to part with my hard-earned wedge...
...because the last thing you'd want is to hick your laptop up. I've now got disturbing mental images of an old Toshiba laptop up on blocks with a rattlecan paintjob.
These are all questions that should have been answered, they certainly were hinted at. But no, show Eugenia some pretty pictures and she'll do a friggin backflip for you. This thing is hardly functional and she gave it seven points out of ten. In the configuration shipping to customers it won't go to sleep and the WiFi is shoddy and unreliable at best. How in the hell can something like that get seven points out of ten? Somebody got themselves a free toy laptop and gave the POS a good mark-up so the company will let her keep it. This article needs to be posted in the "How to Review Linux" story as a fine example of how not to write a review.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
Linux vendors need to understand that they are not selling the possibility that you can recompile and fix an issue, they are selling the fact that THEY have recompiled and fixed the issue for you.
:)
Geeks are using a lot of Powerbooks because the hardware is supported seamlessly for sleep, DVD play etc: Apple has recompiled bsd for you
This is not a signature.
cooincidentally i was reading another review (from their site) of the same laptop recently, but this one is with redhat. interesting comparisson.
personally i am actually interested in these LC laptops because for me (in australia) they are so cheap. anyone with personal experience of shipping/delivery costs/times overseas, problems etc, would be appreciated.
If you need to develop with Java using a modern IDE, an Apple laptop might not be what you are looking for. G4 is a lot slower running Eclipse than Pentium-M.
:)
Anyway - I am currently typing an 800Mhz iBook G4 very happily and even run Eclipse on this one occasionally
Vaadin - the best open source framework for building web applications in Java - no plug
RANTMODE on
I've looked high and low for computers, available to John Doe-home-consumer, that had Linux preinstalled. Oh, they exist, there are places where you can buy laptops with Linux preinstalled. But, look at them, either they are from companies that refuse to sell home systems with Linux preinstalled like IBM or Dell, or they are a generic non-branded factory laptop sold by seemingly an upstart.
The later is no biggy, truthfully we have to start from some where, and frankly many of the IBM/Dell lines are rebranded components. No secret, ever take apart your cheapo radio (Emerson) to find the speakers are Pioneer and the electronics by JVC?
In any case, the available solutions are rather pathetic. For example, I have been unable to find a laptop that boasts a 1600x1200 LCD, preinstalled with Linux. Unless we happen upon a Dell from a service that will sell you a refurb, but that's totally different; at some point, Microsoft still made a dollar on that machine. So, some of the readers don't value the LCD resolution as much as I do, but other components are pretty sore as well. Compare hardware specs to a new Dell/Apple to one of those generic no-brands. Pretty pathetic, and the cost of pre-installed Linux laptops are extrodinary; even when the laptop is a re-sold item.
VALinux, IBM both have tried to sell laptops to the consumer market with Linux preinstalled. Or, atleast I thought IBM offered the T22 with Linux, I'm not 100% sure. The T22 wasn't all that great a machine to me, now and then. As for VALinux, they sold a laptop, that was several hundreds of dollars more expensive than a comparable one with hundreds of dollars in pre-installed software, Microsoft software.
So, now, we have the Walmart line of desktops with Linux pre-installed. I wouldn't buy one. My god, the hardware is a joke. For some reason, it seems, companies think that just becuase the OS is free that those who use Linux opt for the cheapest quality and lowest line of hardware. No! I don't want a Celeron, or Centrino(whatever) CPU. I want the same hardware, middle line on up, that is found in the rest of the market, only with Linux preinstalled and the price reflecting it.
I can only assume, Microsoft is behind it making it more expensive to avoid giving them money than to just pay up. Which, I think should be illegal but apparently it's not.
RANTMODE off
I work for the RIAA. I'd be very happy to take care of your request:
Just give us your full name and address, as well as the name of your ISP. Within four to six weeks you will receive a letter from our attorneys requiring you to return a form detailing which albums you have downloaded, which network you have gotten them from and whether you have shared them with other people (i.e. P2P). It then works out like this: if you just downloaded the music and not shared it with anyone else, you will be offered the chance to make payments regarding the music you have pirated, usually at the rate it is sold at iTunes. If you have shared the music in P2P networks, the formula becomes a bit more complex and I sincerely advise you to contact a lawyer who can negotiate an acceptable payment scheme, although the going rate is about 335 USD per track.
Should you prove reluctant to willingly give me your details I will be forced to contact the Cmdr Taco regarding this matter. I am certain he will be more than willing to furnish us with the IP addresses used to post from your account rather than be involved in a long drawn legal battle. Also, if you are not a citizen of this country, we shall contact local authorities in your country of residence as well as the local recording association so that steps can be taken. We are usually very lenient regarding exchange of music on the internet, but when someone blatantly admits to a crime on a public forum, it is my obligation to not let the subject pass.
Kind regards,
F R McAllister, Esq
OK, I fibbed. It's a Linux notebook.
Summary: Very small portable computer with a regular keyboard. The base system is built on a name-brand hardware (Sharp) with a customized Linux distribution on it. The customizations take care of the specific hardware; just like Dell, IBM, Compaq/HP, Sony, and -- well -- Sharp do for the customized versions of Windows they ship. Includes support, and yes you can update the packages -- just don't expect support for packages they don't provide.
The company selling this one has other name-brand hardware that fit other categories of notebook/laptops.
Element computer also has a good selection of hardware customized for Linux. Not rebranded IBM/Sony/Sharp/... though you can get a notepad laptop of you want -- ready to go -- and it looks like good stuff. They do not sell Windows, so you won't be paying Microsoft like Emperorlinux had to (using top-notch hardware with Windows already bundled on it).
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
Although I really like Linux, I have to disagree with you. Most of the time, Windows does just fine with installing new hardware. The only time when Windows is a real pain is when it fails to correctly identify and install hardware. At that point, it becomes more difficult to deal with than Linux because it does such a good job of hiding the mess it just made.
But the initial argument is still valid. Whether people are switching to Linux, or are long-time Linux users, it's unreasonable to expect them to have to fiddle around with drivers or search the Internet for HOW-TO documentation each time they want to add new hardware or when they upgrade their computer. Yes, I'm fully aware that new computers work on Windows because the hardware manufacturers specifically build and test them for Windows. But Linux certification should mean exactly the same thing for Linux. It's just crazy that a Linux machine would be "certified" and then come loaded with a distribution that doesn't fully work. And if the certified machine will only work properly with newer distributions, the certification should be specific about what distributions should be expected to work. Otherwise, it's meaningless.
I think the Linux community does as good a job as can be expected making Linux work with new hardware, especially given that most things have to be done without any guidance from the manufacturer. However, the actual procedure for installing new hardware that DOES work with Linux could be much easier. I'm certainly no fan of "plug-n-pray", so I would never suggest re-implementing that travesty. But it should be possible to generate distribution-specific install scripts or packages for devices that eliminate the "guessing game" that people have to play to get their hardware working. A perfect example is a sound card in my old computer. It's a Ensoniq Soundscape VIVO, which lists itself as Gateway (because it's a Gateway computer). I have yet to have a distribution recognize and properly configure this device correctly during the install. But the device works. I just have to run a few programs, collect some information, edit a file or two and then it works fine. An install script could easily be written to do this.
And now could SOMEBODY please tell me why Knoppix works on pretty much EVERY machine I throw at it, but full distributions seem to be unable to do this?
GreyPoopon
--
Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?
Secondly, I think people should use what works for them. If windows works for you then use windows.
Unfortunately, Windows is causing major problems for people OTHER than its users, on the net and elsewhere, due to its poor design.
First: The poor security of windows results in repeated bursts of traffic clogging the net for days at a time, as the latest security vulnerabilities are exploited by viruses and worms. Microsoft has shown little competence at fixing these issues, which are becoming more rather than less of a problem with time as the malware authors improve their designs faster than Microsoft can fix their systems. There is no sign that this trend will reverse.
Arguments that the wider deployment of Microsoft products makes them a bigger target are disproved by the web server counterexample: Apache is far more widely used than Microsoft's IIS, yet IIS gets virtually all the exploits.
But with actual industries based on malware exploiting Windows security bugs, malware authors are polishing destructive payloads. With every passing year this increases the threat from malware ports to other more secure (though imperfect) systems, once windows is finally on its way out. It's much like the way large reservoir of disease increases the risk of plagues to currently uninfested areas.
Second: Microsoft's IP stacks "cheat" when setting the Quality of Service (QoS) bits, demanding higher service levels than the applications actually need or request. This once gave them improved performance over their competition. But it puts their low-priority traffic (like file transfers) in the way of streaming applications (like VoIP or videoconferencing).
This has impeded deployment of QoS sensitive applications, as well as proper deployment of QoS support and QoS-dependent services in both the enterprise and the network core. Currently they're supported by hacks - such as putting the VoIP phones on a separate virtual LAN that is given higher priority, VoIP phones with an "extension" outlet for the workstation which rewrite the QoS bits on the workstation's packets, and other router/switch/bridge/firewall/edge-router hacks that downgrade or selectively downgrade the QoS settings on customer packets.
This rewriting of QoS bits means that streaming applications running on Windows workstations can't get the service levels they need, and thus don't run as well as they should on workstations (which is part of why you see separate IP phone hardware, and why VoIP applications are so flakey). So it finally bit Microsoft, too. They now have an incentive to fix it. But projects to do so are delayed behind their frantic attempts to patch their security bugs. And even once they DO fix it there would be the problem of getting the fixes deployed, and onto legacy systems as well.
Meanwhile, OTHER OSes which DON'T cheat also have to deal with an internet where QoS isn't properly implemented, and where in some cases their packets get the same QoS-rewriting penalizations as are necessary to defend servers against Microsoftware's misbehavior.
The Microsoft shepherd cried "Wolf!" repeatedly (and still does). So now the townsfolk won't respond when ANY shepherd cries "Wolf!"
Third: Microsoft has deliberately deployed proprietary data and interface formats that don't interoperate with the products of other vendors, and has "embraced/extended (i.e. broken)/extinguished" even some proprietary standards. This results in things like email, web sites, and documents that won't work with - or even break - other people's tools, locking their customers into Microsoft products and impeding communication, not just between them and other internet users, but also among other internet users (as, for instance, clueless web designers write sites that assume Microsoft's browser).
This has placed an extra load on application designers, as they must reverse-engineer and support Microsoft proprietary formats so their users can communicate with the people still stuc
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way