Xandros Recruiting Beta Testers
An anonymous reader writes "Looks like the folks at Xandros are getting ready for a new release of their Linux desktop. They're recruiting beta testers so those of you who like to try something new, you can sign up from here. No details about when or what to expect in the new release. Xandros always lets the other distros get the bugs out of the latest bleeding edge software before they do a new release so this should be another solid release with updated KDE, kernel, X, drivers, etc. Can't wait. Gotta get me on that beta list."
If I had a $1 for every time a linux-head answered a question with "thats easy, you just... " and then typed a sequence of line noise... well, I'd be doing ok.
Xandros provides a simple way to get a user up and running with all the *main* needs met - word processor, browser, a well laid out control panel etc. Sure, down the track I'll figure out how to install that weird app I really want, but I'm up and running without so much as a mod-probe or apt-get.
Go Xandros!
That is not the problem with Linux and Xandros haven't even pinpointed the problem.
.deb's and specific rpm's but it's not enough.
:p. I'm sure there are other reasons why it's hard to meet the needs of a migrating end-user and it would be interesting to know other people's point of views for me and you and YOU.
There are various problems on why Linux is "hard" for new users. The simple one that I can say is "UI". Everybody sees computer, that computer better have an interface like explorer or they are doomed! Let me go into detail with some points.
- no unified DE.
The silly "competition" of kde and gnome isn't helping too much. Having distributions lately taking preferences of a DE over another makes a user think that distro "A" sucks because distro "B" does not use what "A" use. In the end, they don't understand that it's all linux no matter what you choose.
- No universal "format"
This I'm afraid will take a long friggin time. Having rpm's for some, deb's for others, tgz for slack does not solve the main problem. Companies/organizations taking preference of a format/package over another. Look at ATI who take in favor of RPM-Based distros to provide their drivers (I am aware that they suck. This was simply an example). It's great to see that some provide
A bit out of context but just to tell people that, yes Xandros may seem easy for some people but it's still Linux. You will have to face a challenge sooner or later. Linux isn't windoze where you don't need to understand what a certain action does in the background or how we can improve it. It's still an enthusiast "Operating System" (or Kernel. call it whatever you want) if you ask me which requires nonstop tweaking and you won't manage to do all of that from exclusively clicking your mice.
Until we find a perfect "format" (??), different people will always take a preference over another.
- package managers
We need a way to track down what we install, modify or remove. In other words, something like apt but more global. This again I'm refering to the last point I made. Maybe if we had a universal format, maybe then we'd see various package managers available to almost all distributions to make the user's life easier. YES COMPILING "MIGHT" BE FUN FOR SOME But in a world like today, does every user care bout gaining those extra secondes on optimization which they aren't even aware of? Why should they care. They want to know how to install/upgrade/uninstall programs. This is why I show people new to linux the Debian distribution. They don't regret it.
If I made mistakes of I need correction, please go ahead
I'm going to have to go with the parent poster on this. I've met a couple of the developers that work on Xandros (both past and present). Generally they are smart bunch of guys. I also used to work at Corel where this thing started, so I know the management as well. I will repeat the same question I asked back then...
Why on earth would I switch from a Proprietary Windows world to a Proprietary Linux world? It makes no sense. Perhaps you get a brief respite from viruses, etc. But without the benefit of a free (as in speech) distribution, what is the point?
Here's a Linux distro that's geared to look just like Windows. And it's proprietary to boot. Plus it's backed by a small company from Ottawa who could go under at any minute (although last I heard they were actually doing OK).
My point is, if I wanted a desktop solution that looked like windows and I was willing to put up with the assinine licensing that comes with it, why the hell wouldn't I choose the defacto standard in the desktop computing world and *choose windows*????