Slashdot Mirror
Linspire Five-0 First Look
Eugenia writes "OSNews posted an exclusive first look for the upcoming Linspire 5.0: 'Linspire Five-0 is definitely a good base from which to build. The lack of well rounded applications when compared to other OSes in its class leave me wanting more, however, a slick look, some powerful Linspire specific apps, and a non-crippled undercarriage remain appealing' says the author." The bigger question will be how it stacks up against other commericial offerings in the long run. (ITMJ is also owned by OSTG).
The question is, do they still reccomend users to log in as root for everday use? The thing that put me off Linspire the most was that they have the full power of the Unix security model but they don't bother using it.
One good turn - gets all the covers.
But it is the case with PSP, though. In the same class as Photoshop? No chance. I can get more done more easily with GIMP.
Doesn't that kind of defeat the purpose? I mean here we have a desktop that requires more or less the same horsepower as Windows to run. Is slightly less functional than Windows to use strictly as a desktop and costs slightly less than windows to own? It doesn't seem like a wonderful bargain. Perhaps something like ELX or Vectorlinux which can be had for free and install on cheap hardware is the way to go instead of trying to reverse engineer the functionality of windows.
I think the Linux folks need to accept that Windows really is a better choice for some functions at least from a simple "I just need to do what I do PoV" and if you go the Linux route it's not to replicate Windows functionality but instead to do someother thing, introduce some other function. Of course in a corporate environment the support costs of maintaining a Linux desktop evironment appear less in light of fewer security problems and an inherent ability to push updates to desktops but that has to be weighed against the skills of the user base and the questions and problems they will have. On the other hand unless your own time is free and you don't like managing the innumerable security patches, personal firewall, AV update, spyware circus that is home LAN administration for Windows then why not get a bunch of Macs? It's BSD based, pretty tough, industrial strength Unix under the covers and the price point of a MiniMac or an iMac make it pretty attractive.
For the most part, that is. If you like bittwiddling and really want to build a something and that's your hobby then fine, have at it. But it really doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to struggle with a Linux desktop that isn't designed specifically around ease of installation and ease of use AND lower cost. If you need the same brand new high powered PC hardware to run it AND installation is still problematic AND configuration is still a chore AND you still have to struggle with NTFS volume mounts, Wine and Windows applications then what have you solved?
I'm not worried about Napoleon Dynamite. I was worried about the Windows-like look and feel. Everything seems to look the same and is named the same...
:P
More lawsuits? Only against the people who miss the joke here.
Many people don't install their own Linux. They're fed up with Windows so they get a friend to install it for them, or they work at a company that's switching. Either way, a familiar interface will be a good thing for these people.
WeRelate.org - wiki-based genealogy
It's not just how good screenshots work, but how fast windows move around the screen. How much of the GUI is hardware-accelerated. How tight the design is (as in how many flaws/glitches there are).
I'm not trying to upset anyone here, but I've yet to see a non-windows/apple UI that doesn't scream "amateur".
Windows and OSX have dedicated teams of professional designers, all working under ONE design manager. That ONE person calls the shots. No-one tells them they're wrong. They steer the entire design in one coherent direction. And, these guys have years and years and years of experience.
This Lindows looks better, but the review showed some graphical glitches in the UI that are just unforgivable. That reason alone means I won't use it, as I don't want programming bugs distracting me from using my PC. I simply won't tolerate it.
That's certainly true from a security perspective but people don't really think that way otherwise they'd install functional software on the windows boxes they have and take at least rudimentary steps. Most commercial Windows boxes are loaded down with tons of security software now, McAfee, Symantec and others preload their stuff on and all you have to do is pay for a real licence after the 60 day trial period is up. But nearly no one does that nor do they bother to look for or download a free product nor would they understand how to do that or how to install it. Hell my kids alternatively ignore or click w/o thinking ZA popups all the time. They regularly manage to have all sorts of crap autoinstall that they claim they didn't know how it got there. My family doesn't actually understand the difference between a)the browser b) the computer c) the internet. Seriously, it's all the same thing.
So here's the point. If people cared about security they'd do something. So giving them a Linux box and telling them it's more secure has almost no value. Telling them they'll have to babysit it less has no value because they don't do that now. You do. The only thing you can sell them on is a) popups (which you can do with Firefox/Netscape on Windows and b) some kind of spin on identity theft as in not letting strangers into your box to steal something. What might work is if you can sell them on the idea for getting as good or better 'security' for far less money. If you let them buy a maching for their kids it's going to have to serve a very schizophrenic set of requirements. It will have to play games and it will have to protect the wittle kiddies from pictures of penises and vaginas. And it will have to run all of the file formats they use in school and it will have to burn CDs with zero effort and, and this is little noted, it will have to boot in under 2 minutes. More than that and you will hear an endless littany of "The computer's broken again..." You also need to build the system that will be able to restart from an abrupt shutdown very quickly and it can't ask the user any questions like 'do you want to fsck?'
I've seen people throw away new computers after they were massively infected with viruses and spyware, have highly fragmented drives or suffered a minor object corruption in an office suite rendering it buggy or inoperable even though they had the installation media. I don't mean have someone tear it down and rebuild the software from scratch I mean unplug it and move it to the basement will all of Dad's other toys in the Museum of Bad Ideas. And go out and but a new one only to have the same thing happen in a year or less. They are left with the conclusion that all computers are shitty little toys that no one should ever bother to learn how to use.
I think this is the sweetspot that Apple is shooting for. It's one that's probably out of MS grasp forever having surrendered reliability on the altar of whatever the hell is good for MS's bottom line. Linux needs to shoot for that middle space between expensive mindless Mac reliability cheap useless high maintenance PCs. It has to look and feel like Windows or Apple and it has to run w/o any human intervention and it has to run without glitches or problems or delays or pages of boot up messages and it has to mask the filesystem from the user and instead use folders or Mac like containers. It has to recover quickly and gracefully and it has to report errors or problems in clear stupid partially informative messages that do more handholding than instruction.