Slashdot Mirror
An Early Look at Freespire Linux
An anonymous reader writes "DesktopLinux.com takes an early look at Freespire Linux in a recent article. Linspire will be releasing their first version of Freespire, the first community Linux distribution to include many third-party proprietary codecs, drivers, and software. From the article: 'While I still have my doubts about the long-term wisdom of using proprietary software and drivers with Linux, I must say that if you feel you need to use such programs, Freespire makes it much easier than any other Linux distribution. And, when is all said and done, that's really what Freespire is all about -- making Linux as easy as possible for users.'"
Linspire has had some pretty good ideas when it comes to making Linux easy for the Windows user. But since it has not been free, I have been reluctent to recommend it to friends. I would like to see how this turns out...
For a linux distro that contains software which is not "free"
Is it just me, or do Linux Desktops seem to be following the Windows trend? They seem to be getting more bubbly. Take me back to the days of BlackBox
Proprietary software, as long as it doesn't make the system less free, is not necessarily bad.
For example a proprietary document system that uses open formats and has open APIs does very little to harm the user and potentially fills a niche that cannot be served by free software very well (eg handles certain legal compliance issues, which requires expensive insurance and research).
As long as you *could* write your own software to replace bits of the system, or interoperate with the system, then you dont necessarily have to for the benefit to be very real indeed.
A lot (although not all) of the stuff that comes with Linspire falls into this category.
Think of the Children; Sleep with your Sister
Usually, when all is said and done, more is said than done.
The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination
- Douglas Adams
... but EasyUbuntu accomplishes the same thing (at least as far as the codecs and drivers go, I didn't RTFA) for Ubuntu and is as easy as the name suggests.
Far superior, of course, to Ubuntu + Automatix.
Including proprietary drivers in a distribution violates the GPL because your are distributing a derivative GPL work (the linux kernel) without also making the source code available.
How are they working around this?
Didn't a little company called "Caldera" try this marketing strategy once? Hopefully when freespire changes its name again, it won't be changing it to "SCO".
this signature has been removed due to a DMCA takedown notice
When Redhat dropped their supported free desktop version and split their offerings into the 'community' Fedora Core and the 'professional' RHEL, everybody beat up on them then, and continues to do so (see the Ubuntu-as-Redhat-Killer article from earlier today). Yet it seems like many Linux distros with commercial aspirations are doing the same (Suse, and now Linspire).
Maybe Redhat was onto something?
Imposing Libertarian views on everyone online since 1992.
is that it uses root accounts by default. That's pretty much asking for trouble.
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
Config files... we could build a big, centralised database of them, maybe split into user and computer, with the user having rights over their own section but not the computer... and we could call it... THE REGISTRY.
"If he were a plant, people would roll him up and smoke him."
It is illegal to distribute non-GPL binary kernel modules (ask any kernel developer), and Freespire should respect the GPL since they are a Linux company.
Well, the actual nVidia/ATI kernel module IS GPLed. It acts as layer between the kernel and the binary blob. This layer has an open API, which is used by the blob. Thus, the blob uses the kernel, it does not extend it. The extension comes from the GPLed layer.
The real issue is that nVidia & ATI use GPL code from other parts of the kernel in their drivers. This is the only issue, because the way I described above makes binary blobs perfectly legal.
This sig does not contain any SCO code.
People don't seem to understand what the GPL covers in term of "derivative" work. If you fulfill an API, that is not covered under the GPL. If you take parts of the linux kernel, modify them and then repackage them, that does constitute derivative work. It just happens that most kernal modules distrubuted with Linux distros are GPLed, but they don't have to be. The module can be 100% new code, and the author can then release it under whatever Liscence they want.
"It does mean that the user would need a valid windows license, but they come with all computers now."
That license does NOT grant the right to run Windows on any other system.
But, on a different note. There are different points of view. The first is that the "Operating System" is simply a resource manager. Its goal is to maximize utilization of your computer. From this point of view, Linux is already superior to Windows.
Another point of view is that the "Operating System" is central to your (enjoyable) use of the computer. That it presents and correlates information, and integrates applications. From this point of view Windows is superior to Linux.
What is a "newbie"? If it is someone who interacts "lightly" with a computer, and only does email and web surfing, Linux is probably a better choice. If it is someone who uses programs in a "non-integrated" way, Linux is a better choice.
Only if that "newbie" uses multiple programs and expects them to integrate in the Windows way, Windows would be the better choice. But that person would no longer be a "newbie". As to "config file problem" -- I have 22 years of computer experience, and I don't know my way around the "Windows Registry". It makes no sense to me. And, to boot, I have been unable to install Windows XP on some pretty plain hardware. I would say that Linux is easier to install and manage. I guess I'm not that mythical "newbie".
You are dead on in your observation that simply emulating Windows isn't the right direction. Not because Windows is a "bad" experience. Simply because the super-tight integration costs a lot. In security. In trying to customize. In maintainance.
"Crazy package dependencies". Interesting, the same finger can be pointed at Microsoft. For instance, I purchased a program "DVD Ripper". It claimed on the box to run on Windows 98 up to Windows XP. I installed it -- it is missing "something.dll" (not sure of the exact thing). Now, that would be a crazy package dependency. Especially as I really don't have time (or the desire) to dig though OTHER peoples computers to find what is missing. Or "warez" sites. Available in binary only, naturally. I should be so stupid as to actually download a random binary, from a site I don't trust...
"bi-daily system updates". Well then, don't do it! Or, choose a "Linux" that is stable.
As always, YMMV
Ratboy
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
I've tried over a dozen Linux distros and all of them have had major, glaring problems from a user standpoint. The worst is support for MP3 files. SuSE pretends there isn't any such thing; Ubuntu gives you a link to a cryptic page which says "please go away". USB thumbdrives can be plugged in but not unplugged on SuSE. Music CDs won't play, and no apparent reason is given. On and on. Ubuntu's the closest, but it's still not anything I could give to anyone who's not a masochistic geek. Get over it and fix the stupid problems!
What sometimes gets left out of this kind of discussion is that closed-source drivers are often of very low quality. Recently, I've been scanning in an old 400-page book on an HP scanner, using HP's closed-source MacOS 9 driver and scanning software. The MacOS X driver wasn't released until a couple of years after we bought the scanner, although they claimed it would be coming "real soon now." When the MacOS X driver finally was released, I found that it crashed so often as to make it useless. So here I am, in the year 2006, booting into MacOS 9 whenever I want to use the scanner. IIRC a driver is available for SANE, but I think I had dependency problems getting it to instal on my Linux box.
I scanned the first 100 pages or so, transferred them to the Linux box, and made sure I could read them. No problem. I finished scanning the book, transferred the rest of the pages to the Linux box. Oops --- can't read anything after page 250. Why? It turns out all those files are empty --- zero bytes in size. Why? Oh, the Mac's hard disk had apparently filled up, and the software didn't check for an I/O error when it wrote the files.
I'm not saying that OSS is always perfect and bug-free, but I doubt that this kind of low-quality code would ever have become widely used if it was open source.
I don't really want closed-source drivers for Linux. All I want is two things:
- I want to be able to find clear, accurate, up-to-date information on what devices have OSS drivers available, so I can buy hardware that's well supported.
- I want to be able to install the OSS drivers without a lot of hassles.
Really, #1 seems to be pretty well covered by the SANE folks (although the situation seems to be worse for wireless cards, where there's a ton of out-of-date info on the web, and I didn't find any canonical, well-maintained site that had all the info). #2 is probably slowly getting better too, as Ubuntu becomes more and more mature. I suspect that by the time I upgrade to the next Ubuntu, the scanner driver I need will already be included in SANE by default, and the dependency problems will be fixed.Find free books.
Not only does the default interface look like Windows XP, some of the icons look like their Windows equivalents. The IM icon for Gaim, for example, has more than a passing resemblance to the AOL AIM icon.
...and even more of a resemblance to Apple's iChat icon.
:|
Hmmm.
iqu
Linux' ability to run proprietary software such as an Oracle database is essential to its success. How is this any different?
You make some good counterpoints.
I guess that by "newbie" I mean me. I have 10 years Linux experience, and have just recently started to learn windows. I also find it illogical, and completely irrational. My Package dependancy issues are something I didn't explain properly. My gripe is not that packages have dependancies, it's that they break too easily, and it's not a trivial matter to build a package for you preferred distro. Also the sheer number of dependant packages with the most simple application is min boggling. Adding one package in your preferred package manager may install another 140 packages.
Before I attract more flaming, I am not against Linux, at all. I think it's a much better system generally, and I am a supporter and contributer of Open Source. I just think there are lots of things in Linux that are impossible for the average windows user to instantly comprehend. It's so fundamentally different in how it works, it takes a long time to get used to. My flatmate still has issues doing anything but the most basic things in Linux, despite 5 years of usage. Some people "get it" because they want to, and those that don't "get it", generally don't want to.
Your argument that Linux is superior in most respects, I am inclined to agree. There are still many things that annoy me on a daily basis, and I wish someone would fix, or it could be done better (before you ask... I fix as much as I have time for). Config files is just one of my gripes. I am not saying that a central "registry" is a good option, because it's clearly not. What would be a better option is for the config files to be kept in the same place (i.e unchanged), but an auto symlink is generated with a whole load of meta data showing what application it is, and what version. A central SVN or SQL database could track the changes. Nothing has to change for something as simple as this to work. It sits above the current default config. I believe there are projects working along these lines, only time will tell if that works.
Signature v3.0, now with 42% less memory usage.
Coincidentally, I discovered today that Linspire/Freespire are standardizing on Haskell for core OS development. I'm still blinking a bit about that one, but you have to give them marks for chutzpah.
'While I still have my doubts about the long-term wisdom of using crack and heroin, I must say that if you feel you need to use such drugs, Freepharm makes it much easier than any other pharmacy. And, when is all said and done, that's really what Freepharm is all about -- making drugs as easy as possible for users.'"
I was hoping this would provide a free alternative to the CNR warehouse of Linspire. Linspire isnt' really that expensive to begin with ($50 or even cheaper last I checked). But then asking people to pay $20/year for the CNR warehouse wasn't cool. People don't want to associate some kind of yearly fee with this I don't think.
Don't we all?
---- "XML is like violence. If it doesn't fix the problem, you aren't using enough."
Nice quip, served you well.
You appear to be misinformed however. Freespire will be released in two distinct versions:
One containing entirely free software, and one containing proprietary codecs (paid for and licensed by Linspire).
The user gets to choose which he uses.
Hence the "Free" -- freedom of choice to opt into one of two free (as in beer) choices: a completely free (as in speech and beer) version, and a free (just as in beer) version.
Seems pretty free to me.
Any questions?
Sorry, my mistake. Obviously I misunderstood something in the nVidia sources.
But still, the layer idea allows binary drivers without violating the GPL.
This sig does not contain any SCO code.
One eensy weensy little detail distinguishes Freespire from EasyUbuntu:
legality.
Freespire uses fully licensed codecs (paid for by Linspire), whereas EasyUbuntu takes the gray area route of not using fully legal stuff.
Since Linspire is footing the bill for the codecs, I think we can all see which choice is both more practical for the user and more ethical.
Actually, give me a true 3-button mouse and allow different menus to show up at the pointer site with different combinations of button clicks.
-b.
100% Open and free, until you want to use your nVidia card for something more than point and click.
-n/t-
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
Two other versions are currently being designed. One, which requires that users give the company some of their intellectual property in exchange for additional software packages, and another, which allows users to exchange a few hours' work for a robust Linux-based system. The first version will be called Inspire; the second, Perspire.
The company is also thinking of donating free software to relatives of the recently deceased. This will naturally be called Expire.
LAME is free software anyway. The code is there.
Thats bizare, but they might not have asuch a difficult time finding developers. Parrot ( the backend of Perl 6) is beign writeen in Haskell. I like haskell, or at least the idea of it. As the note says they've already written a lot of the packaging system in Ocaml another functional language that was the basis of an experimental microsoft .Net language F#. I'd like to see functional programing take off, but I have my doubts it will in any shape or form. I think Haskell will be a big drawback inthe short term.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
>One eensy weensy little detail distinguishes Freespire from EasyUbuntu:
>
>legality.
Only in the U. S. of Eh. my friend. Up here in the Great White North, not to mention the rest of the free world, (NOT Australia since they've joined the US copyright tyranny) it is completely legal to use most of those codecs that might land an American butt in the slammer.
What I find most frustrating is that because people are so afraid of what the Americans will do, they intentionally cripple these distros. Grrrrr.
Do you really think that it'd be that hard for them to get NVidia and ATI to 'bless' a version of their drivers to ship with the distro? I doubt it.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
Ok I am a windows gamer (World of Warcraft) who is building a second system from scratch and want an easy version of Linux for the OS. I have been tempted for a while to start looking at Linux, and that is all this computer will be for. I would like a distro where you use command prompts as little as possible. IYO what is the easiest version to adapt to from windows as far as install on configuration. I don't want to have to spend money on it, and I want something after a while i can use as a main system. Let me know what you think.
~~"Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~~Dennis Miller
what does that have to do with how the distro looks? He wasn't saying he wanted no gui, just one that isn't so 'bubbly' like Windows.
The ratio of linux leeters who decry freespire or linspire, yet maintain a windows partition "for video games" or "well, my work makes me us blah blah so ..." and other sorts of non-pure cop outs. How many are running some peripheral with a binary blob? I bet the hypocrisy ratio is quite high in that regard. How about using websites that are hosted on non pure, or use something else non-pure? Do they boycott those websites? How about brick and mortar stores? Do they inquire what apps and OS the parent company uses, and if it is "non pure" do they put their squawk where their material goods lust is and boycott? It's like, how far do you want o take it. Seems every company out there that tries to make linux *useable* with a default install gets dissed severely. Yet...you can go to EVERY major distro out there and find the wink wink non nod instructions on getting the non pure stuff up and running. Fedora, mandrake, debian, gentoo, ubuntu, all of them, easy-peasy to find all the instructions necessary to make non pure but functional and find the relevant off shore someplace links to the repositories.
I'd bet more than a weeks pay that the number of linux users using ONLY "pure" open and free software is less than 1%.
It's more the fact that shipping a precompiled kernel module is a GPL violation that I am worried about.
No. No 'we' don't.
Windows has been around in its' current incarnation for 11 years now. During the course of that 11 years it has remained decently consistent in its' interface and has provided a reliable mechanism to do tasks (keyboard shortcuts, cut and paste, etc).
There are places where the UI violates good UI design (too many nested menus, for instance), but for those minor problems, Linux is no better.
Half of the reason, my friends, that KDE and GNOME are busy playing catch-up with Windows is that they do not have a better way of doing things either.
The ease of use of Linux is still very variable from distribution to distribution. In gui terms Linux is far more illogical than Windows simply because you never know what you're gonna get.
Only someone wrapped up in their hatred of Microsoft could dismiss windows' strenths out of hand...this is even more obvious when considering the fact that linux has the same exact flaws and many more to boot!
First of all, may as well mention that a lot of smaller distributions have included all that stuff for years, but whatever the case it's good to see that one of the big distributions has finally chosen to do something pragmatic and practical rather than follow a bunch of abstract ideas like most of the others (*cough* Debian *cough*) seem to do. Now, don't get me wrong – I do agree that freedom is very important in any context and form – but as far as the whole "proprietary software is EVIL!!" thing goes, I have to say it's just a little bit exaggerated, and besides, there are gray areas – if my video card only works with a proprietary driver on Linux, it's still better from a free software perspective to just use the proprietary driver than to go back or switch to a non-free system.
Anyway, to get back on topic, I'm glad to see a big-name distribution considering the people who are actually using their system, not just the ones developing it. A lot of people switching to Linux now couldn't care less about the free-vs.-proprietary-software thing – they switch because it's less expensive, or because they don't like Windows and they hear Linux is better. If anything this whole holy war thing probably drives people away rather than bringing them in; if they get a bad first impression, it's hard to change that around. A lot of the reason users still dual-boot Windows or switch to other distributions is because so many distros refuse to include support for MP3's, wireless drivers, Flash, Wine, etc. Obviously this isn't true for everyone, but that's how it is for a lot of my own users. So long story short, it's a lot better to include a couple non-free programs than to risk them switching to an entirely non-free system altogether...
(Sorry if this is too long or off-topic, you can get back to your regular everyday lives now...)
Creative misinterpretation is your friend.
It is not, as long as the source code is available.
Otherwise, all non-source based distros would be illegal, including Ubuntu, Debian, Suse, Fedora,....
This sig does not contain any SCO code.
I wonder how fast this "distro" will fry my system.
SuSE was done within 2 hours
Red hat was gone within 5 minutes
Linspire was the only one to work and never give me problems (aside from my display, it never went past 1024x768 even though I could display 1280x1024 with no problems) the only drawback to it was you had to pay for support.
Ubuntu fried my DVD Drive and that was just from the live CD, which is really pathetic, and before the linux zealots start, my DVD drive NEVER gave me any problems what so ever before I ran that live CD,after I ran it (which wasn't even in that drive) when I put in a DVD it would click really loud and then refuse to burn anything to 100% then it started to refuse burning + discs, then it refuesed to burn - discs, then it refused to read any kind of disc. all this happened AFTER I ran that live CD so I don't know how badly they fucked that disc up but it fried my perfectly working DVD Burner.
I call it GConf.
I'll trade this r9200 for your 7950GX2!
That's not the point. As I understand it, the kernel module has source aviable, but the license is _not_ gpl-compatible. Nvidia ditributes it under it's own license, but it's still linked to the kernel. This is legal as long as the linking is performed by the end user. When distributed however, this looks as an GPL violation to me, although IANAL.
I understand the free speech part, but I've been to six supermarkets and have yet to find this free beer you speak of.
I heard rumours about a friend of a friend who disappeared for using a secret version called conspire; no matter to me: I've got my copy when I burned all my previous computer software and hardware. I rather like using Pyre.
Because they've fallen for the same trap as Microsoft Windows: They put the button you push to turn the machine off in a sub menu of the button you push to start your work! What could possibly be next? Insert headers and footers in the View menu on the Freespire-customized version of OpenOffice.org?
May god save us all.
Linspire's goal is NOT "to run windows programs on a windows interface".
They abandoned WINE back in 2002.
Their goal is to introduce Linux to the mainstream market in an easy and friendly way. Linspire / Freespire will NOT run any Windows software without installing an emulator of some sort.
Anything that is derived from GPL code must be redistributed under the GPL, that is how the license works. ATI and nVidia are distributing only the source, which is not linked to the kernel so it doesn't technically have any kernel code in it. As soon as you link the module to the kernel, it contains part of the kernel code, so if it is distributed, it must be distributed under the GPL.
Ubuntu, Debian, SuSE and Fedora distribute precompiled binaries, but make the source for the binaries available, that is how you stay compliant with the GPL. You should read it sometime, its actually quite readable the way licenses go. At least have a look at the GPL FAQ it explains this in more detail.
Try this: charge a newbie Windows-user for something like the Gimp, pocket their money, point them to the official website where they can get it for free, explain what you did was perfectly legal and then watch their reaction. Think they'll pay you again? No matter how legal it is for Linspire to run their CnR thingie, *nix-users don't want to pay for free software and a great many view it as a (legal) scam
If all you do is point, the user has a right to be pissed. That's not what Linspire or any other Linux company is doing. Most users expect you to sit down and make sure everything works before they pay you. If it does work, they will be happy to fork over the cash because you just saved them the difference between your hour's wage and the cost of a non free program that does the same thing, $600 - 40 = $560.
What the commercial Linux companies are doing is packaging free software so that it works together. That's a big job. They have to modify configuration files, compile and do other nasty tasks. Debian does it though volunteers and is big on user freedom. Linspire is using that base and adding non free junk. M$ takes non free junk, most of which comes from competitors, and passes it along.
What the user wants is something that works. The Linspire, Xandros and Mepis approach has it's benefits and dangers. The benefit is that all your non free hardware and popular software can work right out of the box. My wife loves watching You Tube with Mepis and it's much easier to set up than Debian proper. The dangers are all those associated with non free junk, a lack of long term credibility and difficulty upgrading. Binary blobs are just as sticky and brittle in the Linux world as they are elsewhere, though the sane separation of user and system files helps a lot. Upgrading Mepis is just as easy as installing it in the first place. The hard part is when you want a program that's not included. In the worst case, you have to download 500 MB of dependencies and they break your non free crappo. In the best case, you just install the newest CD and then get all your favorite applications. A completely free system does not have that issue. It can be incrementally upgraded for six to ten years, without fear of breaking installed applications, until the hardware is so obsolete it's not worth the electricity it eats. You should also note that it's easier for the distribution to not bother with non free junk that does not work. Distributions that make non free stuff go are having to do a lot of extra work, sometimes completely in the dark, to make sure it all works together. They also have to trust the non free software maker in a way that you should not. For most users, none of the above problems is a big deal and they are happy to fork over the money it takes to make sure things work right. Happy in slavery, sometimes and sometimes not.
What users really resent is the way M$ makes you feel like a sucker. You can go full out, buying nothing but "professional" versions of the software, the most expensive hardware AND IT STILL MIGHT NOT WORK. The more you add, the more likely it is something won't get along with something else and the system degrades with time no matter what you do. With a 12 minute half life on any network, no M$ system lasts very long. The difference between a Linspire "sucker" and a M$ "sucker" is about $1,000 is software and hardware costs. The addage is, "Linux" makes a new computer out of trash and Windoze makes a new computer into trash." DRM in Vista are going to make things even worse.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Did *you* read my posting? I said exactly the same. The opensourced kernel module is *linked* to the kernel, and the binary driver then *uses* the module's open API, thereby just *using* the module. Using an open API of a GPLed system is no GPL violation, otherwise Linux could not be used at all (BIOS is closed-source for example).
This sig does not contain any SCO code.
The problem with windows is that it allows people to use a networked computer without learning anything about security. This is false simplicity, much like allowing someone to begin drive a car on an empty road is false simplicity, when that empty road leads to crowded city junctions.
Linspire following the fundamentally flawed (and now abandoned) windows model of using root accounts for normal users is just dumb.
The module is not open source, and not GPL, so distributing a precompiled copy of the module (which is linked to the kernel source) is illegal. It is only legal to distribute the source and make the user compile it themselves.
The legality of that has nothing to do with nVidia, it's the kernel developers who own the copyright that is being violated by someone distributing closed source modules (The nVidia module is a closed source module, read the license).
"Windows has been around in its' current incarnation for 11 years now"
.NET, OFFICE, OUTLOOK, Media Player are a joy to use together. They go together with incredible fit and finish. Add in the Microsoft dev IDE -- you never have to leave. It is truly amazing what a single vendor can do (not necessarily for function, but for integration.)
So, you are comparing Windows 95 to Windows XP? Let's do that.
"During the course of that 11 years it has remained decently consistent in its' interface and has provided a reliable mechanism to do tasks (keyboard shortcuts, cut and paste, etc)."
Please compare Windows 95 and Windows XP. I guess you could use "decently consistent" for a sufficiently low value of consistent.
FYI, there ARE no alternate distributions of Windows. So comparing the variability of Linux GUI to Windows is a complete canard. Let's take a popular distribution of Linux (singular) and compare that to Windows. Fedora Core 5 to Windows XP. And, yes, I know that Fedora Core gets updated more frequently. On the other hand, Microsoft has thousands of developers focussed on Windows.
Fedora Core 5 uses a two level selection for programs (category/program, vs. XPs default 4 level). Menu items do not simply disappear of their own accord. When updating a Redhat 9 (RHEL) system or user, menus and GUI retain the "look and feel" that user is acustomed to. Desktop behaviour is programmable "out of the box" -- supporting old time users (like me) who prefer focus follows cursor, etc. Application location transparency supported, and not just as a high-end feature. Integration into heterogenous networks is supported, including yp and hesiod. This is integrated into the login system. Automounter and pam for user location transparency. Underlying graphics engine supported across multiple vendors, as is the overlaid GUI (Redhat, SUN, IBM, etc.). It is possible to switch from Intel/Fedora Core 5 to a SUN workstation with ease.
Fedora Core 5 is program oriented -- Windows XP tries to be task oriented. Which is better? For a PDA, I prefer task, but for general computing I prefer program. Which is why I turn on the "classic" interface in XP (and thank the goddess that the option is there).
Why doesn't Windows XP support X, NIS, Hesiod, NFS? I find this very annoying. I have to enable samba because XP just doesn't have "it". (the integration factor). And, why does XP natter INCESSANTLY (sp?) about things like "you don't have an anti-virus program"? It wasn't at ALL obvious how to turn that off. (I did it, but I have no idea how -- and how would I get that warning back?)
Enough Windows bashing; time for some props. Office works like a dream. Third party programs -- its a mixed bag (an example -- the HP LaserJet 3015 drivers. To get these to "scan to computer" using the front panel, you need a special driver. Loading that driver results in a "Handle not valid" dialog box, interesting that it comes up on both Windows 98se and Windows XP (and on two separate computers). Both from the driver set supplied on the CD, and from the downloaded drivers from HP. Since XP doesn't complain, I presume that these are "signed" drivers and have gone through Microsoft certification. On 98SE, they crash the machine in 3 days. On XP they don't crash, but that silly dialog prevents XP from booting all the way though. Most strange -- even with this flaw, the 3015 works just fine.). The holy programs: XP, IE,
As always, YMMV (and don't presume I am a "Windows Hater" -- I own Microsoft shares. But, I was a Staff Engineer at SUN for years, which explains my bias for "usability").
Ratboy
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
I would love to delete your post. How petty.