Slashdot Mirror
Review of New Xandros 4.1 Professional Linux
holden writes "OpenAddict has a review of the new Xandros 4.1 professional.Some of the big changes in professional include a newer kernel, AIGLX, and support for 3G wireless. One of the subtle, but still very important changes, is that Xandros has finally removed the registration requirement, and users can now access Xandros Networks without registering first. Techworld is one of many that is already looking at Xandros as a possible challenger to Windows Vista"
I first heard of Xandros when No Starch Press based their book Linux Made Easy on the distro. I assumed it was a distro meant for those with simple home needs. But here we hear about a "professional" edition. What's the niche of the distro, and how do its maintainers intend to set it apart from the many other options out there?
They are trying to target Windows users and make the system easy for those not familiar with Linux. It is suppose to work in theory.
You can distribute a disc that has GPL software along with non-GPL software on it. As long as you include the source for all the GPL software you're not necessarily breaking any GPL rules.
The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
I am one of the very few slashdotters that have publicly said that Xandros, Freespire and especially Xandros are one of the best distros out there. I even contributes a few days ago that these distros actaully work as advertised.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=208360&cid=169 89294.
What came out of that contribution was being touted as one who had contributed flamebait!
Now, with this view from Techworld, I feel very happy inside. This makes me wonder why there is all this hype about K[U]buntu, which is dogged with all sorts of bugs. Thanks once again to the folks at Xandros.
Seamless access to shared Windows folders and printers
The ability to write to Windows NTFS partitions
Seamless Microsoft Exchange connectivity
If an enterprise already has a Windows environment, why would they be interested in upsetting everything and installing new Linux workstations? I'm not saying Linux can't perform, but keep in mind that if things are running smooth already, the least of their costs are going to be Windows client licenses. They are spending money on Windows servers for file storage, mail, directory services, etc, so they may as well use Windows as the client software as well. Vista isn't going to be this enormous expenditure because most corporate computers will not upgrade to Vista until the computer hardware is replaced anyway.
This sounds like just another one of these "Linux Is Read and Poised To Overthrow Microsoft on the Desktop!" articles that Slashdot sees every couple months (especially around the end of the year, when next year just might be the Year of Linux).
"What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
/)
It came installed with Mozilla and not Firefox. This is where the road back to Win2K/Xp stared. Looking thorugh their software repository I searched for Firefox and it wasn't there. So I check the forums. I found a post about installing Firefox. Well it was about 7 pages at that time. Reading through the first two showed me that no way in hell was I going to go through all the admin mumbo jumbo just to install Firefox. I was too lazy from trying out several destop distros that day.
Anyways I went back to windows cause it just works. Now before I get flamed by the "You're just too stupid to run Linux" fanboyz, know that I've ran/run and setup Slackware 10.1 and FreeBSD 6 web servers at home with no problems so my techincal abilities/curiosities are above the average computer user but what had to be done to install Firefox on XandrOS was just retarded and this is what keeps a steady supply of new users away from Linux. Most joe/jane average computer user has no problems finding/installing and configuring software preferances but thats if its provided for them through an installer.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
Both GUIs suck wildly. They are slow as hell and everything clutters up the place and the apps get in each others way.
... Standards and Practices !
A nice fluxbox/windowmaker, multi screen, I run 5 with keyboard shortcuts CTRL/Right-Left arrows. So a bunch of instantly accesible windows. No damn bar at all. Right click on vacent screen, or the wierd key between the windose and ctrl keys on the right, for a menu. Lots of keyboard shortcuts. Alt-m for mail is as fast as you can do it.
It's so much faster and easier than any of the commercial setups.
PenGun
Do What Now
PenGun
Do What Now ???
Then why is it being Touted as "a possible challenger to Windows Vista". It would only be a challenger to Windows Vista if it was going to be used by the same userbase.
:)]. It has nothing to do with whether or not you 'understand Linux'. It's about your attitude of 'Waaah, this distro doesn't fit my needs perfectly so I'm going to complain'.
Well if you had actually read the summary and the article you would understand that the product is called "Xandros Desktop Professional, and that based on the features listed and discussed, is most likely being touted as a possible challenger to Vista Business Edition. Maybe Techworld didn't spell it out for you, but I assumed that features such as "Thin clients and terminal emulation", "Seamless Microsoft Exchange connectivity", or "Ready for mass deployment in enterprise settings via xDMS, Xandros Deployment and Management Server" would have clued you in on that fact.
You said THIS distro is not for me. OK ill bite. Which Linux distro would fit my needs as listed above ? Are there any like that ?
No, I'm not aware of any distro that caters to people who whine that a distro targeted at enterprise customers doesn't support games written for a completely different operating system. Don't complain that Linux doesn't support every piece of software written for Windows. It's hardly the fault of Linux, and quite frankly amazing that it can be made to run any software written for Windows. If you want to complain that Linux can't run your games, start bitching at the game developers. It is their choice to write games for Windows. Other developers are capable of writing cross-platform games, such as Doom 3, Quake 4, UT2004, Neverwinter Nights etc.
Trust me, I'd be very happy if all the best games ran in Linux, whether it be because the developer's wrote it that way, or because the smart folks who hack on Linux figured out a way to make them all work. But it just isn't there yet, so if you want to play games and use specific software written for Windows, just use Windows.
Also I dont ring up Fries. I run 4 group homes for mental patients with dozens of clients and a dozen or so employees.Is this yet another example of Linux Leetness . You dont Understand Linux You must work at some Burger Joint.
You are capable of running 4 group homes and dealing with a dozen employees, yet you come into this forum and post like a 16year old who just got off the night-shift at Wendy's [No offense to those few intelligent 16yr olds working at burger joints
Nothing to see here
The issue/problem is trying to unseat Windows as the current/incumbent OS. Many efforts are made to give Linux distos a "Windows" feel simply because that is what people are used to. In order to educate people that the OS is NOT what the story is all about, you need to show them an interface that they are comfortable with and willing to work within. When all the applications that they want to run *just run*, then they might understand.
:)
One of the biggest conceits within the Linux community is "Of course it't better, so just use it". Even if it's true, you need to help people along the path. Think of it as a language. If I could *prove* that, for example, Esperanto was a better and more efficient language for communication I would have a hard time making people switch if it was completely unlike anything they had ever seen before. There needs to be a strong tie to the language they already know to ease the pain of switching, or else it just isn't worth it.
I could ramble on about the problems, and where Linux apps really aren't as polished as Windows (Gaim vs Trillian for example) but I'm pretty drunk right now. Typing this much has been a pretty significant accomplishment.
required to deal with the security problems, spyware, adware is huge problem
fast forward 10 years into the apolyptic future. linux is the desktop king. you don't think spyware, adware, et al is going to exist? i mean by that notion, microsoft had it pretty damn easy in the windows 3.1 and early 95 days, remember? if linux can solve the problem, explain why a bunch of heavily paid microsoft researchers cannot do the same thing.
Can we get past the idea that we have to have two completely separate computers... one for gaming and one for business? This is 2006. I think we can have one machine that does both.
XP Professional does both. Hell, even Macintosh does both to some level.
Telling people that they should dual boot is not going to get new users any time soon.
Please, Mac makes beautiful hardware.
As far as the OS goes its pretty but a distant second to Windows.
I have a Mac and a PC (XP) and I won't take sides on what's a better overall system because both
have their merits. But in terms of usability, OSX has that infuriating icon bar at the bottom
which doesn't nest with sublevels. The file system has a weird horizontal orientation in the
'explorer' which smacks of "we need to look different from Windows" logic. The window maximize
feature (which doesn't lock to the screen) is also infuriating. But most of all... and this is
something that I cannot forgive Apple for: The one button mouse is fundamentally inferior.
Support for two buttons is limited in the OS.
Apple is always getting credit for being design intensive -- but this is more of an aesthetic
judgement IMHO. Microsoft (as much as I love to bash them) deserves far more credit than they
get for designing an extraordinarily usable UI.
My two cents of course. Nothing intended as a flame here. As I said, I have both machines
and use them both.
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
One typical Linux thing that's not in Win that I particulary like is the ingenious pager. I have just a 15" display and utilizing multiple desktops makes handelig of many open programs a breeze. So by having browser and email apps on one desktop, my terminals and ftp client in another and my development tools in a third I completly avoid a taskbar that's crowded beyond belief and I don't have to jugle 15 windows on a small workspace.
So maybe I'm not a certified Windows hater/ Linux zealot but atleast I have a very comfortable desktop...
I do not know. I mean other than foundational differences in the two. *nix started out in life with a mature network centric approach. Windows did not. In fact Windows was rather late to the world of networking beyond its little world of LAN based MS protocols and unroutable networks. Windows was created with the idea that the single user was king. *nix was not. So in very foundational ways, the two developed in very different directions. In the Windows world, the user and the kernel are very close to one another and something that happens to the user, happens to the kernel. The basic approach to mitigating disaster is to limit how flaws in the kernel propagate. In the *nix world the kernel and the user are fairly far apart and the general approach to mitigating disaster is to wall off what happens to the user from the kernel. So fast forward 10 years - there will indeed be spyware and such in the *nix world but the probability is that it will have less effect on the rest of the system and the rest of your network.